Jordan Peterson

>Should the individual supercede the collective?
Yes, but society shouldn't be structured around the individual. This is what "individualists" don't seem to realise. True "individuals" are exceptional men and you can't create a nation of them no matter how hard you wish it to be so. They're people who rise above the rest regardless.

Individualists lack a genuine understanding of hierarchy.

>operating out of bad faith
operating as a group is not operating in "bad faith", it's just not being a fucking onions liberal

>Oh can have individual rights while pursuing collective interests turns out.
No you can't. One has to supercede the other, because individual rights come into conflict with "the greater good."

Individual rights trump the greater good, because a strategy focused on the greater good fails because it's not fair towards the individual, so the individual is less motivated to succeed.

>I'd rather see the world burn for sake of single person than sacrificing that person for the sake of the rest
Egoism of individualists is really disturbing, I bet you fucks are professional fucking fedora tippers and redditors too

>DURR HOW DOES THE COLLECTIVE WELLBEING AND PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIETY AT LARGE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU? WASH YOUR BALLS AND KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF OTHERS' BUSINESS

No, fuck this muh individualism meme, a society needs rules and certain standards people conform to in order to function properly, all these fags, trannies, niggers, spics, feminists and communists running around are the result of individualism. Most "normal" people suffer and become alienated so some freaks can be degenerate and destroy society from within. Fuck Peterstein and his Jewish individualism.

Attached: 33368.jpg (1280x853, 168K)

>it's not fair
Pathetic.

>Egoism of individualists is really disturbing
I'm sorry to hear that you find modern society disturbing. You can feel free to move back into your cave though.

Individualism is the ONLY philosophy that has brought sustained prosperity in the world.

What do you mean by "supercede" and "collective" ?

When a game isn't fair people stop wanting to play. When a governmental system isn't fair it gets toppled, because people don't want to live under it in the long term.

Modernity isn't "fair".

E Pluribus Unum. America was built as a collective of states and rose to greatness through a collective interest ie Manifest Destiny. How do you think anything gets done without the will and might of a collective people?

Individually? Yes
In society? Yes
Yes
The stronger the bricks the better the pyramid will resist.

A pyramid is worth more than a brick, but worth much less than a pyramid of strong bricks.

Yes.

You are not your ethinc group. You are whoever you want to be.

>find modern society disturbing
Yeah

Then get back into your cave. Go try living in nature for a few weeks to a few months with no modern equipment. Then tell us how shit modern society is.
It's fairer than collectivist systems.

>It's fairer than collectivist systems.
Perhaps, but then you're presenting a false dichotomy in the first place. It is not a choice between "individualism" or "collectivism", it's a nonsensical binary created to serve a singular interest - that of a liberal and anti-traditional order.

because it's better for the individual

Nope. But just take JP for what he is: someone who pisses off the left immeasurably and steers the liberal lunacy narrative back to more calm and sober waters. He only bitches about collectivism when he has accusations of nazism leveraged against him to save his hide, he seems sympathetic to all the "anti-semitic" rhetoricians, literary authors and philosophers of the last century (Heidegger, Dostoevsky, Jung, even heard him speak sympathetically about Hitler), so just roll with it. I don't think anyone from Jow Forums has watched his lectures or his public debates and suddenly rescinded their white in-group collectivist disposition, if he starts emphasizing that point then I'll "turn" on him but until then, Peterson is a useful and mostly correct ally to have on our side.

Simply epic

>people stop wanting to play
modern system obviously isn't "fair" and yet innumerable amounts of retards are jumping through countless hoops with the hope of maybe getting a chance to delve deep into meaningless degeneracy in the club of elites
individualism breeds degeneracy and magnifies inequality way beyond what it naturally is, it's much more "fair" to *gently* remind outstanding individuals that their purpose is to take their nation ahead through history and not to work all their life for yachts, cars, clothes and other trash.

Enjoy telling that to the African warlord other based individuals imported into your country.

