The only logic to gun control you need is looking at a photo of 40 BLM surrounding a man's house, or watch the video of Kyle Rittenhouse surrounded by 20 goons ready to kill him. A small handgun holding 8 rounds won't protect you, and the police will not protect you either, they'll press charges on you for defending yourself against the mob that's throwing bricks through your window.
You need a solid progression to really kill the idea of giving up your guns. Consider this a video of quick clips:
BLM Riots burning buildings
BLM & Antifa Rioters specifically attacking white people
Police doing nothing
Police & Politicians kneeling to BLM
Politicians saying rioters should be more aggressive
Media claiming BLM is mostly peaceful
Media & Politicians claiming Antifa isn't real
Cities burn and burn and burn
People are killed and beaten, their livelihoods stolen
Kenosha Kid being surrounded and fighting for his life
Armed pedo felons identified attacking a child
The crowds dispersing after Kyle defends himself
The riot dies after that
...
Transition - 1 Year Later
...
BLM Rioters claiming they will come to the suburbs next
BLM surrounding the first house in the suburbs
Innocent men being arrested by the Police
Police doing nothing to stop mob
Media and Social Media vilifying suburbanites, claiming BLM is in the right
Maxine Waters calling for escalated violence
...
Image saying "You are here"
arrow pointing to below Media and Politicians defending BLM, but above suburbs burn
The next bullet point are:
People beaten and killed, livelihoods stolen
People fighting for their lives against mobs
...
Question: What do you want to defend yourself with? *Picture of 8 shot 380 pistol or AR-15 with standard capacity magazine (optional to use a picture of Rittenhouse holding it in the exact same situation)
I read, as Dr. Peterson recommends, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, a true story of the first domino that started the mass killings.
Takeaway: Mao, Hitler, Stalin technically did not commit rape, murder, theft, and violence, the ordinary citizens did these things, and law enforcement allowed it.
There's a common denominator amongst these things and it is Marxism and the people who created it. Not quite as black and white as people would think. Same Marxists are responsible for the decay of the West.
Your servants are violating their contract. The Constitution is a contract we have to outline what our public servants can and cannot do while admining our property (the US territories and funds) as the government.
As they are in violation of the contract, it nulls and voids the contract if we are unable to resolve the breeches through the outline processes. Currently, those processes have been usurped and subverted in their function. Therefore, we are at a point where we can choose if we want to continue the contract or not.
TL;DR - Clear infringement. Any gun law is an infringement. You are not obligated to follow unjust and unconstitutional laws. Beware the Commie-Lap-Dogs. They will do whatever it takes to keep their pension, including attacking and stealing your rights.
They can take because the people who prosecute the thieves and murders are in their pocket. Those who should bring the hammer down those those bought off are bought off too or compromised.
They can take because they've set the game up in their favor. We need to look at the game and figure out what we can do, what we like to do, and what we will do.
I agree with you. A capability for violence is necessary; cruelty is not. Violence might cause pain and suffering, but cruelty implies that the pain and suffering was the purpose rather than only a side effect.
Correct I'm all in favor of firing squad , and death penalty for Pedophiles,human traffickers, kidnappers, murderers etc. By hanging, firing squad, electric chair or poison.
Which all of these are forms of violence. It I'm in no shape or form in favor of torture. I can shoot a Pedophile in the head no problem. But I could not torture people knowing God is watching.
This applies to far more than just guns. This principle also explains why so many people allow themselves to be duped by the GOP over and over again.
Judging someone with finality is often "cruel," and the people who cannot do so are repeatedly taken advantage of by bad actors pretending to be reformed.
Exactly. How many times does David in the Bible who killed hundreds with sword and shield and bow and never once had PTSD.? NEVER. he knew its kill or be killed and that those he was fighting were bad guys.
