Jordan Peterson, globalist shill.

Matty from Matty’s Modern Life has taken a great deal of exception to my criticism of his hero Jordan Peterson. He has been extremely active in the comments section of each of my posts on XYZ magazine on the subject, perhaps laboring under the illusion that on the internet you win if you’re the last one to comment. Apart from a very few instances I have abstained from commenting. My statement is in the articles themselves and I trust that the rational and logical reader will come to the correct conclusions himself.

But now Matty has published what he considers to be a direct rebuttal of my piece – In defense of Jordan Peterson, sort of. And because there are so many errors in his article I have no choice but to respond so as to set the record straight.

It started with an Adam Piggot article accusing Peterson of a number of things (the Professor even tweeted it out himself).

Peterson tweeted it, (and also posted it on his Facebook page), because I hit him where it hurts. If what I had said was untrue he would have ignored it.

Including the claim Peterson is an elaborate ruse to turn people into progressives. This wild accusation is made without evidence, so as such I can dismiss it without evidence. It’s completely false based on my assessment of his work.

My article was an opinion piece. I mean, how fatuous do you have to be to make such a statement? Did not the words at the beginning of the sentence not give it away?

Ultimately I believe that Peterson is an elaborate and very clever deception to prevent young men from inadvertently straying off the progressive reservation by using sophisticated messaging via a platform that seems on the surface to be a genuine alternative to the prog reality.

I believe. Seems like a good way to present an opinion.

Not only that, but this passage is my conclusion to my opinion piece. The evidence that I have presented is the sum total of my entire arguments in the article up to this point. Matty is simply being dishonest here. He claims that my accusation is completely false but he doesn’t even attempt to provide a counter argument.

Peterson is a liberal in the classical sense. He was a socialist in his younger years but, like many fooled youths, he woke up. Until there is solid evidence to prove otherwise there is no reason to doubt him.

There is no reason to doubt him? Sounds like Matty is a believer, not a seeker of truth.

Peterson’s tweet which was loaded with SJW-speak was wonderful evidence but Matty dismissed it as being sarcastic in tone, which was simply wishful conjecture. But if Matty desires more evidence then I shall provide him with some examples.

It turns out that Peterson is not only a shill for the globalists but an active participant in helping draft their documentation:

Jordan B. Peterson worked on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development, editing a document that was released in 2013 entitled ‘A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP: ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’. One of the panel members of this UN High Council was none other than skippy himself, John Podesta.

John Podesta? Nice company that Peterson is keeping.

Some initially doubted that Peterson was actually involved with this UN agenda, since he is not listed among the 27 members of the panel. However, in an interview with The Dark Room Podcast in October 2016, Peterson openly declared that he was not merely involved with the UN HLP report, but actually wrote the underlying narrative for it.

This is the same Peterson who has recently been anointed by super extreme left-wing prog publication The New York Times as a member of the “Intellectual Dark Web”. When the NYT is pushing his case then you had better believe that he has been carefully selected to provide a pre-approved message.

How about some of Peterson’s own words from his first book, Maps of Meaning?

Of course, my socialist colleagues and I weren’t out to hurt anyone. Quite the reverse. We were out to improve things—but we were going to start with other people. I came to see the temptation in this logic, the obvious flaw, the danger—but could also see that it did not exclusively characterize socialism. Anyone who was out to change the world by changing others was to be regarded with suspicion. The temptations of such a position were too great to be resisted.

It was not socialist ideology that posed the problem, then, but ideology as such.

Moving right along let’s get back to Matty’s “great take-down”.

One criticism in this article is that he gives women a “free pass” while telling men to take all responsibility for their actions.

This is not true at all; in fact he’s been quite critical of the choices commonly made by modern women. He consistently laments their desire to pursue a career and advises women to start a family instead.

Telling women that they should be having babies instead of a career has nothing to do with making women responsible for their actions. That’s an either/or proposition. (Also, Peterson runs a consultancy business which specializes in coaching women in high-powered careers to better compete with men, so he’s not really practicing what he’s supposedly preaching, is he.)

There is a reason advice for men and women is different, it’s because men and women are different. A man doesn’t just become a “man”, he needs to earn the title; a woman becomes a woman simply by reaching maturity. Men need to “man up” not least because men have been bullied by feminist rubbish for decades.

