Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

@malf I agree with you that there is no others and that there really is only "us" on this planet and I understand the consternation on your part with some of the stuff on this thread but let me ease your worries a bit because I think it has been only one or two people arguing on behalf of a racial ideology, most have us have challenged that ideology and I get the impression Alex was trying to get Tsarion to abandon getting into that sort of racial stuff that none of us really like. Tsarion has a great mind and it would be a shame to see him too wrapped up in that racial stuff because there is so much work he can do if he focus's his attention elsewhere. The podcast with Tsarion was almost like an intervention I think to try to get Tsarion back on track. But I agree Malf that getting into racial sorts of things is a major distraction and we can better engage our minds by looking elsewhere.
 
The best way for people to get along is to ridicule the notion of ‘others’.
Like I said above: Ideally people would ignore Race and judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

They don't. Media and academia whip up hated against White People and we are attacked in the streets, beaten, robbed, and killed simply for the color of our skin.

Why won't you condemn that race hatred?
 
I am reading Joan C. Williams' book 'White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America. Its a short read, under 4 hours and it packs a sobering punch about the way the progressive left misinterprets the working class and the poor. I am reading it because an interview with Williams triggered an awareness of how the Australian political movement that was One Nation was reviled and ridiculed by urban leftists. One Nation supporters were mostly rural initially. I worked for some years in rural New South Wales and had come to have respect and affection for people whose views, on an intellectual level were utter incompatible with my own. But their moral foundation had, at core, a profound desire for justice and fairness.

How they wanted to get there simply navigated issues interpreted by a world view that was foreign to me. Some people use words to convey ideas, or think they do, and others use words to convey emotions and senses of values. Williams makes the point very clearly that the progressive left has crafted its own disconnect from the working class, because, despite its claim to superior knowledge, intelligence and moral clarity, it is just as 'wrong' as the people it insults. Regardless, intellectual or moral hubris is not a good thing.

American culture is an extraordinary blend of complex histories and cultural motives, with most of the people wanting the same thing - only their specific cultural and historical differences means that the language used can be so polarising it seems there are different objectives and values. Any passion can be preyed upon to become a focal point for profit - on both sides. A recent CBC Ideas show took a tour of the southern states in particular, looking at the passion for guns and religion fused together. In isolation it can seem grotesque. But it articulates a desire for safety, dignity and respect expressed through the filter of the belief that armed self-defence is essential and that faith in God is fundamental, albeit in the style of the style of religion I would call fundamentalist. My brief attempts to examine American gun homicides or injuries caused by a good guy defending his home from a bad guy suggests that such incidents are so infrequent there is no rational ground for asserting any benefit from armed self defence at that level. It does seem that homicides precipitated by the theft of the good guy's guns are higher. Mind you I have not confined this impression. However my point is that a culture that promotes armed self-defence has other than what I might think is a rational reason for doing so and to misconstrue that motive is perilous to understanding.

The progressive left presumes its moral pronouncements about what is good and right are indisputably right. That is not the case, and I say that as a former dedicated lefty. These days I'd say I am more centre-left, whatever that means.

I kinda like Charlie, because his passion is direct and clear. I think we would agree on many things readily, others we would need to work on. I may find his way of expressing his thoughts grating to the point of being offensive to my sensibilities - but they are not the only valid one in town -and I need know how my thoughts have a similar impact on him. It is ridiculous for me to assume he is wrong and I am right just because my arguments sustain my point of view, and his offend against it. I must allow him the same response.

I get Charlie's thing about bankers profiting from war. It is valid and real. But it is just as real and valid that the same people profit from internal wars, keeping a community divided. And here again I assert that it is the willingness to be divided and to find fault with members of our own community and society that gives the leverage for the profiteers and the predators. It may be that the cultural divide between political orientations and class cannot be closed - but it can be lessened to a sufficient degree that its a healthy tension that expresses natural diversity and not an internal wound that is kept open by political and commercial interests.

Its okay being hot for the second amendment, but if the government you fear, and its commercial allies, can so divide the people that an actual resistance is futile, the battle is lost before you start. If your are persuaded that your ally is an enemy you are done. Examine the art of propaganda and then see it it applies to you. The progressive left and the alt right assert fundamental values that seem to clash. But so often the point of difference is a small percentage of the range of things we have in common.

I grew up despising my father's aversion to Catholics. I had Catholic friends whose parents loathed Protestants, and Anglicans. We understood, as children, that character was what mattered, and we chose our friends accordingly. But the bonds of character are stretched by class and culture - and we are all guilty of dismissing another because of things other than character.

Williams' book goes a little way to waking us up out of the fog of our own conceit and prejudice. Its worth the pain.
 
I am reading Joan C. Williams' book 'White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America. Its a short read, under 4 hours and it packs a sobering punch about the way the progressive left misinterprets the working class and the poor. I am reading it because an interview with Williams triggered an awareness of how the Australian political movement that was One Nation was reviled and ridiculed by urban leftists. One Nation supporters were mostly rural initially. I worked for some years in rural New South Wales and had come to have respect and affection for people whose views, on an intellectual level were utter incompatible with my own. But their moral foundation had, at core, a profound desire for justice and fairness.