I'm pretty sure that unless you've done it, you couldn't say that with certainty. To me, life is precious. Every life. Being boxed in a position where I had to choose between my own, my family's, or some deranged maniac is a place I hope to never be. The choice is obvious, there wouldn't be any hesitation. But I for sure won't be coming out of that the same.
The dark side of man is something that gets harder for me the older I get. It is as if age correlates to more realizations about the prevalence and depth of man's evils. As a father, this shit keeps me up at night.
The people who have it easy are the bad guys. They don't give a shit. And they don't miss a beat with their cruel and depraved acts. In some ways, I envy this. I am just glad to live outside of that world. More than I can express in words.
I think it would be best to consider it in much the same way as the hunter's paradox: killing is never pretty, but it can be necessary. It isn't about the thrill; it's about survival.
It's not even a debate, that requires logical discourse. Gun grabbing is just "we will take your guns because fuck you". The only end is to physically stop them from mugging your stuff.
This applies to many more things than just guns. Conservatives, especially civnats and libertarians, are going to have to learn this, lest we be overrun by the hordes.
I don't want to carry a gun every single day to every single place I go. But when thugs can get away with attacking white/asian people in the streets in broad daylight, when kids get kidnapped from grocery stores, when police don't police out of fear, when people just stand by and watch violent crimes happen, I will make it my mission to protect you and your kids. I can tell you what I'm not, I'm not a "Break glass in case of war" type of person, but I am a person who will gladly put my life before others. There a good people in the world who carry guns daily, I cannot understand how some people don't understand this.
My guy Red Skull is awesome. I once summed him up as a man who says things you already knew but still needed to hear. In an interview he said that's one of two ways most people describe his work, which made me sad because I thought I was being clever.
During the Rwandan genocide people attempted to bribe their killers to shoot them and their families because that was far less horrific than machetes and stomping and gang rape.
And we probably all know this, but guns actually prevent lots of violence through deterrence.
If he had said "force" instead of "cruelty," he would have been exactly right.
Sometimes the capability of force is the only just and responsible position, and is not in any way "cruelty." Its capability can be the only answer to cruelty.
Everyone is capable of cruelty. They are just not all capable of great cruelty, and cruelty on a daily basis, like so many "Democrats" are. It's true there isn't anyone who's escaped our cruel leaders in the West though.
Jordan Peterson signed up for the same pro-trans talent agency that banned Owen Benjamin for speaking out against child mutilation. Peterson is controlled opposition and an incoherent and over-rated 'thinker'.
His quote here seems to be designed to associate gun ownership with “cruelty”.
Peterson frequently speaks gibberish and he is constantly lying. Remember when he went on Rogan and said he didn’t sleep for 25 times on his stupid carno diet? The world record for most days without sleep is 11. So Peterson more than doubled it? Okay.
In that interview he talks about how he only drinks water and eats meat and never ever cheats. He emphasizes that. “And I NEVER EVER cheat.” Well we all know, by his own admission, that he was on meth that whole time, and was even high during that interview. So what he was saying was LIES.
Peterson worked with the U.N. on the globohomo agenda alongside John Podesta guys.
Even knowing this I sometimes like to listen to him speak. And he even says true things. It could be he is not evil, but just weak, vain, narcissistic, greedy, and dishonest. But even a person like that is able to make an interesting point.
The thing with Peterson is we just have to step back and realize oh, he does actually lie quite often, oh, he is a meth addict, oh, he does have a creepy relationship with his daughter, oh, he did sign with CAA who promotes transgender children, oh, he is a bit of a fame whore, oh, he does charge poor men $300 to shake his sweaty hand, oh, he does abandon us in the middle of relevant cultural battles, and oh, he did work for the U.N. with Podesta, and oh, the corporate media has promoted him and put his book on The New York Times bestseller list, etc.
sun_wolf, Couldn't have said it better. That analysis really makes sense. Beware of trusting those who the mainstream media suddenly promotes as a paragon of the right.
