Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth.

Reddit View
July 27, 2018

Post Information
Title Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 4
Comments 194
Date 27 July 2018 03:25 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
Dalrockthe red pill

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (20 children) | Copy

"What bothers Peterson is not that PUAs are dishonest, but that their honesty offends our cultural assumption that women find chivalry to be sexy."

[–]zboo1h167 points168 points  (34 children) | Copy

I get the feeling with Dr. Peterson that he holds his tongue on some things about how he truly feels. I also get the feeling that no matter how well-intentioned he is, he's still a boomer who is too out-of-touch with the current sexual marketplace to give really accurate advice.

He does have plenty of good things to say, his biblical lectures are wonderful as is maps of meaning & personality and its transformations. I really think he's just out of touch, in short he doesn't know how bad it really is.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (5 children) | Copy

I don't know, on his latest Joe Rogan appearance he talked about how many men are raising kids they aren't aware have been fathered by other men and how little it is spoken about. He also talked about how women will marry the beta but regularly cheat on him with alphas, and that it's incredibly common - far moreso than anyone would have you believe. He made it sound like an epidemic.

He gets it more than you think. I think the difference between TRP and JBP is that his primary concern is the children, whereas ours is ourself.

His message to incels and beta males is also very TRP. Personal responsibility, sort yourself out, stop blaming the world you pathetic sack of shit.

I think the reason TRP clashes with him is that his ultimate conclusion is that monogamy is the way forward for all of us. But that's because he's more interested in what's good for children than any of us are. Also we forget that he met his wife when he was a child - that's got to have a big impact on how you view monogamous relationships. It must be pretty wild to meet the love of your life so early on.

Also JBP lays into PUA, and I have to say I agree with most of the things he says about that community.

[–]Turkerthelurker6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

But that's because he's more interested in what's good for children than any of us are.

I think that's the crux of any conflicts between JP's beliefs and TRP. He is advocating for what is best for a stable society, while TRP doesn't care about society - it is merely a discussion on the dynamics of the two sexes without imposing morality on a given topic. This very point is summarized in TRP philosophy of "enjoying the decline", whereas JP would find that sentiment to likely be shallow and nihilistic - which can lead to apathy and/or depression (he is a psychologist after all).

That is not to say that one shouldn't enjoy the decline- if you can enjoy it by all means do. Many don't enjoy it, though. Many would argue that the culture can be changed, and for the continuation of Western society, must change.

[–]Helpcalculus3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

They did meet each other early, but she labeled him as beta. Only in their late twenties they got together. It wasn't the Disney story. It was a typical everyday example of oneitis.

[–]jontycampbell3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yes thankfully he manned up a little more and cleaned his own room!

[–]jontycampbell2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

We have to remind ourselves perhaps that both JP and his wife are products of their upbringing, parents genes, epigenetics and close knit -dare I say it- 'traditional oriented' north Alberta, austere in winter small towns. JPs love life has clearly worked for him due in no small part to his wide range of life bluecollar experiences, early exposure to adversity and austere spartan living. You have to develop a certain stromng character and mental toughness to benefit from that.

And of course both are pre-web and largely pre IT proper - generation. He never had to deal with the corrupting effect of smartphones on young women he dated with 24 hour buffet of suitors a man competes with today.

[–]Leadcels0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think his solution is a better long term solution, as opposed to the temp fix of the TRP, but i think you have to go through the journey of TRP before getting to the other side. Im saying this as someone who hasnt fully experienced it but is starting to already see the benefits. My problem is I have some unusual asymmetry and jaw issues. Once those are fixed and a few enhancements. I believe it will be night and day, no more gymcel coping.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers0016 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

You’ve definitely got an accurate read

[–]McDongoloid[🍰] 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy

Human nature doesn’t change

[–]ssj4kevin53 points54 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, but the environment in which it plays out does.

[–]Rollo_Mayhem34 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

My sense is that throughout the last half century women have had slutdom on hyperdrive, and probably for a period late sixities and early seventies...hippie culture and drugs turbocharged that shit even more. ..there was a backlash for a moment but i think after clinton stuck his cigar up Monica's pussy...the gloves came off..or some other pun that i am not going to think of...

[–]HeresRickGrimes9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Social media and instant gratification culture has only exacerbated it

[–]JonathanMekerset4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, it's just their hypergamous nature was unlocked when all traditional values were abandoned.

[–]Luckyluke233 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

in short he doesn't know how bad it really is.

this is true becuse he's too old now to be going threw it like most of us are.

[–]WillSalt2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I like his self-help stuff but so much of the other stuff he says is wishy washy. His wording and relationship to the word truth is very postmodern for someone who hates postmodernism.

[–]jontycampbell0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Which is ironically allowed in PoMo... ;-)

[–]lapeparoja2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Agree, he has many things to be criticized for. But, 90% of the criticisms he receives (including in this very own subreddit) steam out of jealousy of the spotlight being robbed, or fear of loss of influence, whatever the fuck that means.