Working class as thick and backward vs. working class as repository of noble values..... liberals as intelligent vanguard vs. liberals as immoral and snobbish..... these broad brush ways of thinking are all bunk, imo. Some people are nice, some are not. Some people are smart, some are not. End.

I also think we have to take into consideration the vested-interest propagandising we're all affected by (Gun lobby, Hollywood, news, etc.). And why do the media (liberal or conservative) love distorted caricatures (although, on second thoughts, I do think conservative media is particularly guilty of this).
 
And why do the media (liberal or conservative) love distorted caricatures

Because they make more money by making people frightened and angry and by confirming people's biases. The politicians get more votes the same way. They have it down to a science, literally, it can be explained through brain chemistry and psychology.

The problem in our society is that we lack leaders, political and cultural, who promote true inclusiveness and multiculturalism instead we have panderers on both sides using those ideals to divide us.

Change will not come from politicians or the news media. It will come from ordinary people who see through the illusions spun by the media manipulators.
 
Last edited:
Getting along with people ... by ridiculing them? It seems to me that it would be counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
My brief attempts to examine American gun homicides or injuries caused by a good guy defending his home from a bad guy suggests that such incidents are so infrequent there is no rational ground for asserting any benefit from armed self defence at that level.

To understand our passion for guns, you would need to also consider the millions of times per year simply having a gun stops crime from occurring. Data published by Leftist Academics and Leftist Mainstream Media do no include such things.

A good place to start is reading this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

You will never hear our stories sitting around the dinner table like when my elderly mother got blocked into a car wash and by two carjackers. One ran to her window and was about to bust it out with a crowbar when she sent him running by drawing her revolver. No police report was made because these things happen all the time in the Third-World parts of America.

You don't hear about all the home invasions dissuaded, rapes avoided, and beatings prevented. We do.

Meanwhile, we are the only ethnic group on this planet for whom ridicule, exclusion, hatred, and revulsion are not only permitted but Celebrated in media and literature...

ta50ULl.png


Dare complain? Oh, that results is even MORE ridicule, plus taunts of "Fucking Racist Piece of Shit!"

I have a Master's Degree in Public Policy from a world-class University with a minor in Economics, but because I have white skin and wear a ball cap and dirty jeans when I pull my old fishing boat to the lake on Saturday, I'm scum.

They created a Church With No Redemption. Pay your tithes. Worship the Sacred Other. So eventually I earn forgiveness for the crime of being born White at the end of all this? Nope.

Like I said earlier. We've had it. We gave our money and groveled long enough. Those days are over.
 


I hope that BOTH SJWs and Alt-Rightists would understand that at last. Until then, they are locked in a vicious circle of self-victimisation and lust for mutual revenge - with the ruling elites being the only ones to whom such situation is beneficial.
 
Last edited:
Some claims might be more tenuous than others, but many are clear-cut, including the case of Australia: there is no known occupying group on this land prior to the indigenous Australians (that's why we refer to them as "indigenous"), who have lived here for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. They continue to live here. The colonisers and immigrants have been here for a mere 230 years - that's roughly three lifetimes back-to-back.

Actually, I've read some controversy on this topic and it is not at all black and white. I don't know enough to offer further comment, but I'd be inclined to really look into this claim. (I first heard this on a Mysterious Universe interview, but followed up on some articles afterward).

I've found similar instances in native American 'revisionist' works--when you go back to many of the oral traditions they themselves claim there were others here before them. It becomes a slippery road of which sources to trust once again, b/c everybody has their own agenda.
 
You will never hear our stories sitting around the dinner table like when my elderly mother got blocked into a car wash and by two carjackers. One ran to her window and was about to bust it out with a crowbar when she sent him running by drawing her revolver. No police report was made because these things happen all the time in the Third-World parts of America.

While I don't live in a 3rd world part of America, I do live rural, after having grown up in the suburbs. You do not consider living out here without a gun, it's really that simple. (And it takes a semi-automatic weapon to kill a 300 pound hog racing at you). I have no real fear of home invasions, but we have feral hogs and dogs, coyote, bobcats. I truly dislike guns, but I learned to shoot them thanks to urging from Hubby and I know he is right.

It is a real shame that the anti-gun folks don't care to understand why they are necessary. Should I have a home invasion or other such threat here, it would take at least an hour to get help, if I'm lucky. Come on folks, be reasonable!

Also, and more importantly, guns may become necessary to protect ourselves against our government, that is the actual reason why it was included in the Constitution.
 
Multiculturalism or multiracialism is not a threat. Racial hostility between whites and non-whites isn't good though. The alt right plays into the hands of the leftists by promoting this hard white/non-white dichotomy.

I agree, the alt-right and hard-left are in a dance macabre, but, that is exactly why multiculturalism is a threat. This is a classic case of working both sides against the middle.
 
While I don't live in a 3rd world part of America, I do live rural, after having grown up in the suburbs. You do not consider living out here without a gun, it's really that simple. (And it takes a semi-automatic weapon to kill a 300 pound hog racing at you). I have no real fear of home invasions, but we have feral hogs and dogs, coyote, bobcats. I truly dislike guns, but I learned to shoot them thanks to urging from Hubby and I know he is right.