>Nowadays the intellectual confusion has reached such an extent that liberalism, which according to ancient regimes and the Church was synonymous with antitradition and revolution, is portrayed by some as a "right-wing" movement, bent on protecting human dignity, rights, and freedom against Marxism and totalitarianism.

Remind you of anyone?

Yes, it should. You cannot have a civilization that prospers without liberty, and you cannot have liberty without rights and weapons. THe only way to guarantee rights for anyone is to guarantee them to the individual.

Further, collectivism is an inherently degenerative force. It neccessitates the creation of an in-group, for which anything can be justified, and an out-group, against which anything can be justified. In the event that nothing easily fits the the definition of that out-group, the collective will invariably turn on itself and be consumed by infighting, destroying all members of the collective.

Anyone who thinks collectivism is sustainable has never read any history. The Greeks understood what was needed for civilization, so did the ancient Chinese. Read Cicero if you want to skip thinking for yourself and instead want it all broken down and explained for you.

>individualism
>sustained prosperity
Sure, let's just keep marching up and down all day demanding more "rights" while those dumb socialist chinese build more skyscrapers and high-speed railways. That will surely improve our lives!

Attached: maxresdefault (10).jpg (1280x720, 152K)

Unfortunately all the baste individualist immigrants the West has accrued for the past 70 years don't see it that way, and each enclave has its own perception of their destiny in lands that historically have nothing to do with them. Individualism may have worked in the 19th and 20th century when the Western world was overwhelmingly majority white, it doesn't work now when ethnic in-groups are forming and actively seeking conflict with the nativist contingents of Europe (Paki rape gangs going after explicitly white British pre-teens, Islamic terror attacks on the non-Islamic population), so adhering to this mindset in the current day is just going to get you steamrolled by the "others" who DO subscribe to collectivist philosophy. Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and every other group is collectivizing, being a dumb ass white bitch standing around waiting to get steam rolled by these assholes who are vying for civic and sociopolitical dominance in your country is just going to get you fucked big time.

shitty buildings get torn down

>You cannot have a civilization that prospers without liberty
You can have "liberty" without "Individualism".

"Individual" is a meme

t. Buddha

Why do stormcucks always assume we want open borders

The Greeks and Romans don't support your liberal ideology. Stop this bullshit.

>we
What's "we"? Can I even touch it?

Who gives you the right to infringe upon his liberty? If he wants to marry an African warlord there's nothing you can say to stop their love.

In a white society yes

It really depends

Ecen from a national socialist perspective the individual should have some degree of importance.

It was one of the mainfindings within the government was that private entities needed to be protected at some level to maintain social order and efficiency.

And when successful white individuals decide to turn over a booming industry to a country with cheap labor just to become even more successful white individuals, what are you going to do then?
If white individuals import a bunch of black not-so-individualistic slaves into your country to satisfy their individual needs of making more profit than their competitors, then what happens? I hope you won't dare to infringe upon these dear individuals' liberties then?

Hahaha you're such a fucking retard

youtube.com/watch?v=cuq8j5i4kok

Except groups consistently fuck up. If you have individual directives mandating a group action you avoid that. But groups themselves are childlike and self interested.

Its the reason unions stop serving their members soon after getting formed and instead self perpetuate their own organisational interest

> "Individualism is the ONLY philosophy that has brought sustained prosperity in the world."

We've existed for millennia before the 20th and 21st centuries, you do realise this? This period of individualism is already falling apart and it's barely gone over a century.

That's what we have anti-trust and labor laws for. That morons can't agree that individuals have rights and we need to preserve those is why we can't enforce the countermeasures that already exist. You and those like you are holding the entire world back with your ignorance and stubbornness.

What nobody on either side seems to understand is that the individual and the collective are both necessary in a balanced dose. A pyramid without structure will fall apart just as quickly as a pyramid built out of stones that are too weak to carry the burden they are supposed to (analogy for lack of will).

>anti-trust and labor laws for
why do you have laws that limit individuals' liberties what's wrong with you? Is your room even clean?