[–]darkkramer245 points246 points  (118 children) | Copy

I think Jordan Peterson has far more understanding of the truth about women than anyone who has to visit this subreddit. He has read all the literature and has worked as a clinical psychologist and professor, it would be foolish to just generalize him as a whiny beta for something not so accurate he has said once. He’s obviously just careful with his words about female behavior because it’s a risky subject, although he did drop a truth bomb recently talking about hypergamy with Joe Rogan who got pretty uncomfortable. It’s not that he doesn’t understand women, he does in my eyes, he just has a different viewpoint about what is beneficial and brings value to people. I also like to think that a healthy and well crafted LTR with a good submissive girl would be more ideal than fapping off into sluts from Tinder like many PUAs tend to do. The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism while stopping shit from breaking loose, while many TRP followers don’t really care to do anytying about the radical feminist changes in society and just adapt to the new climate out there to get laid

[–][deleted] 113 points114 points  (62 children) | Copy

Yeah exactly. Rollo calling him blue pill is a joke when he just doesn't have the same understanding of human behaviour as Peterson does.

He understands the field of play better than anyone here and has actual evidence and studies to back his opinions on which for anyone with any sort of statistical background is worth infinitely more than the anecdotal evidence Rollo and people here base all their beliefs from.

His main argument for marriage is that monogamous societies were developed as a way to control male aggressive which was detrimental to society (think Elliot Rodgers, that's exactly why a lot of successful societies were monogamous). On top of that, enforced monogamy (via cultural standards) is also the best outcome for the children as kids growing up in a household with married parents outperform other kids all else controlled for. Men are happier, women are happier, children are happier.

Why does he have 'blue pill' opinions? Purely because he has historical and statistical evidence for them which is more than any of the endorsed contributers here can say and seeing as he's openly stated hypergamy in women is what separates us from chimpanzees and has driven our evolution and that women date "across and up", for me that's the definition of being 'red pilled'. His understanding and knowledge goes beyond understanding just enough to be able to sleep with women and conduct advantageous relationships with them.

He considers the bigger picture and really knows exactly why feminism and hypergamy is damaging to society and men sleeping with lots of women because they can is contributing to the same damage being down.

Obviously for the individual man it's completely in your self interest to just not marry, spin plates, maybe conduct a tight LTR with a well vetted woman if you want kids but that is just conflicting with society's best interest, and he's not saying people shouldn't be allowed to do that because he's libertarian, but his opinion is objective and not from an emotional basis.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat32 points33 points  (34 children) | Copy

I think JBP definitely gets human beings mostly, but his morals prevent him from considering the darker aspects of us, and thus understands human beings less than TRP.

For example, he gets hypergamy in its standard definition (women trying to date across and up the hierarchy) but he fails to appreciate the darker aspect that is AF;BB. Women are attracted to men higher on the dominance hierarchy yes, but they are sexually aroused by a whole set of hyper-masculine cues including what you'd consider morally reprehensible: narcissism, violence and potential for violence, psychopathy... dark triad traits. PUAs are guys with an eye for pattern and a goal in mind unshackled by morals and thus learned to display the dark traits that get women attracted. JBP cannot accept this in the context of his morals, so he makes the same moral judgment than traditional game opponents: PUAs are "fake" and "vile" men "manipulating" women. At no point will he consider the possibility that maybe PUAs have simply learned to sell what women want to buy.

With red pill awareness, we know that maybe one day JBP's wife could cheat on him with some guy who earns less money and is less famous than him, aka lower on the dominance hierarchy. The other guy would simply need to be, say, some exciting and exotic foreigner with perfect game and dancing technique she met while she's away on a conference trip in Mexico, and she could fall for this contextual alpha because tingles. And JBP will be at a loss trying to explain this despite all his knowledge of human behavior. He would cope out of an explanation saying she was "manipulated" without wondering why she was so prone to such kind of "manipulation".

I personally feel that JBP is "red pill light". Looks like red pill and tastes like red pill at first sight (and that's why he's a nazi for the establishment), but looking closer it's missing all the not-so-pretty truths of the red pill so it is more PC than pure red pill (that's why it appeals to the same base - boys - but much much more successful than TRP since it doesn't clash as much with boys' pre-existing blue pill beliefs). Remember that the term "red pill" was originally used to describe the disturbing truth about women's sexual strategy and why Game works so well. Difficult to call JBP redpill when he discards Game as simply manipulation.

Still, I think JBP is a largely net positive for boys in this now-fully-feminized society and completely support him. But I do hope that the boys he manages to raise into healthy, masculine and responsible men will, at some point in their development, discover Rollo and TRP so that they don't grow up with the deadly blue-pill expectation that women should respond with kindness/respect/understanding to their achievements.

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (6 children) | Copy

Watch from 1.42.00 for around 2 minutes. He describes the concept of AF/BB so I have to wholly disagree with you that he doesn't understand it. Watch slightly before if you want more red pill material and understanding of women's sexual strategy.

His disagreement isn't morally based, it's with how it breaks down society, it's not good for children. That is the crux of it.

If you watch more of that video you can tell he is very careful with what he's saying and Joe Rogan steers away from the AF/BB discussion as soon as it happens because he's a cuck raising another man's child. Jordan Peterson is more red pill aware than anyone on this sub, he is just smart enough to know he can't be pushing that agenda.

[–]cumfortably_dumb33 points34 points  (2 children) | Copy

he is just smart enough to know he can't be pushing that agenda.

This sums up the discussion.

[–]1-Fidelio-7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

That conclusion actually supports the idea to not listen to him for advice in this regard.

[–]cumfortably_dumb12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yes, and clearly he isn't giving advice on being better with women. He is giving advice of being a better individual. I think most of the people get stuck with the terms he throws around and not focus on axioms he proposes or promotes.