Jordan Peterson on Facebook:

“I’m not anti-feminist.”
Facebook, August 10, 2017

The very concept of “toxic masculinity” has beaten many men into submission and shame. Men need to “man up” because that’s how you become a man!

No, no, a thousand times no. You don’t become a man by “manning up”. If that were the case then all you’d need to do to become a man would be to get some lousy job, marry some tart, and then get her to pop out some kids which were hopefully yours that you’d proceed to support. Hey presto! A man!

There is a huge pressure on men today to man up and do the right thing as regards to the feminine imperative. Peterson is not teaching men to make men of themselves; he’s teaching them to become better providers. He wants to make men more acceptable to women but there is no corresponding attempt to make women more acceptable to men. In this he is entirely in line with current orthodoxy. On the surface it sounds like a wonderful sales pitch but the reality is one of dancing through endless hoops so as to qualify for female approval.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: men make themselves, women find themselves.

Peterson’s advice to clean your room, pet the neighborhood cat, and stand up straight is perfectly acceptable advice, for someone who is 12 years old.

Matty also disapproves somewhat of my criticism of Peterson’s supposed credentials as to having any real experience with women.

This is classic “zomg you leik didn’t nail 100 chix in yo life? Gawd that’s leik totes lame bro.” Another way of framing this is: Jordan Peterson has been in a loving and monogamous relationship for essentially his entire life.

Peterson’s love life history as he himself has publicly framed it would be a perfectly acceptable story, but only if Peterson were a woman himself. His tale of childhood infatuation and puppy-dog following until the object of his affections finally relents is picture perfect rom-com 101 that the chicks just lap up, because that is what women would do.

All of this would be entirely irrelevant except that Peterson has set himself up as some sort of authority on the subject.

He’s raised children with the love of his life, he’s a success in every sense. Some might look at him and scoff, I look with admiration. I wish I had that, to each their own I guess.

Peterson has been on anti-depressants for years by his own admission. But then the grass is always very much greener when hero worship is at stake.

Matty also takes issue with my accusation that Peterson dodges the issue of biological reality.

This is false, in fact it’s so untrue it’s almost laughable. Not only did he come down firmly on the side of James Damore, who was fired for explaining biological facts,

This is not evidence to dispute my claim. It is purely coincidental that part of the reason that Damore was fired was because Damore himself came close to approaching the issue. Peterson supporting Damore does not ipso facto mean that Peterson must then support the idea of biological reality. This is entirely fallacious.

but he’s even touched on race, genetics and IQ. Then there’s the infamous lobster interview where he literally says we share the biology of a lobster that determines our place in the social hierarchy.

Comparing the human race with lobster hierarchies says next to nothing about human racial preferences and prejudices. Peterson has also demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of IQ distribution spreads so anything that he says on the subject must be treated with great caution. And touching on race is exactly what Peterson does; he approaches it but then backs right away from where it will lead him.

Peterson is a globalist, no matter what Matty may claim. Peterson claims that he is against identity politics, but identity politics are crucial as Vox Day points out:

You know I’ve said repeatedly that the philosophy Jordan Peterson is pushing is an evil one, and it is, and one aspect of that evil, one way that we know that it is wrong, is that he and Shapiro and all these other Fake Opposition members are saying “oh all that matters is the individual, all that matters is you, you should only pay attention to your own needs, your own standards, you’ve no right to take pride in your legacy, you have no responsibility to instill those traditions and values into your children.”

After all, if you have no responsibility to carry on the work of your parents, if you have no right to take pride in the legacy and the achievement of your parents, then neither do your children have any right or responsibility to do so with regards to you! I mean this is a very obvious transitive principle of logic at work, and so I think that it’s so important to understand that when conservatives are coming out against identity politics, you need to understand that they are simultaneously coming out against family values, tribal values, and national values.