You don't need this absurd philosophy of "individualism" to value freedom. There's a name for rulers who have no trust in their people and covet power: tyrants.

Well you are partially correct. Obviously societies need socially or legally enforced standards to some degree.

That said mandating it as a result of group interest constantly sways by the dominant interest of the time and is certainly not something you want to legally enforce. At the very least individual interest is likely to have diversity between regions creeds and nationalities

Yes, and all the ideas and thoughts that carried us to this point in our civilization were Individualist. It started before the Greeks, with Zarathustra.

These laws do not restrict anybody's liberty, they restrict others from restricting anybody's liberty. But you need at least an elementary understanding of economics and power politics to get that, and you clearly lack either.

Collectivism is always tyranny, whether by a ruling body or the masses. It has never been anything else, not once throughout human history.

This leaf gets it.
Family/tribe support the individual so that the individual can support the family/tribe.

When your argument is an hour long video of someone else speaking because you can't explain it yourself I don't think you have much room to be calling other people retarded.

You are retrofitting parts of ancient tradition to your modern liberal ideology. Stop.

That's why willful submission to competent authority always leads to the best result. This is something that can only be achieved in a society that values both individual liberty and the collective. In a society that overvalues individualism, no one will submit themselves to authority as it is deemed 'opressive' or 'limiting my choices', basically all structure falls apart and there remains nothing left for the individual to claim. A society that overvalues collectivism on the other hand, lacks both competent authority and willful submission as both can only be achieved from a position of individual choice (choose to work hard and become competent or choose to actively carry out the orders of your superior's).

I'm not a "collectivist" and I reject your assertion that a decision is to be made between the two. Your entire paradigm is bogus.

I could, but in the face of sophistry and willful ignorance I'm just going to laugh and link you to something because no amount of effort I put in will mean anything.

What you're essentially saying is that you reject Civilisation. Do you accept that? Or do you think Civilisation can somehow exist without subordination to a higher order?

I never called you a collectivist. Further, collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive by definition. If you want a middle ground, make one and call it something else. Oh wait, people already did that and it was called the nation-state.

>I could
Sure you can, bud. Go be liberal somewhere else.

>These laws do not restrict anybody's liberty
Hmm. On one hand we have a bunch of chinese individuals that want to work for 50 cents an hour and on the other hand we have an individual that wants to add zeroes to his net worth, seems like in that situation anyone who respects individual liberty will see that there are two parties that both want to engage in a contract and anyone who would infringe on their liberties would have to be acting in the name of some third party, not even a part of this upcoming labor transaction. Who could this third party be? And why are they more important than these consenting individuals?

>If you want a middle ground
As I said, I reject the paradigm.

A representative body elected by individuals is the answer to that. I do not 'reject civilization', i recognize what allowed it to develop and have read enough history to understand that every time humanity has strayed from those things we lose massive amounts of life, wealth, and knowledge to a degree that cannot be replaced and that affects us for centuries afterward.

Where in the United States or UK are there chinese people who WANT to work for $.50 and actively seek jobs that pay so little? You're talking about foreign sweat shops and international corporations, not anything actually relevant.

There is a middle ground: the basic unit upon which society should be based is the family, not the collective nor the individual. See how that works?

das right

>not anything actually relevant.
Okay, are you brain dead? What the fuck are you talking about, seriously?

This is a false dilemma. The individual can only be judged on what is and what isn't moral and we can only judge our collectives by this measure as well. Neither dominates the other because the moral interest of one does not contradict the other.

It's a fucking oxymoron. What if a bunch of individuals come together, as individuals and decide they all want something? Collectives as individuals in agreement does not necessarily have to be separated from individuals.

>Should the individual supercede the collective?
Yes. All social activity happens on the individual level and effect individuals. Collectives are only affected by way of affected individuals, because collectives are shorthand abstractions and don't have the primacy of individuals. Protecting individuals will protect the group by extension. Protecting collective identities does not offer the same protection to individuals, despite the fact that collective is comprised of nothing but individuals.

This is why collectivist systems kill themselves eventually.