1.) Dont get stuck on a word and your preconceptions. Cruelty doesn't require maliciousness. Indifference perhaps, but I find it hard to believe anyone here would feel too terrible over the suffering they'd inflict on another in an act of self-defense.
2.) Try not to dismiss decades of expertise because guy had some health issues and an addiction stemming from prescribed drugs. That's rather foolish, not to mention judgemental.
I disagree. Think it's appropriate, considering how I've felt defending myself in the past.
If someone attacks me or my family, I intend to inflict harm and suffering upon that person and will do so without enthusiasm or concern. The definition of cruelty.
That is not my definition of cruelty. I don’t think it is the dictionary’s either.
Peterson is a liar. I used to like him too. But a lot of us have seen through the rhetoric. The dude is a starfucker. He immediately bent the knee to Hollywood and CAA.
Merriam-Webster: Disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings.
Dictionary.com: Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
Cambridge Dictionary: Extremely unkind and unpleasant and causing pain to people or animals intentionally:
Again, in a situation of self-defense, I am not concerned about, nor do I harbor any "humane feelings" when I intentionally cause unkind and unpleasant pain to the person attacking me.
Also, what exactly has Peterson lied about? Do you have any arguments against his works, or do you just not like him because he's not Donald Trumpish?
On Rogan, Peterson said he went on his carno diet and didn’t sleep for 25 days. The world record is 11. So Peterson more than doubled it? Do you believe that? Really?
In that same interview, Peterson says all he injests is water and meat and he “never, ever cheats”. He really takes a stand on that one with Rogan. “And I NEVER EVER cheat.” Turns out, by his own admission, he was on meth that entire time, including during that interview. Do you think a man who stands for truly honesty and accuracy of language would try to make us believe that a daily meth habit isn’t relevant in a discussion of an all-carno diet and its side effects? He talks about the “energy” the carno diet gives him, but no mention of the meth, eh Jordan? That’s bloody well not relevant, eh?
When Kavanaugh was accused of being a gang rapist, and the corporate media was all slandering him as a gang rapist, based on no evidence and false witnesses, Peterson went on Twitter and said that Kavanaugh should pull his name from consideration and step down. Say what? Over a false allegation? Coming from a normie I could see that statement, but from someone who has also been falsely slandered? Someone who knows the game the media plays?
Also ask yourself this. CAA, the biggest agency in Hollywood, fired Owen Benjamin because he spoke out on Twitter against a podcaster who was putting his three-year-old on hormone blockers because he claimed the kid was “trans”. Owen said that was child abuse. He was blacklisted, censored from Twitter, and CAA dropped him. A few months later, CAA signed Jordan Peterson whose main source of fame was him speaking out against gender pronouns. How do you reconcile this? Why would the beast system welcome Peterson, give him a platform, spread his message, and put him on all their TV shows? Why hasn’t Peterson ever faced censorship, blocking, suppression? Why hasn’t Peterson ever been blocked from the banking system? Why aren’t they going after him like they do the other truth tellers? Could it have anything to do with his work on Agenda21/30 with John Podesta and the U.N.?
he is not doing anything, i am and you are too without realising by using the words "self defense"
i dont know from where you are saying he is a meth addict, i see him back and well and he was away for medical reasons as far as i know but even is he was a drug addict, he is a brillant mind who can apport and help a lot in the life of every individual, maybe you take the word "cruelty" too literal when its a word with a huge range of interpretation, you can give him a chance or not but you dont need to be a cunt about it, what are the other alternatives for intelectual growth on this world? cardi b's "weet ass pussy" song?
The new pushback against Peterson isn’t from the left, it’s from the right. It started when he told Kavanaugh to step down because of the gang rape charge even if it was fake. That’s when a lot of people first went, “Huh?” Then we started doing a deep dive on Peterson: where he came from, who funds him, who reps him, who publishes him, who his friends are, etc. These are not people who “refused to give him a chance”. These are former fans who now believe we have identified a snake.
