Did this man change Veeky Forums forever?

What you guys think of him finally reaching the fedora status with people "on the right" starting to make fun of him too?

>yfw your stupid answers are a sign of your battle with your inner dragon whose face is that of Jordan Peterson

damn....

>not becoming the dragon
I am going to beat the shit out of you kiddo

If I post this reply in this thread here, in an ontological capacity I changed Veeky Forums forever, insofar as we accept (1) the continuity of Veeky Forums (i.e. same
web-address, the discussion here is generally focused on literature and so on), and (2) the continuity of Veeky Forums overlaps with the totality of all posts
on Veeky Forums.
So, as such, I have qualified Veeky Forums, where Veeky Forums stands for,
L1. The totality of posts and threads on at the address of >>.
and thus, by adding my own reply I qualify this as L1+1.
So, I changed Veeky Forums forever.

Lacan pls go and stay go

...

Twitter is the mind killer.

Also with that twret he became the very thing he hated, a deconstructionist post modernist.

This is a great thread, thimbs way up.

...

begone phoney

No. /pol/ always shitted this place up with sub par threads and washing over criticism with smug overcompensation. The only difference is that even among crossposters the Peterson dick suckers hit a new low with every post.

He destroyed himself by denying Western people have anything to do with Western civilization.

Yes he changed lit, he brought all the retards on the board.

>b-but what about /pol/

>mfw Peterson butchered Jung's conception of the Shadow archetype that morons will assume one must battle instead of embracing the shadow

I don't see anything different on the board, so apparently not.

>likes peterson
>doesn't like brand

I swallowed Memerson hook, bait and sinker a while ago, but dropped him once he started pulling typical SJW tricks in rabid denial of the importance of race in society and self-identity. For a supposedly open-minded intellectual he sure is dedicated to covering his ears on this one.

A filthy rich pampered celebrity who REALLY wants to be Che Guevara

>A filthy rich pampered celebrity
He was born poor and a self made man. I don't disagree with the latter one though

He's Chav Guerilla.

An actor with a net worth of $15million rambling about the working class, labour movements, and proposes a
>socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, with heavy taxation of corporations
is just pathetic. Why doesn't he redistribute his own wealth? Oh, because he's a LARPer, who can reproduce Guevara's aesthetic, but not even a fraction of his sacrifice.

>Che Guevara
In the future they will sell t shirts with his face on them in Hot Topic and posters with his face in University bookstores.

Because socialism (or anarchism) isn't really about redistributing wealth, but to change how it is being accumulated. And no matter how much of his 15million he can give up isn't going to change the system other than giving it a human face . I do agree that he LARPing though.

Again I don't see why you are pointing about his class when he is new money personified.

He literally pointed out he wants the state apparatus to redistribute wealth. The greentext in my post is a quote.

who

Then he is an idiot who like you needs to read some theory. But that doesn't undermine what I said.

Or an edgy social democrat. Forgot to add that

What is the "theory" that I "need" to read?

Errr ... I don't feel like spoonfeeding you desu. Maybe read Oscar Wilde since you seem to think all leftists must give charity else be branded as hypocrites. I just wanted to point out your classicist criticism of Brand is invalid and ignores his actual past.

>2 memerson thread in page 1
i don't mind the guy, but tone down the memeing please

>brainless
Don't be this thick m8. He's for midwits not brainlets. He's the alt-light equivalent of black science man for libs.

twitter was a mistake, and him going against the right was expected to be a shitshow seeing that the right dominates youtube, it will be fun to see where things go from here

>He is the only child of Barbara Elizabeth (née Nichols) and photographer Ronald Henry Brand

I can smell your upper middle class background from here. If you are the child of a photographer you are not "poor". Monetarily maybe, it's not in the same league as being the child of a car mechanic, for example.

Only insofar as replacing Rand and Evola as main discussion topic for developmentally disabled /pol/ teenagers.

>literally write a book against nazis
>people get surprised when you say you are against nazis
really makes you think

youtube.com/watch?v=QQ5oqgJWJyw
I don't get why I'm doing this

are you just baiting for this picture?

that's because they are poor, how stupid is that guy
If they had food they wouldn't be poor anymore

/pol is alt-light lolbert central right now. We need a place where we can talk about Evola, Spengler, etc. without being bombarded by reddit. Sorry guys.

>If you are the child of a photographer you are not "poor". Monetarily maybe,
>occupation instead of income determines class

>n-no spoonfeeding
/pol/, please return back to your subreddit

go to bed Jordans

>everyone touching the topic of race is a nazi
Are you a brainlet or just pretending?

shut your whore mouth about Evola

class has very little to do with money, I don't even see how that's debatable. If your parents went to good colleges but are poor you are higher class than someone with wealthy parents in the trades. That's just reality.

I don't see how that relates to anything Jung taught or tired to convey.

I hate Brand but this is true.

>I don't even see how that's debatable.
This is probably the first time I have seen someone associate class with higher levels of education. So uneducated people can't be photographers?

It's a feature recognition problem, with the features being coherent class structures. You can't use just one metric but you can notice trends. Very few uneducated people are going to be even somewhat successful photographers, unless by photographer they mean porn director. It's a profession that by it's nature filters out the working class, at least in the US. I don't know how it is in Europe, but over here class is very heavily based on profession.

A working/middle class person talking about inequality is not bitterness.
However, a very rich celebrity talking about forced redistribution IS indeed hypocrisy.