Attached: 1500443720451.jpg (564x754, 152K)

I like many things Juden Peterstein says. I think he has helped many young men. But at the same time he is so popular right now it scares me. He better not fuck up too much. I don't like his take on (((individualism))) vs. collectivism.

Attached: 1529882543490.jpg (1112x688, 160K)

Who is this "we", there's no "we" when you're an individualist. You admit you are individually weak and need some sort of union to protect you from the Kang warlordz.

>have read enough history to understand that every time humanity has strayed from those things we lose massive amounts of life, wealth, and knowledge to a degree that cannot be replaced and that affects us for centuries afterward.

Consider that it may be the case that straying from it is only destructive because the situation has to already be extreme in order to force society's hand to stray from it.

Representative government eventually leads to a crisis where tribes are forced to compete for their survival... and the stakes eventually get so high that everybody is ready to kill eachother.

I don't know what the answer is, or even if my description is correct... i'm just saying it's not necessarily so simple as you're portraying it to be. civilization is a very complex system.

pretty shitty pyramid analogy
society is not a pyramid and even if it were it's bricks are not stationary
people die and people are born all the time
everyone that fulfills a role will eventually be replaced and many roles themselves have tremendous variability

so yeah, the brick has more value
in a pyramid with ever shifting brick positions and ever changing bricks the best thing to do is try to make all bricks strong because the more they become strong the higher the chances that the pyramid doesn't collapse

Attached: 1518172020052.jpg (952x500, 52K)

Tribalism is Matriarchy
>female dominated macro economic system, where most of the generated wealth is taken given to women
>blue pilled beta drones assimilate and mass accumulate resources for the hive
>drones are stripped of their personality or autonomy and repurposed into obedient lifeless husks

Matriarchal tribalism is also the absolute dog shit tier of human civilization.

Attached: evil-queens-17.jpg (960x640, 259K)

I agree with Dr. Peterson.

I cannot pick my family, but I can choose if they are my friends.
The collective is my construct.
We have a mutually beneficial partnership.
But it is nothing without my consent.

What's wrong with the paradigm? I didn't define it, the words do.

Collectivism is defined as placing the needs of the collective above the rights and needs of the individual. The group is considered a separate entity from those who make it up and has absolute authority. Its needs are independent from those of the members and its goals do not take them into account beyond how they can serve those goals.

Individualism places the rights and needs of the individual as the highest moral imperative. Each person is recognized to be sovereign within themselves. It is understood that if one person has a right, everybody has it, and that is reflected in the law. No person is placed above another through anything but their own merit. Only individualism allows for any sort of democratic representation, even republican. Only democratic representation among an armed populace can prevent tyranny.

What sort of family? An equal one, a patriarchal one, or a matriarchal one? How will this be enforced and enshrined in law? How does this affect their representation in their nation's political franchise? What sorts of differences are there in the rights of the family unit and the individual, since defining the family unit as the basis for society is treating them as a collective and is inherently anti-individualist?

The question is whether the group desire should be able to supercede the rights of the individual. There are times when it is reasonable, such as in the case where an individual doesn't have a natural right in conflict with the wishes of the group.

The reason it's not ok for a collective to punch who they perceive as Nazis is because it's in violation of said alleged Nazi's rights. Otherwise all it boils down to is "do what thou wilt to whomever you may" and the point has to be given to the people who advocate for violence against the far right.

That's simply not the case, it has always been a very slow decline brought about by complacency and laziness first, and then ignorance like what you and most others in this thread are spouting. Eventually all the essential ideas get diluted and distorted, and then emotional rhetoric takes over in the form of religion or political extremism and the society crumbles. Then, after a couple hundred years, somebody starts learning the shit I'VE learned and goes "Wait, things used to be better, and the people that lived in that time left us the instructions on how to do it. Let's try doing it too". Literally every prosperous society in history has done this and is was the core fucking reason that trivium was the gold standard of education for almost 900 years.