[–]FOODYUMONION5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're right. Something I always remember him saying is he is extremely careful choosing his words

[–]SpiritualCherry1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

From the video: "People want things to be binary, they want them that way so they can understand more effortlessly" when talking about the gender pay gap. Funny how that applies to red/blue pills.

[–]BigLittlePenguin_13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think JBP definitely gets human beings


, but his morals prevent him from considering the darker aspects of us, and thus understands human beings less than TRP.

You are obviously not familiar with Petersons work. He falls in line with Jungian psychology and he often speaks about the human shadow and the unspeakable things human beings can do to each other. In his early years he was examining prison inmates. He knows what is deep down in everyone of us, probably better than most people here do. And by the way, to say that TRP people understand people better than a psychology professor who was teaching in Harvard as well is just pure arrogance...

I think its funny that he is getting such a harsh treatment here, just because he sees the world differently, which is his good right. When it comes to human sexuality, he is a classic conservative, because he knows, through years of studies, that this is what is best for the offspring and the society overall. In one of his lectures he speaks about the tremendous negative effects sexual promiscuity and ever changing sexual partners have on the human psyche. Just because most TRP guys think they can and should "whore around" because "that is how the world is nowadays", doesn't mean it is the best thing to do from a psychological perspective and it most certainly doesn't mean that there is a deeper understanding of the world in play

[–]valery_fedorenko 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

I think JBP definitely gets human beings mostly, but his morals prevent him from considering the darker aspects of us, and thus understands human beings less than TRP.

As a psychotherapist who also spent years studying the most horrendous regimes in history he has probably considered objectively more and far darker things more deeply than almost any person, TRP or not.

My theory is that after having seen the worst of the worst he's simply committed to fighting it on a macro level no matter how futile.

[–]WholesomeAwesome1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

nihilism or puts you on a mission to fight it.

You're right. It definitly increases the incidence of both.

[–]yuube2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

I have to say after listening to some of his lectures dealing with murderers in prison and how he put himself in the mindset of what they did to see if he could do it and teaching about how it takes a lot less than you think I have to point out how completely wrong you are.

One of the main reasons I like Jordan Peterson is that he is very knowledgeable on the exact topic of the dark side of humans, that’s why his class taught all the people that thought they were noble super hero’s that they too would have been nazis if they were born in the time period.

To be honest your response is an obvious one from someone who hasn’t seen his better work outside of what gets mainstream play, the dark side of humans is one of his greatest areas of knowledge and teaching.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

How much does he talk about the dark side of women?

[–]yuube2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

He knows everything, I’ve heard him talk about women decimating men’s lives in the court systems, I’ve heard him talk about the me too movement how sometimes the women are the manipulative ones sleeping their way up the ladder, not the men. I’ve heard him talk about hypergamy, I’ve heard him talk about women hitting the wall and becoming bitter bitches. Obviously we’ve all heard him talk about the social science movements and feminism and how he thinks they are a deadly ideology socialist ideology pretending to be a noble one. To be honest if you name it he’s probably talked about it.

The difference I see is in approach, people like here in the red pill learn the reality of what’s going on and position themselves to take advantage of it, Jordan Peterson knows the reality of what’s going on but he actively tries to tamper down the crazy because he thinks it’s causing a reaction of polarization that will lead to the destruction of society.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Interesting. You'd have links for a few of these?

[–]yuube0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Certainly, here’s one about the court systems against men, give it a full listen to hear his whole opinion cause he often times plays devil advocate with himself, it’s only a few minutes long, I can find any other topics you’re interested in as well if you’d like.

[–]AlexanderTheBread6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

A big part of TRP is that we don't talk about it outside of this circle. What would happen if we tried to! Shit won't go down well. But imagine we talked a very light version of it, kind of what JBP is doing. That's still tough for the general population to swallow, as we have seen. IMO, JBP knows all this stuff too, but he's making an easier sell by toning things down a lot.

TL;DR don't conflate what JBP projects into the world with his more private knowledge and beliefs. Not that we know anything really about these private thoughts, but it kind of comes out sometimes a little bit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's exactly my point, he's already getting demonized for speaking 'truth'

that's the reason why he shuts up about these things, I've noticed from discussing truths with people, most tend to want to ignore the reality and make their dream land or fantasy be true.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This makes sense, because obviously he's pretty smart, and a smart person would know that going around preaching TRP concepts on interviews isn't go to sit well at all with a large number of people, and you wouldn't be "famous" for very long. With TRP Its a hard pill to swallow, and one that can be easily defined as "misogyny" etc when taken on the surface.

[–]Luckyluke231 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Difficult to call JBP redpill when he discards Game as simply manipulation.

true.. but if you marry your highschool sweetheart do you even need / have game?

[–]JonathanMekerset-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

His high school sweetheart has probably cheated on his ass more than once tbh

[–]darkkramer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

One of the fundamentals that he puts extra emphasis on and is well educated and versed on more than most is the Freudian concept of the human shadow. This is about dark aspects of man and he has been thinking about it and studying it for decades. He has said time and time again that the nazis weren’t fundamentally different from the rest of us to make that point

[–]DeeplyDisturbed10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I personally feel that JBP is "red pill light"

Okay. Then good. Maybe that is what some men need in order to take more steps. One thing at a time. He has a place in making things better - you just don't understand what he is doing...yet.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

prevent him from considering the darker aspects of us

Nah, he has considered MANY dark aspects. He just favors options that are more likely sustainable in the long term.