Feel free to continue to defend him (this goes for all his lobsters), but just realize that the arguments you make to defend him aren’t going to work on us if you just assume we are triggered leftists. We aren’t.
He didn't kill anything because there's never been any logic to gun control so it can't be "killed" with a logical argument.
The only logic to gun control you need is looking at a photo of 40 BLM surrounding a man's house, or watch the video of Kyle Rittenhouse surrounded by 20 goons ready to kill him. A small handgun holding 8 rounds won't protect you, and the police will not protect you either, they'll press charges on you for defending yourself against the mob that's throwing bricks through your window.
You need a solid progression to really kill the idea of giving up your guns. Consider this a video of quick clips:
"...the monster within him/her..."
I read, as Dr. Peterson recommends, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, a true story of the first domino that started the mass killings.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/647492.Ordinary_Men
I also read The Rape of Nanking, where for over a year Japanese citizens systematically raped, tortured, and murdered about 300,000 Chinese.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/95784.The_Rape_of_Nanking
The Gulag Archipelago outlines how Stalin convinced his citizens to oppress fellow citizens using forced labor camps, and methods to this end.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/70561.The_Gulag_Archipelago_1918_1956
Takeaway: Mao, Hitler, Stalin technically did not commit rape, murder, theft, and violence, the ordinary citizens did these things, and law enforcement allowed it.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/great-books
FUN FACT: 100+ million people died, millions raped, robbed and beaten less than a hundred years ago.
Terrifying to think we are repeating all the same steps. The monsters who orchestrated these calamities are back and at it again.
Fun fact, the Nazis actually loosened gun control laws for German citizens.
Incoming: Gun restrictions for one race and more gun freedoms for the others.
There's a common denominator amongst these things and it is Marxism and the people who created it. Not quite as black and white as people would think. Same Marxists are responsible for the decay of the West.
In my state 10 round mags are already the law. Such bullshit
Your servants are violating their contract. The Constitution is a contract we have to outline what our public servants can and cannot do while admining our property (the US territories and funds) as the government.
As they are in violation of the contract, it nulls and voids the contract if we are unable to resolve the breeches through the outline processes. Currently, those processes have been usurped and subverted in their function. Therefore, we are at a point where we can choose if we want to continue the contract or not.
TL;DR - Clear infringement. Any gun law is an infringement. You are not obligated to follow unjust and unconstitutional laws. Beware the Commie-Lap-Dogs. They will do whatever it takes to keep their pension, including attacking and stealing your rights.
Someone with some skills and time needs to make that video.
And my answer is "both". That .380 is a good backup weapon.
I like 380 as a back up, back up, back up, back up, back up weapon.
I'd rather carry extra 30 round 5.56 mags vs. a large sidearm.
Spot on. We’re losing because we’re on here using logical and truthful points and the commies are out there taking things.
They can take because the people who prosecute the thieves and murders are in their pocket. Those who should bring the hammer down those those bought off are bought off too or compromised.
They can take because they've set the game up in their favor. We need to look at the game and figure out what we can do, what we like to do, and what we will do.
Illogical, but at least sincere, arguments are usually based in emotion. Those are hard to kill, because emotion smothers truth and reason.
There’s always logic to arguments.
The question is whether or not the logic is valid (namely: complete and correct).
There is logic to rhetoric and emotional pull to dialectic.
Voxday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHpalC3WaXY&ab_channel=Voxiversity
Quite the opposite:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHpalC3WaXY&t=258
There is another nice one of his:
"If you're not capable of violence, non-violence is not a virtue."
Watch his interview "weak men cannot be virtuous"
The man is bloody brilliant
"There is hope for a violent man to be non-violent. There is no hope for a coward"
Gandhi
kenny rogers disagrees; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZK581_rbsc
Peterson is a good man. Listen and learn from him.
I always quote this from him; truer words are seldom spoken
I would replace "cruelty" with "violence".