Life is too complex to pigeonhole everyone into "individualist" vs. "collectivist". Only retarded "individuals" like Peterson think this retarded dichotomy is meaningful.

Are we really going so far back in time to forget the lessons Homer taught us? This questions is brought up so often in Greek mythology, they had no answer for what to do when your loyalties conflict, they would often invoke the intervention of a god to settle the conflict. It wasn't until Plato or really Aristotle that someone had enough brain cells to say that what is good for one must necessarily be good for the other and what is bad for the one and not the other cannot be good for either.

The dichotomy is important, but it's not as far-reaching as he treats it. It really only applies to systems of governance, because that is the only time when the problems become systemic rather than simple social disagreements.

>Only democratic representation among an armed populace can prevent tyranny
This is the most reddit statement I've seen on this board in months.

Attached: 876545346786545.jpg (1024x626, 168K)

these goddamn fucking drones repeating JP quotes verbatim yapping about individualism

>All social activity happens on the individual level and effect individuals.
Sure but the ideology of "individualism" is not actually interested in the differentiated and organic persons to which you're referring. Instead it is interested in the "individual" as an abstract vehicle for the egalitarian premises of liberalism.

Everyone is an individualist eventually. The people at the top of the collective work for their individual benefit. the people at the shit end of the collective become individualists eventually once they realize the collectivist bullshit has been feeding them shit, they start actually taking responsibility for themselves... and are usually killed soon after by collectivists.

So says history.

Jordan Peterson may as well be a fucking e-thot “trad” woman at this point. The deeper you dig the less substance he appears to have.

EXACTLY. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this. They didn't exactly create the idea, but they came up with it independently of the other cultures that arrived at the same conclusion.

If you think that anything but an armed populace can prevent tyranny and that any system of governance besides a representative democracy can result in anything but tyranny then you need to read some history and examine the ideas behind the various states.

>Eventually all the essential ideas get diluted and distorted, and then emotional rhetoric takes over in the form of religion or political extremism and the society crumbles
I think you're making a mistake in thinking that this process is driven by the growth of ignorance and laziness.

Society, and the values and zeitgeist therein, evolves according to what people want. The process is driven by political battles, winners and losers, and those who have the power to spread their way of thinking.

People don't become lazy, rather, politcal forces and local incentives excite or inhibit them.

I don't believe that either the desires of the individual or the collective define moral right. Pretty simple really.

Did Peterson ever actually say it was always about collectives vs individuals, or did that user just assume so?

Tell him to go suck off the UN more. That's what he's best at.

in one of the JRE podcasts he went into it, basically saying this: he def. focused on the dichotomy too

No, it isn't. Literally every action can be argued either way. Is paying for your son's tuition individualist or collectivist? On the one hand, you could argue that it's altruistic. On the other hand, you could also argue that you are doing it out of a selfish desire to see your genetics be successful.

Your dichotomy is stupid because it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about the way we should act. Besides, human beings do not actually behave this way in real life. They consider the right and wrong of actions on a case-by-case basis, they don't consider your retarded dichtomy.

>saying this
which is, by the way, carbon copy of trickle down economics

Ok, and collectivism dispenses with those same differentiated and organic peoples as well, of which you are one whether you like it or not. From the perspective of governance and force, collectivism does not recognize that the individual has worth, despite the entirety of society being made of individuals.

Now, we can argue about "what X REALLY means!" all day, but that is literally a precept of collectivism, not just an unintended side effect and we see this played out in failed societies throughout history. Collectivism is the ideology of tribals and savages; people who sacrificed their own to appease the sun and shit.

Dr JP helped me out a lot. I am hoping to meet him. He added my city to his book tour.

“The absolute freedom of liberalism will ultimately jeopardize the benefits of community life for people in a state. Attempting to place the individual ahead of the nation is wrong. . . . For the individual to live, the nation first must itself live; this requires that one cannot do what he wants, but must align himself with the common interests of the people and accordingly accept limitations and sacrifices."

remember to brush your teeth

Attached: RehmTheo.jpg (220x296, 15K)