[–]JonathanMekerset-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

because maybe they support his current lifestyle and go hand in hand with his hamster

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

No sure what is wrong with his current lifestyle. He is in the top 1% of guys so he can afford to find rare females.

[–]JonathanMekerset0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

He's married. That should explain everything.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

You are too bitter for your own good

[–]JonathanMekerset-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

Accepting reality isn't bitter, it's called being smart. That's part of being red pilled.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

The reality is that some rare women can control their impulses. Expecting it is not smart, but assuming 100% of them don't is just bitter.

[–]Nergaal4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

he's openly stated hypergamy in women is what separates us from chimpanzees and has driven our evolution and that women date "across and up"

Many TRP have a hard time understanding this. Ethnic groups who practiced this the longest are the ones that gave rise to the most developed societies. The others remained in a hunter-gatherer society.

[–]TheLongerCon-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

That is unscientific rubbish.

[–]AllTheDevilsAreHere_2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

monogamous societies were developed as a way to control male aggressive which was detrimental to society.

Where does he say this? It's impossible to know for certain, but another factor that needs to be brought up is the management of wealth between generations.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I posted an article in reply to another comment.

Here is a video where he touches on it, but he also talks about it in a lot of other questions.

"Once you let polygamy establish itself the men get ultra-violent".

[–]Harcerz1-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think he refers to anthropologists who say that.

For example here:

...In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses....

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet10 points11 points  (13 children) | Copy

The slow, steady advance of technology is what eventually killed monogamous societies.

There is no solution that allows you to get monogamy back by rolling back technology.

What's worse: morons like Peterson don't have a plan to get monogamy back. Their plan is to use you as their personal tool to fight a cultural war so that his children can benefit from it.

If you believe Peterson and his misconceptions, you are his sacrificial lamb. Tradcon will not save you, much less society.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think the advance in technology was a part of it, but I think the main reason monogamy was killed off is because of the liberal attitudes of the British Empire and their overreaching effect on society today. The British Empire was the most liberal superpower at the times, being the first to ban slavery, enforcing that through Europe, giving women the right to vote, letting them work etc. and this slow, unstoppable change in each generation getting more and more liberal has broken down monogamy. Clearly the British Empire has had huge implications on how European countries and America have developed culturally.

Enforced monogamy is essentially being looked down on by all your friends and family and peers if you were not monogamous, this is a very anti-libertarian point of view because you should be able to sleep with who you please.

Peterson is very libertarian and would not for a moment suggest people shouldn't be allowed to do as they please, hence why he was so against the bill forcing people to refer to transpeople by their preferred title despite being perfectly happy to call them whatever they would ask of him because he disagrees with the concept of forcing people what to say. His only point is it's damaging for society - which it is - and there is no solution and he doesn't act like he has a solution and he doesn't have an agenda. He just talks about how things are.

Out of interest, what are some specific misconceptions you think Peterson is guilty of?

[–]Doulich2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

rolling back technology would bring back monogamy simply by removing our massive hierarchical structure and laws that enforce and enshrine the female prerogative.

right now the 80/20 rule exists because 80% of guys have no way to get any sort of monogamous relationship (women won't consent.) if we roll back technology and by extension our legal system it would be rather easy for a significant portion of that 80% to just resort to violence to enforce monogamy.

regardless of how many action movies you watch or how many MMA classes you take one "uber-alpha chad" isn't typically going to be able to win against 4 guys with sharp rocks, so 4 guys kill the plate-spinner and redistribute the four women he was dating among themselves.

Farming and technology massively reduced the effective male population size when it came about because kings used logistics to mate with thousands of women

[–]SelfTaughtPiano1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

/u/HumanSockPuppet, just as a thought experiment:

Would you say the ideas of Jordon Peterson are more applicable in societies currently making the transition between culturally enforced monogamy towards western sexual revolution?

I'm talking societies like urban India and Pakistan and Vietnam and such. These aren't slut havens yet, but the upper-middle class is definitely transitioning from where the west was in the 50s to where the west is today, culturally speaking in how much they allow female slutdom.

Would a person living in these societies stand to benefit more from tradcon or TRP?

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

This is a thoughtful question, but it's not well-formed in the sense that it cannot be answered. You're comparing two things that don't really have an axis of comparison.

Tradcon is a set of categorical imperatives (fancy Kantian term for "should because it's moral"). TRP is a set of observations, coupled with hypothetical imperatives (fancy Kantian word for "should if your goal is to...").

Thus, TRP is beneficial if you have any of the goals it talks about how to address. It is useless to celibate priests, lesbians, dogs, and Limited Liability Corporations.

Tradcon isn't beneficial to the person practicing it. It's for making that person beneficial to certain others, usually ones in big hats who claim to have a direct line to the gods.

[–]1durtyknees0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Tradcon isn't beneficial to the person practicing it. It's for making that person beneficial to certain others,

This is the best definition of tradcon I've ever come across.

It's "communally" beneficial when everyone's doing it, but even then, the concept has no tolerance for variety/deviations, because to deviate means you've stopped contributing to "the greater good" of mutual domesticated stagnation.

One thing all tradcons have in common is that mindless fear of change/ unwillingness to adapt --- whether within their own relationships, or as a collective. "If we can get enough people to backpedal hard enough, things will be just like the good ol' days!"