Violence is something that even peaceful people should know how to use.
I agree with you. A capability for violence is necessary; cruelty is not. Violence might cause pain and suffering, but cruelty implies that the pain and suffering was the purpose rather than only a side effect.
Correct I'm all in favor of firing squad , and death penalty for Pedophiles,human traffickers, kidnappers, murderers etc. By hanging, firing squad, electric chair or poison.
Which all of these are forms of violence. It I'm in no shape or form in favor of torture. I can shoot a Pedophile in the head no problem. But I could not torture people knowing God is watching.
Nick Lowe's song on the matter --
https://video.pbsnc.org/video/austin-city-limits-wilco-and-nick-lowe-cruel-to-be-kind/
I am so glad he’s back
This applies to far more than just guns. This principle also explains why so many people allow themselves to be duped by the GOP over and over again.
Judging someone with finality is often "cruel," and the people who cannot do so are repeatedly taken advantage of by bad actors pretending to be reformed.
You cannot be peaceful without the capacity for violence. Without a capacity for violence, you are instead harmless.
One of the greatest minds of our time.
My wife has ways asked me if i would feel terrible if i had to take a life to protect my home or family. I said no.
Hollywood has geared men through movies thst if your a tough guy and kill a baddie your going to have nitemares about it.
Exactly. How many times does David in the Bible who killed hundreds with sword and shield and bow and never once had PTSD.? NEVER. he knew its kill or be killed and that those he was fighting were bad guys.
I'm pretty sure that unless you've done it, you couldn't say that with certainty. To me, life is precious. Every life. Being boxed in a position where I had to choose between my own, my family's, or some deranged maniac is a place I hope to never be. The choice is obvious, there wouldn't be any hesitation. But I for sure won't be coming out of that the same.
The dark side of man is something that gets harder for me the older I get. It is as if age correlates to more realizations about the prevalence and depth of man's evils. As a father, this shit keeps me up at night.
The people who have it easy are the bad guys. They don't give a shit. And they don't miss a beat with their cruel and depraved acts. In some ways, I envy this. I am just glad to live outside of that world. More than I can express in words.
I think it would be best to consider it in much the same way as the hunter's paradox: killing is never pretty, but it can be necessary. It isn't about the thrill; it's about survival.
Related:
https://pics.me.me/in-1967-polish-mercenary-rafal-ganowicz-was-asked-what-it-32602459.png
It doesn’t end the gun debate.
There is no end to the gun debate as long as there is a liberal democrat that is capable of crying over a dead felon.
It's not even a debate, that requires logical discourse. Gun grabbing is just "we will take your guns because fuck you". The only end is to physically stop them from mugging your stuff.
The only reply is "Well we've got guns, so fuck you"
That's the issue being debated, isn't it? You having guns and what kind of guns and when and how much you should pay for the privilege?
There is no debate.
It's as simple as that. My rights are not up for debate.
This applies to many more things than just guns. Conservatives, especially civnats and libertarians, are going to have to learn this, lest we be overrun by the hordes.
And ruled by evil men.
I don't want to carry a gun every single day to every single place I go. But when thugs can get away with attacking white/asian people in the streets in broad daylight, when kids get kidnapped from grocery stores, when police don't police out of fear, when people just stand by and watch violent crimes happen, I will make it my mission to protect you and your kids. I can tell you what I'm not, I'm not a "Break glass in case of war" type of person, but I am a person who will gladly put my life before others. There a good people in the world who carry guns daily, I cannot understand how some people don't understand this.
This is practically a paraphrase of a solzhenitsyn quote.
"A person who is not inwardly prepared for the use of violence against him is always weaker than the person committing the violence"
Similar, but not really the same.
I'd also say that anyone that cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted in our society.
Physical removal.
I prefer "If you're not responsible enough to own a gun, then you're certainly not responsible enough to be a pacifist"
Thank you for posting that video.