Vox then uses the following series of Peterson quotes to make his point:

Those who have accomplished something as individuals feel no need to be proud of their race.
– Jordan Peterson

Real cultural appropriation — that’s when someone is proud of his culture despite having done nothing to support it, extend it or transform it: a message to the far right.
– Jordan Peterson

You shouldn’t be “proud” of your culture: you should be honored by the privilege of partaking in it, and grateful for its existence, despite your inadequacy. That is not at all the same thing.
– Jordan Peterson

Q: What’s the goal of the radical right? A: Unearned identity with the glories of the past.
– Jordan Peterson

Now the right-wing identitarians have their panties in a knot about what I’ve said about the pathology of racial pride…. Demonstrating (as if it is necessary) that the mirror reflection of malevolence is also…. malevolence. 
– Jordan Peterson

Peterson is an active proponent and participant in the self-destruction of Western Civilization through his ideological adherence to the narcissistic cult of the individual and in his continued attempts to sever the connections that bind people through culture and race. This is bad enough but the fact that he is also a very big wolf in sheep’s clothing makes him much more dangerous than your average progressive nutjob screaming for the head of every straight white man.

It behooves us as seekers of truth and defenders of the legacy that has been passed to us by our ancestors to thoroughly examine anyone who makes such broad reaching claims as Peterson does. The fact that not only do his claims not stack up but that a closer examination reveals someone who is entirely discreditable should be deeply alarming to anyone even remotely interested in defending our civilization and way of life from those that would have it destroyed and us replaced.

I have nothing against Matty personally. But on this subject I believe that he is wrong and it is important that I clearly state why that is the case. After that I leave it up to each reader’s judgement to decide the issue for himself. Pick and choose the good bits from Peterson most certainly. After all he has sprinkled them through his teachings like confetti. But just make sure that you can tell the difference between those and the ramblings of a charlatan who is addicted to twisting the world so that he can better function in it.

17 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson, globalist shill.

  1. “My article was an opinion piece. I mean, how fatuous do you have to be to make such a statement?”

    That’s pretty weak sauce dude. Your critic states that something you said was false, and your reply is “true and false is irrelevant because it’s my [publically published] opinion”. What has it being your opinion got anything to do with it? The way I see it, it is either true or not true that you are accusing JP of being an elaborate ruse; and true or not true that JP is.

    Matty may be wrong, that’s not the same thing as his being fatuous, especially as you point out immediately that the thing that he said which you said was fatuous is actually perfectly true – that that was exactly what you were saying about JP.

    Don’t hide behind “Chill! It’s just my opinion!” That’s bullshit.

    —–

    “Peterson’s advice to clean your room, pet the neighborhood cat, and stand up straight is perfectly acceptable advice, for someone who is 12 years old.”

    Peterson’s advice is perfectly acceptable advice for someone who is one of his patients. That’s the problem with psychotherapists: they get a very, very odd view of humanity because they see a very, very odd subset of it. They don’t see many decent people making a success of their lives. They have a narrow, technical education – they are not educated people in the broad old “liberal arts” meaning of the word – and like many technicians they don’t realize it.

    Like

  2. didact117

    The fact that Jordan Peterson has, by his own admission, been on antidepressants for years immediately makes me deeply sceptical of his soundness of mind.

    SSRIs undoubtedly provide significant benefits to the mentally ill. But they also SERIOUSLY screw with the neurochemical reactions of the brain synapses. That is their job, after all. And a mind that has to take powerful antidepressants for a long time is most assuredly not the same as it would have been without them.

    Jordan Peterson is undoubtedly a highly intelligent man. But his words and actions reveal him to be exactly what you and Vox and other critics say he is: a globalist, a pseudo-intellectual fraud, and a useful member of the Controlled Opposition.

    That is not to say that he is without use or merit. His takedowns of the SJWs on the hard Left are a very good thing. But he is most assuredly not on our side, and he is not a true defender of Western civilisation.

    Like

  3. Sasha Hrongmitts

    Sounds like Jordan Peterson is peddling a form of Churchianism that avoids giving Christ credit or having to go to church. Atheists like hearing this because it gives them the moral comfort they’ve been seeking without having to mention His name, or admit they were wrong.

    Like

  4. MarkT

    If those quotes from Peterson were meant to convince us that you are right are he is wrong – then for me they’ve had the opposite effect.

    Western civilisation is not built on conformity and tribalism – it’s founded on valuing reason, and protecting the rights of individuals to act on that reason, sometimes pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable to the tribe. That is the only way that progress comes. Without individuals pushing the boundaries a society stagnates, and you get the tribalism evident on the streets of Mogadishu today.