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yes. Tradcon is sexual communism. It isn't as unworkable as economic communism, but like the economic kind, it only works when everyone is a good communist. It can't lure people to the proper behaviour with individual benefits. Instead, it needs to use fear of punishment to force people to follow a set of rules.

This makes it inherently autocratic. And so tradcon communities, like all autocratic communities, are brittle because they have no way to adapt to changing terrain.

When individual people are able to deviate, then populations effectively explore different kinds of adaptations to changing circumstances. Autocratic societies can't do that, because exploration is ruthlessly rooted out and punished.

This is why evil white imperialist eurocentric civilization colonized and destroyed all those beautiful traditional native brown people cultures, instead of the reverse.

Because libertarian societies explore many different possibilities to find what works, and become stronger. And authoritarian societies stay weak because they murder their best thinkers for failing to beat drums at the rising of Nomo, as their ancestors did.

[–]TheLongerCon-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Because libertarian societies explore many different possibilities to find what works, and become stronger. And authoritarian societies stay weak because they murder their best thinkers for failing to beat drums at the rising of Nomo, as their ancestors did.

lol wut? The rest of the post makes good point, but I don't know anyone who'd describe Europe as libertarian. The reason Europe was able to conquer so many places is because it was almost in a constant state of war for hundreds of years, during which it pushed the gun powder technology farther than other civilization. It was in fact massive state military expenditure that lead to the technological edge that granted Europeans dominance. In fact, during this time period many of these European countries had to develop system to tax and raise the funds for the their war.

That along with diseases, and a lack of certain animals like the horse in the Americas.

[–]Luckyluke230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

ok my question from this is..

can we save soceity from it's self?

or are we doomed to live in this shit for all eternity?

also how do you see thing splaying out in the next 10 years or more? (IE: what will feminsums end game look like?)

[–]WholesomeAwesome0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Their plan is to use you as their personal tool to fight a cultural war so that his children can benefit from it.

Doesn't sound bad at all. Not everyone red pill is a pure degenerate

[–]Hugh_Munghous0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

There is no solution that allows you to get monogamy back by rolling back technology.

He's pointing out that it's happened. I don't think he seriously believes it's going to be "rolled back" all of a sudden.

>If you believe Peterson and his misconceptions, you are his sacrificial lamb.

Oh no, I hope I didn't spend all that time on the sort of self improvement that Dr. Peterson advocates for nothing. I may have accidentally wasted my time making myself a more fit, better adjusted person.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Oh no, I hope I didn't spend all that time on the sort of self improvement that Dr. Peterson advocates for nothing. I may have accidentally wasted my time making myself a more fit, better adjusted person.

That's not the flawed part of his mantra.

It's the moralizing. It's the self-help jerk-off veneer. He sounds like so many concern trolls I've nominated for banning.

In the linked video, Peterson complains about "psychopaths instrumentalizing language" to achieve their goals. It doesn't occur to him (or perhaps it does occur to him, which is worse) that he is himself "instrumentalizing language" by declaring pickup artists to be psychopaths in an attempt to impugn them.

Now, pickup artists may not be the best examples to follow (their methods are incomplete, which is why TRP evolved beyond the seduction community). But their methods have been field tested and they demonstrably work.

And here comes Peterson painting a proven strategy with his own moral brush.

We are results-driven for the sake of the individual. He is process-driven for the sake of abstract principle.

[–]Hugh_Munghous1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

We are results-driven for the sake of the individual. He is process-driven for the sake of abstract principle.

Well, you're partly right because you've touched on something important. The methods that PUAs use do work, but women are reviled by the concept of PUAs, and that's because on some level they realize it's beta males gaming the system by employing alpha tactics in a contrived manner. (Put simply, a true alpha would use PUA tactics naturally without having to think about it, whereas a PUA seems less legitimate because he is employing these tools consciously. This offends peoples' sensibilities for reasons you and I both probably understand and we don't need to discuss here.)

Peterson is "process-driven" because he believes that that process leads to results, so he is results-driven in a way. As for "abstract" principles," the same argument could be made: traditional values and "abstract" principles exist and persist for a reason. At TRP we already understand why people like Peterson advocate things like monogamy and traditional marriage (same reason it's persisted as an institution for so long): if we don't give the beta males wives then they get disgruntled and become incels and start killing people and they're generally not very productive in society. These are the real world results of the "abstract" principles he's talking about.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The slow, steady advance of technology is what eventually killed monogamous societies.

No, the RAPID advance of technology did that. Culture has not had time to efficiently integrate those technologies. Culture will become depraved for a while after Tinder was invented before people realize it's an unfulfilling option.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -2 points-1 points  (6 children) | Copy

monogamous societies were developed as a way to control male aggressive which was detrimental to society

Holy shitballs this is the opposite of what's true.

Are you suggesting men are all just mass murderers waiting for a woman to fix us?

Monogamy was a control put onto society to reward men for producing more than they consumed. It was a way of keeping men productive.

His understanding and knowledge goes beyond understanding just enough to be able to sleep with women and conduct advantageous relationships with them.

Somebody here hasn't read the sidebar, and yet he purports to know better than everybody else here!

[–]valery_fedorenko 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think your two claims are contradictory. Violence was higher in non-monogamous societies because a significant portion of men didn't get to mate (which tends to make men angry). This also hurt productivity. Monogamy optimized for both the aggression and productivity issues.