I’ll be stealing this 👍🏽
That was beautiful.
Self defense is not cruelty, but my flavor may look like it.
Everyone is capable of cruelty; some just like to lie to themselves and call theirs "kindness".
Jordan Peterson is not exactly pro gun. But yeah, was a great segment of his. He’s kind of disingenuous
My guy Red Skull is awesome. I once summed him up as a man who says things you already knew but still needed to hear. In an interview he said that's one of two ways most people describe his work, which made me sad because I thought I was being clever.
Anyway, he's right here again.
Heil Lobster.
Fuck off now my evening is JP videos. THANKS!
this guy is what SOOO many people are missing.
During the Rwandan genocide people attempted to bribe their killers to shoot them and their families because that was far less horrific than machetes and stomping and gang rape.
And we probably all know this, but guns actually prevent lots of violence through deterrence.
I like this guy.
If he had said "force" instead of "cruelty," he would have been exactly right.
Sometimes the capability of force is the only just and responsible position, and is not in any way "cruelty." Its capability can be the only answer to cruelty.
I agree 100%. Ol' Tommy Jefferson would be saying..."what are you guys waiting for?".
90% of horror movies wouldn’t exist if the main protagonist had a gun with a large mag.
Everyone is capable of cruelty. They are just not all capable of great cruelty, and cruelty on a daily basis, like so many "Democrats" are. It's true there isn't anyone who's escaped our cruel leaders in the West though.
Jordan Peterson signed up for the same pro-trans talent agency that banned Owen Benjamin for speaking out against child mutilation. Peterson is controlled opposition and an incoherent and over-rated 'thinker'.
His quote here seems to be designed to associate gun ownership with “cruelty”.
Peterson frequently speaks gibberish and he is constantly lying. Remember when he went on Rogan and said he didn’t sleep for 25 times on his stupid carno diet? The world record for most days without sleep is 11. So Peterson more than doubled it? Okay.
In that interview he talks about how he only drinks water and eats meat and never ever cheats. He emphasizes that. “And I NEVER EVER cheat.” Well we all know, by his own admission, that he was on meth that whole time, and was even high during that interview. So what he was saying was LIES.
Peterson worked with the U.N. on the globohomo agenda alongside John Podesta guys.
Well said. It's sad that people are fooled by his gibberish, but knowing his background, a lot more people would recognize him as a fraud.
Even knowing this I sometimes like to listen to him speak. And he even says true things. It could be he is not evil, but just weak, vain, narcissistic, greedy, and dishonest. But even a person like that is able to make an interesting point.
The thing with Peterson is we just have to step back and realize oh, he does actually lie quite often, oh, he is a meth addict, oh, he does have a creepy relationship with his daughter, oh, he did sign with CAA who promotes transgender children, oh, he is a bit of a fame whore, oh, he does charge poor men $300 to shake his sweaty hand, oh, he does abandon us in the middle of relevant cultural battles, and oh, he did work for the U.N. with Podesta, and oh, the corporate media has promoted him and put his book on The New York Times bestseller list, etc.
sun_wolf, Couldn't have said it better. That analysis really makes sense. Beware of trusting those who the mainstream media suddenly promotes as a paragon of the right.
Meth addict wants to equate self defense with cruelty? Pass.
That's what you got out of it? Holy fucking retardation.
Benzodiazepines are not meth.
1.) Dont get stuck on a word and your preconceptions. Cruelty doesn't require maliciousness. Indifference perhaps, but I find it hard to believe anyone here would feel too terrible over the suffering they'd inflict on another in an act of self-defense.
2.) Try not to dismiss decades of expertise because guy had some health issues and an addiction stemming from prescribed drugs. That's rather foolish, not to mention judgemental.
He has a point though; "cruelty" is a poor choice of words to describe lawful self defense.
I disagree. Think it's appropriate, considering how I've felt defending myself in the past.