    Over time, if a new idea or practice proves itself, it tends to become part of the cultural mainstream. Hence we have Western civilisation – and certain commonly accepted traditions and practices gain value. But it would never have become Western civilisation without individuals pushing the boundaries in the first place – and will not remain Western civilisation if we decry individualism as the “narcissistic cult of the individual”. A society, just like an individual can’t stand still and rely on what is conformable to them based on the past. It either continues to go forward (building on the base we inherit from our predecessors) or it goes backwards. That’s our nature as men.

    You yourself accept this implicitly, and often explicitly in regards to how you conduct yourself personally. You didn’t allow yourself to be defined by your upbringing from a feminist mother, you have lived in various parts of the world away from your ‘tribe’, and emphasise on many topics the importance of thinking for yourself rather than group conformity. Even your writings on weight-lifting are an application of the same principle. If you don’t push yourself to lift greater weights, you start going backwards and you lose strength. A society is no different.

    When you talk of the “narcissistic cult of the individual” you probably have in mind self-absorbed pricks who care for nothing and nobody outside of whatever is expedient for themselves, or hippies blind to reality and fixated on how everything makes them feel. However they are no more an expression of genuine individualism, than Harvey Weinstein is an expression of genuine masculinity. They are faux-individualists, just like Weinstein is a faux-man.

    This contradiction in your values is very clear – and it’s yours to resolve.

    Like

    1. didact117

      Western civilisation is not built on conformity and tribalism – it’s founded on valuing reason, and protecting the rights of individuals to act on that reason, sometimes pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable to the tribe.

      Not quite. What we call “Western civilisation” is in fact founded on three pillars: the Graeco-Roman philosophical legacy, the Christian faith and therefore both the understanding of the origin of evil and the solution to evil, and the European nations.

      Take any one of these things away, and what we know of as “the West” simply collapses.

      Jordan Peterson’s own quotes make it very clear that he is not a Christian and does not regard Christian teachings on morality to be particularly superior to anything else.

      Jordan Peterson’s own quotes make it very clear that he does not view truth as an absolute that is definable and knowable through deductive or inductive logical processes, or through empirical observation. His view is that truth is entirely subjective – which is utter nonsense. In so doing, he rejects the Graeco-Roman, and specifically Aristotelian, models of logic and reason.

      Jordan Peterson’s own quotes make it very clear that he does not view nations as inseparable from their people. Yet this is exactly what a nation is – the people, not the soil. Without a clear distinction between “us” and “them”, nations cannot survive – yet Prof. Peterson states clearly that there is no need for individuals to take pride in being part of “us”.

      Note also that Peterson’s “individual uber alles” philosophy – if it can be called that – is no different from Alistair Crowley’s maxim: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”. This attitude always and everywhere leads to an ideology of pure evil.

      Like

      1. MarkT

        If Peterson is not a Christian it’s news to me. I’m certainly not a Christian, but in reading his book it seems very clear that he is. He does however present Christianity in a non-preachy way, such that even if you don’t believe in fairytales about Noah taking 2 of every single animal species on this ark, or a god in the sky telling fathers to kill their sons (like me), you can at least understand the purpose and rationale of various Christian narratives and traditions – and find some common ground. Whilst I remain an atheist, I now at least have a greater insight into the purpose that religion fulfils as a result of his writings and lectures.

        I agree that the Greeco-Roman philosophers, and the European nations are an important pillar of the West – but not Christianity. Christianity was certainly the religion of the West, but it does not explain the value of Western Civilisation. Reason was discovered by the Greeco-Roman philosophers, was buried under Christian superstition after the Rome collapsed, rediscovered with the Rennaissance/Englightenment, and allowed to be implemented (to varying degrees) under the politics of the European nations – starting with the Magna Carta, and eventually culminating in English common law, the American Revolution, and the capitalism of the 19th century. We thrived because individuals were able to think, act according to those thoughts, and have their property rights protected. The best that can be said about Christianity is that it grudgingly found some accommodation with reason and capitalism, and so in that regard it’s the better of any of the other religious alternatives. .