I don't think anyone is saying men were sitting around waiting for women to fix us.

[–]Harcerz11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah it was also guys with partners who became less aggressive and more productive after monogamy was normalized. Mr Trump from 3000 BC ended up with a primitive knife in his back after fucking one wife too many - this obviously impacted negatively his productivity. And wherever Brad Pitt from 3000 BC arrived, men stopped working and started plotting how to murder this handsome bastard who may impregnate all their women. When monogamy is enforced a man with a wife is no longer a threat.

[–]180423690 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Come on, that's just a complete strawman argument and when I'm completely happy to debate it's just counterproductive to discussion to say I said something I didn't say and then exaggerate that to make it sound ridiculous.

Clearly not all men are mass murderers and women do not 'fix' men. The point is that men have a strong survival instinct to have children and in a society where there is no police force and laws and social conditioning stopping men killing each other for women, cases like Elliot Rodgers would be more numerous which is objectively counterproductive and it's clearly better for society to give males access to having children to stop violent outbursts. There's more discussion on this in the link below which states the argument for this better than I can.

On your point of monogamy rewarding men, the world isn't black and white and I agree with the point you made although it's not the singular reason for monogamy as mine isn't as well.

On your point about the sidebar, I think it's wrong to treat it as a dogma when in this day and age it's too controversial a topic to be completely rigorous in the same way statistical research is and the evolutionary psychology is sketchy at best in terms of the approach as to why it's true, although the truth probably coincides with the conclusions the sidebar makes (which is my belief hence why I follow this sub).

Aside from that, being a mod you know better than anyone how the the sidebar is not a good reflection on the sub as most users here definitely have not read it all, understood it, and internalised it. Many endorsed contributors have criticised the state of the sub in recent times so your point saying the sidebar disagrees with what I said isn't contradictory to the point I made about the sub as a whole.

For the record I'd like to say I don't think I know better than anyone on this sub, but I'm saying Peterson probably does given he's an academic in this sort of field and I was just pointing out criticism on him from red pill sources if often from ignorance. He knows the same, if not more, information and has just come to different conclusions, that doesn't make him blue pill.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Monogamy was a control put onto society to reward men for producing more than they consumed. It was a way of keeping men productive.

It was a way of spreading around the pussy. Genetic studies show that when we made the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, it went from about half the men reproducing to only a very few men monopolizing all the women. So this means we went from a likely quasi-monogamous/quasi-polygamous social order to a few landowners with harems.

Obviously a society like this would be incredibly unstable. Introduce religiously enforced monogamy that gives men a reasonable chance to get laid again and your society suddenly becomes a much more stable powerhouse.

[–]BigLittlePenguin_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Monogamy in the past had several reasons:

-ensure that a lot of men get a women. Large populations of men who dont have a women are not happy and tend to do contraproductive things like being criminals

-reduce the spread of sexual disease. If you dont whore around, especially in a day and age that doesn't know condoms or meds that actually help, you largely reduce your risk of having severe health issues or even dying of an STD.

-ensure that the offspring has a higher chance of survival. When a men is there to take care of the women and the kids, the likelyhood that they make it into adulthood was utterly important, especially in times where countries fought a lot of wars and bodies where needed to fill the lines

[–]gbdoragnic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

> He understands the field of play better than anyone here

Based on the way he talks that is a negative

> Yeah exactly. Rollo calling him blue pill is a joke

Blue pill isn't a insult, Rollo was spot on, he is not RP

> His main argument for marriage is that monogamous societies were developed as a way to control male aggressive

Men aren't animals, and if they start acting like animals hopefully they get shot, violence isn't cool, I grew up with much less than Elliot , and without his looks, he choose that path, had nothing to do with male aggression, 99.9% of men are good for society and even if they don't have sex they won't turn violent.

> . His understanding and knowledge goes beyond understanding just enough to be able to sleep with women and conduct advantageous relationships with them.

So does every form of knowledge including PUA, RP, ect..., we all know how to get what we want.

[–]AllTheDevilsAreHere_8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism while stopping shit from breaking loose

This is where I wish I could take Peterson to task. How does "culturally enforced monogamy" deal with the eventual Pareto distribution of sex and relationships? Also, how exactly does this manifest in society? Hypergamy doesn't care, bucko.

many TRP followers don’t really care to do anything about the radical feminist changes in society and just adapt to the new climate out there to get laid

I agree that many guys are simply Enjoying the Decline, but there are others who are engaged in the discussion and are sharing stories, perspectives, advice, etc. Sure, they can't get on some mass media network and speak their thoughts to the masses, but they can make connections with guys and help them navigate these hyper-feminine times. I think the rapid growth of this group is a testament to the fact that there are men out there who want to challenge the current narrative.

[–]Nergaal1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

How does "culturally enforced monogamy" deal with the eventual Pareto distribution of sex and relationships?

People are wired to strive for higher status (females desire higher status males). Culturally enforced monogamy puts pressure on females to not get out of their position in their own hierarchy, as a likely alternative makes the undesirable males turn violent. Romance novels fulfill that need via fantasy, and like most fantasies, they generally remained at that level - but satiates the thirst for that hypergamy in part.

[–]cumfortably_dumb0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

How does "culturally enforced monogamy" deal with the eventual Pareto distribution of sex and relationships? Also, how exactly does this manifest in society? Hyper-gamy doesn't care, bucko.