It is a real shame that the anti-gun folks don't care to understand why they are necessary. Should I have a home invasion or other such threat here, it would take at least an hour to get help, if I'm lucky. Come on folks, be reasonable!

Also, and more importantly, guns may become necessary to protect ourselves against our government, that is the actual reason why it was included in the Constitution.

The government can't even get guns out of the hands of criminals (in some cases they even deliver them personally like in Fast and Furious). They have no business taking fire arms from lawful citizens. I suspect that nervousness about a well deserved revolution is what drives these efforts.
 


I hope that BOTH SJWs and Alt-Rightists would understand that at last. Until then, they are locked in a vicious circle of self-victimisation and lust for mutual revenge - with the ruling elites being the only ones to whom such situation is beneficial.

The purpose of this dichotomy is absolutely essential in these times--without these two poles defining the extreme parameters, we will never be able to find common ground and common sense.

I completely welcome their polarities and cries of discontent. Solidarity is meaningless without cohesion and cohesion is impossible without defining the parameters. We are mostly in diapers in these new/old political agendas, and everything these days is political. (If you don't do politics, politics will do you.) Both these movements are quite new and mark where the youth are looking, which means, where the energy is. Discount them at y/our peril.
 
All that is needed for people to get along is for them to get to know each other as people instead of as stereotypes portrayed by the news media, politicians, and other "cultural leaders".

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/5448...0-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes
August 20, 2017

If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy — it doesn't have to be about race, it could be about anything...you will find that you both have something in common. As you build upon those commonalities, you're forming a relationship and as you build about that relationship, you're forming a friendship. That's what would happen. I didn't convert anybody. They saw the light and converted themselves.

Former NPR CEO goes on a road trip through flyover country:
http://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.

I spent many Sundays in evangelical churches and hung out with 15,000 evangelical youth at the Urbana conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect among thousands of college-age evangelicals, but I certainly didn’t expect the intense discussion of racial equity and refugee issues — how to help them, not how to keep them out — but that is what I got.
...

The vast majority of prejudice is due only to ignorance and people being lied to. Actual experience of the truth of what people are really like is enough to dissolve the illusions of difference.


DIhESZwXkAAmrrg.jpg



DIhESZtXcAIVafh.jpg
 
The government can't even get guns out of the hands of criminals (in some cases they even deliver them personally like in Fast and Furious). They have no business taking fire arms from lawful citizens. I suspect that nervousness about a well deserved revolution is what drives these efforts.

I don’t think that’s true at all.

Ordinary people are touched enough by the extraordinary number of innocent lives lost that they are desperately looking for some solutions among the seemingly blinkered gun owners.

USA is a country largely gripped by fear, the whole gun thing is just one reflection of this, imo.
 
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

...

C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns."​

Gun ownership for conservatives is less than 50%. Blacks own guns at almost the same rate as whites. Many moderates own guns. Even among liberals gun ownership is 22%.

That means people who blame whites or conservatives for owning guns should also blame blacks and liberals.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Demographics of Gun Owners
Sex
Male 37 %
Female 31 %

Race
White 37 %
Non White 32 %
Black 33 %


Conservative 49 %
Moderate 37 %
Liberal 22 %

One woman, three armed men. That is why she needs a high capacity magazine.
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/security-video-shows-woman-defend-herself-against-armed-intruders

"Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder ... The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved."
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder_ntm7s/242785523

"Firearms Rights are a Gender Equality Issue too. ... Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them."
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/

"A Memphis woman protected herself against two men who forced their way into her home last month."
http://www.guns.com/2016/01/13/with-gun-to-her-neck-woman-defends-herself-kills-intruder-video/

"A man who attempted to break into a California home twice went down with a bullet in the chest after the female occupant refused to be a victim, KHTS reports."
http://concealednation.org/2017/07/...dgun-after-home-intruder-comes-back-for-more/

"Landrum police said they were called to a local business after a woman said two men tried to rob and sexually assault her, but she scared them off when she fired shots at them."
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17327090/landrum-woman-fights-back-after-attack

"Pregnant Woman Defends Herself Against Home Invaders By Using A Shotgun"
https://learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/...elf-against-home-invaders-by-using-a-shotgun/

"According to a preliminary investigation, a woman was approached by a man who put a knife to her throat demanding her belongings. Police then say the woman reached inside her purse as if she were going to give her wallet but instead grabbed her gun, pulled it out and shot him."
http://www.whas11.com/news/crime/ma...d-robbery-at-downtown-parking-garage/43696086

 
If you want to know what causes school shootings, follow the money. The pharmaceutical industry makes tons of money selling psychiatric drugs that cause school shootings.

http://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressants-are-a-prescription-for-mass-shootings/

Before the late nineteen eighties, mass shootings and acts of senseless violence were relatively unheard of. Prozac, the most well known SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant, was not yet on the market. When Prozac did arrive, it was marketed as a panacea for depression which resulted in huge profits for its manufacturer Eli Lilly. Of course other drug companies had to create their own cash cow and followed suit by marketing their own SSRI antidepressants.

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top