        If you’re correct that Peterson “does not view truth as an absolute that is definable and knowable through deductive or inductive logical processes” – then I’m agin him on that topic. But that’s not what I’m talking about here – we’re talking about individualism versus identity politics.

        Like

  5. post

    You are more interesting than most. But this isn’t an either /or, I value a lot of opinions, including Taki contributors, Petersen et al. You have followers, not disciples, can we please leave the idea of One God ?

    Like

  6. didact117

    @MarkT:

    If Peterson is not a Christian it’s news to me. I’m certainly not a Christian, but in reading his book it seems very clear that he is.

    “Although I had grown up in a Christian environment—and had a successful and happy childhood, in at least partial consequence—I was more than willing to throw aside the structure that had fostered me. No one really opposed my rebellious efforts, either, in church or at home—in part because those who were deeply religious (or who might have wanted to be) had no intellectually acceptable counter-arguments at their disposal. After all, many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.”

    — Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning

    Reason was discovered by the Greeco-Roman philosophers, was buried under Christian superstition after the Rome collapsed, rediscovered with the Rennaissance/Englightenment, and allowed to be implemented (to varying degrees) under the politics of the European nations – starting with the Magna Carta, and eventually culminating in English common law, the American Revolution, and the capitalism of the 19th century.

    Wrong, and deeply so.

    Read up on St. Augustine of Hippo’s Summa Theologica and the works of St. Thomas of Aquinas. These two men existed long before the Renaissance ever got started. These two men, and many other Catholic priests and monks of the various orders – especially the Jesuits and Benedictines – worked very hard to reconcile Aristotelian logic and empiricism with the teachings of the Church, which was a monumental undertaking that occupied some of the greatest minds that Mankind has ever produced.

    Incidentally, one of the most painful lessons that has to be learned is that EVERYTHING you were taught about the history of the Church in school is simply wrong. The Christian faith in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, has done more to advance the body of scientific knowledge and the cause of human freedom than ANYTHING else that came before it, or has come along since.

    We thrived because individuals were able to think, act according to those thoughts, and have their property rights protected.

    And where, pray tell, do you suppose these rights came from?

    The Bible – and the Catholic Church’s teachings derived from it, spread across the world over a thousand years.

    If you’re correct that Peterson “does not view truth as an absolute that is definable and knowable through deductive or inductive logical processes” – then I’m agin him on that topic.

    “I don’t think facts are necessarily true. So I don’t think this scientific facts, even if they’re correct from within the domain that they were generated, I don’t think that that necessarily makes them true. And I know that I am gerrymandering the definition of truth, but I’m doing that on purpose.”
    — Jordan Peterson

    “Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life. Apprehend your personal truth.”
    — Jordan Peterson

    Liked by 1 person

    1. MarkT

      Granted that St Thomas of Acquinas played a role in trying to reconcile reason with faith – and granted that others in the church played a role in preserving Aristotle’s works (nobody else could have because the church had a monopoly on books). But would you agree that these guys were pushing the boundaries of what the church considered acceptable at the time, rather than faithfully replicating it’s tradituons?

      Like

      1. didact117

        But would you agree that these guys were pushing the boundaries of what the church considered acceptable at the time, rather than faithfully replicating it’s tradituons?

        No, because both of those legendary men, and many other great Christian scholars besides, were doing exactly what the Catholic Church has taught for virtually its entire existence. The Church’s teachings on rationality, empiricism, and scientific discovery are very clear and have been for more than a fifteen centuries: the Church is the final authority over the spiritual realm, but encourages inquiry into the temporal one as long as such exploration is not done for evil ends. Faith and science are complementary, not in conflict.

        The general Christian (not merely Catholic) position on science is straightforward: the Lord is rational. He is Truth itself. Because of these fundamental properties, He created the Universe in accordance with rational laws and principles, even if that same Universe seems quite strange and random to us, His Creation. By attempting to understand, however poorly, the structure of the Universe, through scientific inquiry, we come closer to understanding the work of God, and therefore we come closer to understanding God Himself.

        The history of the early Church is filled with examples of monks from it and its various orders working under that guiding principle to greatly advance human knowledge and happiness.