He understands the pareto principle and has mentioned it on numerous occasions in his lectures and interviews. He mentioned the same in Joe Rogan's latest podcast. Women have sex outside marriage thats how they deal with it. He is not in for enforcing monogamy by law but why principle.

And you speak of Pareto principle, how are you going to deal with the celibates that it will create.

[–]KazarakOfKar4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism while stopping shit from breaking loose, while many TRP followers don’t really care to do anything about the radical feminist changes in society and just adapt to the new climate out there to get laid

Which is Ironic as hell given how he preaches about individualism, but pushes for societal changes which benefit society as a whole rather than changes that give men more choices.

[–]reluctantly_red3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

pushes for societal changes which benefit society as a whole

He's a very typical Canadian conservative. They are not at all like their American counterparts. I'm the same age as Dr. Peterson and grew up in the same part of northern Alberta (we even went to the University of Alberta at the same time). His general outlook on life seems very normal to me. He just articulates it better than most.

[–]DeeplyDisturbed12 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think Jordan Peterson has far more understanding of the truth about women than anyone who has to visit this subreddit. He has read all the literature and has worked as a clinical psychologist and professor, it would be foolish to just generalize him...

Came here to say basically this.

Even if he is not 100% TRP compliant, Peterson is one of the best things to happen to Western men in a long long time. Weed out what doesn't work for you. He cannot answer every question. That is not possible, so stop expecting it.

[–]Luckyluke231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism while stopping shit from breaking loose, while many TRP followers don’t really care to do anytying about the radical feminist changes in society and just adapt to the new climate out there to get laid

i think thats just the boomer in him. I think he can remember a time when it still existed. most of us can't

[–]zboo1h2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism

Yes, this. This is why I think he's out-of-touch, he thinks such a thing is possible without a massively violent cataclysm.

It ain't.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

I think Jordan Peterson has far more understanding of the truth about women than anyone who has to visit this subreddit.

I know, right? Picking up chicks is psychopathic isn't it?

But really I think anybody who makes that comment doesn't know anything about women, getting laid, or what the sexual market place looks like today.

The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism

That genie will totally fit back in that bottle.

[–]darkkramer15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy

Come on dude, I may not be the #1 chad on here but I’m obviously not that stupid. I’d rather follow RP advice and do my best to plate sloots than try change society myself. Just not necessary to call smart old dude who knows how women function fundamentally the #1 beta male. I don’t know if I would wanna live within Peterson framework but I dig how he’s trying to make change in the public opinion and wouldn’t complain if there actually was a world that respected men when I’m old

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

It is incredibly important to call a spade a spade. The entire idea behind unplugging is to view reality as it is without bullshit rose glasses. If he truly knows how women function why would push tradcon down your throat.

You want fantasyland medicate yourself with prescribed amphetamines and enjoy your vidya & netflix. Have fun marrying some broad and have her take all your shit when your fat lazy ass gets taken to the cleaners by her & the state. Go on & say I did everything I was sposed to do boss what happened to me.

You’re still fighting the fact we all live in upsidedown clown world. Its what we have man. Recognize how to win in the environment and its still somewhat terrible but you can squeeze some goodness and enjoyment out of it all.

Peterson has some good strategies ideas and advice. He also has some shitty advice that doesn’t reflect how the world really is. He can be extremely helpful to many lost young men. He and his message is just a tool for your growth, not a dude whose cock you slobber. Only cock worth worrying about getting slobbed is your own. Now you can take out some ribs and do it yourself or find a way to have someone else do it for you.

[–]darkkramer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

My ass never getting fat and my stuff never getting taken, bet you a million bucks. And all of that sounds far too boring to be my personal fantasyland

Seriously though I am more unplugged now than I had guessed you could be, just trying to be optimistic to some degree. Wouldn’t blow my mind too much if people finally got tired of radical leftist feminism in 40 years and started saying ”men are ok”. For now, I’m all about squeezing that small enjoyment out,

[–]Jake_le_Dog12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy

You guys used to support him when he was newer around the manosphere. Some ECs claimed he was covertly red pilling western society. I'd still agree with that point. He's trying to revert the landscape by changing public opinion to more conservative views. It's better than spiraling down into anarchy and trying to "rise from the ashes" with invading culture and values.

You all grew tired of the man having all these retarded followers. And you project his fan-base onto him. The guy's alright, and I think he's figured out the way to spread parts of "the red pill" to a wider audience. It's just a biological fact that only a relatively small portion of men can be alpha. And so a majority of men will never swallow the whole pill. They just can't handle the truth. We've got to realize this little fact.

Now, all I see is you trying to find anything you can muddy him with. You, Rian, GLO, and all the elitists have a bias towards the guy, and I hope you at least acknowledge it to yourselves. Respect for your proven worth, but you guys got a weird collective unconscious going on that you guys mostly maintain elsewhere from the sub. And I can see how when one of the "friends" answer with criticism in the comments, the others with a badge to their names fly in to repeat the same idea, like a horde of JBP fans-- yes, I'm comparing the elitist group of ECs to JP fans. And now part of your echo chamber is an anti-JBP idea. If he weren't as popular, you lads wouldn't have ever changed from your initial opinion of him.