If someone attacks me or my family, I intend to inflict harm and suffering upon that person and will do so without enthusiasm or concern. The definition of cruelty.
fair
That is not my definition of cruelty. I don’t think it is the dictionary’s either.
Peterson is a liar. I used to like him too. But a lot of us have seen through the rhetoric. The dude is a starfucker. He immediately bent the knee to Hollywood and CAA.
Merriam-Webster: Disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings. Dictionary.com: Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it. Cambridge Dictionary: Extremely unkind and unpleasant and causing pain to people or animals intentionally:
Again, in a situation of self-defense, I am not concerned about, nor do I harbor any "humane feelings" when I intentionally cause unkind and unpleasant pain to the person attacking me.
Also, what exactly has Peterson lied about? Do you have any arguments against his works, or do you just not like him because he's not Donald Trumpish?
On Rogan, Peterson said he went on his carno diet and didn’t sleep for 25 days. The world record is 11. So Peterson more than doubled it? Do you believe that? Really?
In that same interview, Peterson says all he injests is water and meat and he “never, ever cheats”. He really takes a stand on that one with Rogan. “And I NEVER EVER cheat.” Turns out, by his own admission, he was on meth that entire time, including during that interview. Do you think a man who stands for truly honesty and accuracy of language would try to make us believe that a daily meth habit isn’t relevant in a discussion of an all-carno diet and its side effects? He talks about the “energy” the carno diet gives him, but no mention of the meth, eh Jordan? That’s bloody well not relevant, eh?
When Kavanaugh was accused of being a gang rapist, and the corporate media was all slandering him as a gang rapist, based on no evidence and false witnesses, Peterson went on Twitter and said that Kavanaugh should pull his name from consideration and step down. Say what? Over a false allegation? Coming from a normie I could see that statement, but from someone who has also been falsely slandered? Someone who knows the game the media plays?
Also ask yourself this. CAA, the biggest agency in Hollywood, fired Owen Benjamin because he spoke out on Twitter against a podcaster who was putting his three-year-old on hormone blockers because he claimed the kid was “trans”. Owen said that was child abuse. He was blacklisted, censored from Twitter, and CAA dropped him. A few months later, CAA signed Jordan Peterson whose main source of fame was him speaking out against gender pronouns. How do you reconcile this? Why would the beast system welcome Peterson, give him a platform, spread his message, and put him on all their TV shows? Why hasn’t Peterson ever faced censorship, blocking, suppression? Why hasn’t Peterson ever been blocked from the banking system? Why aren’t they going after him like they do the other truth tellers? Could it have anything to do with his work on Agenda21/30 with John Podesta and the U.N.?
Owen Benjamin Exposes Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/vjxJiviOriU
Well, that's bad. Possibly hypocritical.
he is not doing anything, i am and you are too without realising by using the words "self defense"
i dont know from where you are saying he is a meth addict, i see him back and well and he was away for medical reasons as far as i know but even is he was a drug addict, he is a brillant mind who can apport and help a lot in the life of every individual, maybe you take the word "cruelty" too literal when its a word with a huge range of interpretation, you can give him a chance or not but you dont need to be a cunt about it, what are the other alternatives for intelectual growth on this world? cardi b's "weet ass pussy" song?
The new pushback against Peterson isn’t from the left, it’s from the right. It started when he told Kavanaugh to step down because of the gang rape charge even if it was fake. That’s when a lot of people first went, “Huh?” Then we started doing a deep dive on Peterson: where he came from, who funds him, who reps him, who publishes him, who his friends are, etc. These are not people who “refused to give him a chance”. These are former fans who now believe we have identified a snake.
Feel free to continue to defend him (this goes for all his lobsters), but just realize that the arguments you make to defend him aren’t going to work on us if you just assume we are triggered leftists. We aren’t.
The guy is so over-rated. Why exactly do you think youtube promotes him so hard? Because he's dangerous to their ideology? heh, I think not.