        The Church is not without its flaws and should rightly be criticised for those. But the idea that Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, is anti-scientific, simply does not hold water. Do a bit of close examination of history and you will quickly realise that it was the heresies of Christianity – starting with Arianism, carrying on with the Cathars, and carrying on into the Reformation – that moved away from this idea that God is rational and truthful and gave Mankind free will, and toward the notion that the Universe is purely deterministic and therefore any attempt to examine it is heretical.

        nobody else could have because the church had a monopoly on books

        Yes but did you ever stop to ask why this was the case?

        The Church did not have a monopoly on all books, by the way – only on Bibles. And that was because, by about 700AD or thereabouts, the material hitherto used to create books, papyrus, was no longer available from Egypt. And the reason for that was because a bunch of unwashed camel-humping heretics under the banner of the “prophet” of Islam had conquered Egypt by then – thereby cutting off the supply of the most important and widely available writing material that Europe had access to.

        The only alternative, which was vastly more expensive and time-consuming to produce, was parchment, which was made using animal skins. Since Bibles were being produced well over a thousand years before the advent of the Guttenberg Press, every single Bible had to be transcribed and copied by hand, which made any given copy of the Bible incredibly valuable.

        It is for THAT reason, and no other, that copies of the Bible were chained to the pews of the churches. The loss of even a single copy meant thousands of man-hours of devoted labour gone to waste. And when the Church was forced to use parchment instead of papyrus, the value of each individual Bible went up astronomically.

        Any reasonably fair reading of history will show that it was not Christianity that held Mankind back and retarded scientific inquiry. It was Islam that did this.

        Like

  7. Joe

    Yet another column defending yourself from Peterson…..yawn.

    Who’s right is up to the reader but one thing is certain, he’s living in your head rent free.

    Like

  8. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 05.15.18 : The Other McCain

  9. joe stalin

    Peterson is something of an authority on the human psyche, but not the only one and while his grasp of the ‘human condition’ is manifest, his message is simply this; ‘nosce te ipsum’…know thyself, then one can better know others.

    Like

  10. Daniel Ashman

    Mr. Piggott seems to imply there is a Jew conspiracy that Peterson is “afraid” to touch.

    Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Israel has, you know, lots of Jews. And American Jews voted for Obama, two times, while Obama strongly helped Iran.

    Pretty funky Jew conspiracy!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Giuseppe Pezzo Grosso

        Do you think Jewry is a united force?

        It’s not a conspiracy nor illegal to discuss Jewry. Just as it’s not a conspiracy to talk about Iran.

        There is a Schism within Jewry and we’re watching it play out right now, in fact Jews are attacking Jews within the ADL and AJL, actual physical confrontation over USA policy towards Israel, and yes even Iran. The current analysis that the Trump and Israeli administrations are using to make these rather rash and desperate geo political moves is going to back fire on them. Being that the analysis they’re using to justify these decisions are incorrect. Not that Obama was correct either.

        Obama was taking the side of reformed Judaism which are more liberal faction, Trump is taking the side of Chabad, which are conservative, or as a Haaretz journalist has asserted the Israeli government is ALT-Right. I find it quite amusing, all these chickens coming home to roost. All the different money interests. Even the flopping splashes of WASPy Atlanticists.

        Yes, Peterson is a dishonest coward, as he can’t even talk honestly about a simple subject such as the IQ of Jewry. Little alone could Peterson talk honestly about the geo politics of Israel or Iran. Peterson is not paid to do that, in fact an honest analysis would cost him his job, though it may honestly help his pay masters to do so.

        As MarkT and David Ashman have displayed a little game of ignorance, which seems quite deliberate on both your parts. Quite a pathetic show actually, you both must have a similar moral foundation and IQ as Peterson.

        This is why Israel and Zionism are losing, the superiority complex, mixed with not enough moral skin in the game, see you all come up short. Even with all that power of propaganda, and more numerous third generation military projection. Hell, you can’t even sort out a professional restrained border force.

        The stagnation is setting in, before 5th generation warfare can be invented by western powers.

        Shocking is it not that it’s now dawning on the American WASP’s and Jewry elite that China and Russia may surpass them, with Iran ruling over the middle east. For that is what its really about.

        In the future those that have been disposed of our ancestral birth right, we will take it back and make our great great grandfathers proud. Nor will we abuse the power we were dispossessed of, as the current crop has so wilfully done.

        So mote it be.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.