Sure, but that user seems to imply that education is condition of class not a feature like you said. I am using income as the primary condition as income of parents is the highest predictor of how well their children would do, substantiating the 'class' of the family. Poor people can be educated enough to become photographers and remain poor too.

No it isn't? Taxation or even socialism is not charity

So basically he's saying that he will only use his immense wealth to help the poor when he's forced to via taxation?

yes

And why not earlier?

He is saying taxation (or socialism) will help the poor far more than his 'immerse' wealth.

But if you have a plan that will ensure that will happen for the low low price of 15 million, we will see if he will put his money where his mouth is. Until then...

the linear conception of time is for plebs

How did you even manage to solve the captcha needed to post that retarded reply?

Who?

>I don't want to help anyone unless EVERYONE gets helped
that doesn't seem like a prevarication at all

to consider oneself a critique of inequality and then to amass wealth is to be a hypocrite

that's actually a pretty darn good comparison

holy... so deep....

Made me laugh and im a communist

jordan peterson. its in the filename.

>Word Superpower
>Produces virtually all modern things, ideas and people worth a damn
>Elected a god emperor

Fuck off eurocuck you got Muhammad's semen to clean from yours(his) daughters and wifes(yours) cunts.

damn dude....... we only believe in the kali yuga and cycle of involution and stuff because we're /pol/ pissbabies, as well as racist sexist crybabies. psychoanalyzed over here

>Harry Potter analogy

Why do you keep strawmanning me? It is more
>I can help someone but not EVERYONE

>to consider oneself a critique of inequality and then to amass wealth is to be a hypocrite
Repeating yourself is not an argument. I am starting to think that you are arguing in bad faith.

>Press play
>Like, what's up with that!

lmao

The dragon and the shadow are different ideas. He does say to incorporate the shadow.

No, if you are amassing wealth, then you are increasing the inequality between the poor and the wealthy. That's how it works

nice post

>then you are increasing the inequality between the poor and the wealthy
No it doesn't. Foregoing said wealth would not change this societal dynamic of inequality of opportunity either.

After all give the working class 15 million and you feed them for a few days, give them class consciousness to seize the means of productions and you feed them for a lifetime :^)

he could put his money where his mouth is and invest it all in establishing co-op's to prove his point though, rather than just telling them to take other people's stuff

If someone on the streets of Calcutta gets a decent job, that is decreasing inequality. Amassing wealth only increases inequality if you are already better off than the average person (which everyone on this board is).

do you even economics?

>you're not open-minded if you're not a nazi

>Why do you keep strawmanning me?
he's not, he's just that dumb, like most procapitalists
their brains can't understand anything except memes, the moment you try to step out of the picture-with-sarcastic-text-that's-obviously-been-screenshotted-thirty-times zone you hit a wall cause they just repeat what they said with slightly changed wording

He's probably talking about Jim's latest video. I think a lot of posters on this site would have a much better time if Jim directed their lives through an earpiece like in that junkie's film.

case in point:
the whole point of what the user this genius is speaking to is writing about is: the problem is systemic and individual effort can't fix it
what does this intellectual say to that? "why don't you do this individual thing then????"
like the doctor telling you that you gotta stop smoking or you're gonna die and you answer "done, I'll stop drinking right away!"

So are you saying that because he has wealth to lose and the working class don't, he shouldn't have to take a risk trying to prove that what he's espousing works, but they instead should take the risk on his behalf to prove him right? How noble and courageous - I can see why you like him.

Are you saying that co-op's can't work in the current, system? Because some do. And the more successful ones do exist, the more people become aware of them. The more people become aware of them, the more successful they become. instead of being defeatist and resorting to destroying an entire system to 'fix' it by creating an entirely new one, why not incrementally improve it instead?

It's more a case of "I'll stop drinking first, because that'll make it easier to stop smoking".

The fact that you have to lower yourself to insulting my intellect says more about yours than it does about mine.

>invest it all in establishing co-op's to prove his point though, rather than just telling them to take other people's stuff
Sure but you have no evidence he is actively refusing to do what you said

you are lloyd and harry tier stupid

forgot to add that a private individual investing into co-ops kind of defeats the point of co-ops desu

I know that he actually is, but he's clearly hedging his bets or he'd be all in.

Did I say invest? I meant donate. Again, instead of advocating for people to be forced to involuntarily donate their wealth, how about he demonstrate how good it feels to give it away for the greater good and lead by example. Kinda seems like he'd rather be rich than right.

your insistence that he's a hypocrite if he doesn't act on the terms of your personal philosophy is retarded

it's like a nazi calling you a hypocrite for not killing jews, when you're not a nazi

>I know that he actually is,
Prove it. Prove that he is actively avoiding any chance to donate or support any co-op that no risk and all reward involved. No many co-ops are being set up, far less would even approached Brand (whom has no connections as an actor) for donation. If you can't do that then you are not arguing in good faith

>how good it feels to give it away for the greater good and lead by example.
Charity =/= leftism moron. I already said so in the above posts

No I meant that he has been involved with co-ops before, I remember seeing him rant about it on Ch4 news.

For a bunch of people that spend their time on a literature board, you come across as being about as good at reading and writing as /pol/ is at economics and philosophy.

>For a bunch of people that spend their time on a literature board, you come across as being about as good at reading and writing as /pol/ is at economics and philosophy.
and here we see the meme-tier thinker in his natural environment: smug self-satisfaction. little does he know that there are people reading his writings at this very moment, thinking to themselves "jesus christ, what a retard".