You guys have major points. I have issues with the way he 'brainwashes' my beta friends into stupid pseudo-scientific ways of thinking. But I actually blame these beta-friends for being stupid to just bow-down, and roll over for the all-new hamster deal. That's just who they are: the majority; the followers. At least they're no longer proud feminists.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy

It is a strange insecurity shown by the men here who have contributed so much to so many men's lives by running this sub and giving their insight. Everyone here respects them, they don't need to talk shit wrongly about Peterson to prove their worth.

[–]Jake_le_Dog-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Seeing the upvotes on my comment makes me think that maybe some JBP cultists are upvoting my comment, but not as much as yours. I'm thinking maybe my comment has a bit more controversy in the cultist's eyes, so less upvotes. But it's not the upvotes I'm actually concerned with, it's that the ECs are correct in assessing that this stupid cult of followers have really just stepped into a new ideology, and blindly follow the group with their actions and thoughts. They see something they like, they group in... Mainly, they follow The Peterson of course.

If you are reading this ECs: I'm suggesting that JBP is a good stepping stone into the world of truths, we can try to step in at the right time, after a follower has opened his mind up a bit, and try to let him realize JP avoids certain truths, and that there's deeper into the rabbit hole. I think longer ago, that's just what we were doing. -- This isn't an attempt at concern trolling, I just don't know how else to write this; my opinion is just my opinion, and I realize I don't have any particular merit to my internet-name(not yet).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

He's still partly plugged into the matrix, but he's definitely a net positive to the movement. I can't see how anyone here could actually think he's bad just because he doesn't align 100% with their ideology. It's like communists trying to purge each other for being Trotskyists or Leninists.

I don't hate MGTOW or incels. All groups of the manosphere essentially diagnose the same problem with women and society. It's just in our reaction of what to do about it that we differ.

Red pill: Accept reality and try to smash as much puss as you can.

MGTOW: Accept reality and retire your cock.

Incel: Accept reality and try to overthrow the established social order and institute a new one in its place (or something? I actually don't really know what they want).

Tradcon: Accept reality and try to turn back the clock to 1950.

Just because I disagree with MGTOW, incel, and Tradcon on the best way to deal with this shit sandwich doesn't mean I hate them. They are still useful allies.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

Honestly I don't know what your problem is and why you're so angry about some of the things being said.

No one has said picking up chicks is psychopathic, you're strawmanning again. On the macroscale it isn't good for society, however individually, anyone who has a problem with it does not follow this sub.

I'm not saying the genie will fit in that bottle, Peterson isn't saying the genie will fit back in that bottle, but what he wants and what he thinks are different things. His view on society is that it's collasping, the complete opposite to thinking that the genie will fit back in that bottle.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

No one has said picking up chicks is psychopathic

You didn't read the article, or watch the video. JP himself says this.

[–]Harcerz15 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

When someone is using someone else as a tool to reach a goal, that's rather psychopathic. It may be a woman lying to her unsuspecting boyfriend that she is a virgin and she will always be loyal only so he marries her and she gets his wealth. Or it may be a man lying to someone about this new financial opportunity who is really looking to make money off of suckers. Or a man lying to some woman so she will fuck him.

[–]2virusofthemind2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I've just finished Jordan Peterson's "Maps of meaning" and I have to say he's one seriously smart guy. It's heavy reading but even reading it with a critical slant there's nothing you can pull the guy up on where the science is concerned.

Like anything else; take from his work what is useful and mine the gold which runs through and apply it to your RP journey.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That genie will totally fit back in that bottle.

It always does. This isn't the first time it's happened, it probably won't be the last.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think Jordan Peterson has far more understanding of the truth about women than anyone who has to visit this subreddit.

Of course, his extensive experience with women speaks for itself.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Guys guys Jordan Paterson aka my internet daddy who tells me to wash my penis is more reputable because he's an establishment figure who the establishment likes and therefore we should listen to them.

I'm also gunna post my endorsement of the establishment in the dissident community called the Red Pill.

I find nothing stupid about endorsing the establishment in a dissident community. Also btw u guis TradCon is the wai.

[–]darkkramer9 points10 points  (8 children) | Copy

I know better than to act too cocky and smart around GayLubeOil but seriously where in your ass did you pull ”Peterson is establishment” from? We’re talking about intelligent frame master dude who stands behind young men here, not the Clintons and George Soros

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy

The establishment is comprised of two wings Liberals and Liberal Conservatives like your internet papa Paterson and his penis pal Prager from Prager University.

The antagonism between the two wings is a false one and your caught in the middle of it. This is Red Pill 101.

Your eating a Matzo sandwich with Peterson Goy meat in the middle.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

I think politics is a little more complicated in reality than red team vs blue team and the winged representation isn't really very helpful for understanding what is actually going on.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm going to have to assume you aren't American, because here any attempt at nuance is met with violent resistance. We just had an election where the winning candidate's own party had an open and vocal "Never Trump" movement.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

You're right.

It is crazy how far behind America is on a lot of things like education and law and politics when the USA is leading economically and the fact it got down between Trump and Hillary shows how much of a joke the system is there and how ignorant many Americans are on it.

Some guy I met at uni here is American and he's very educated in world history and his opinion is that the average American is quite a bit behind the average European and around 60-70% of Americans are just bonkers, obviously I can't comment never visiting but the representation you see online and on reddit is poor which is a shame because it gives a lot of Americans a bad name which don't deserve it and are more understanding on nuances than the loud majority.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

average European

It won't be too long from now that you won't be able to actually recognize one of those.

[–]logicalthinker1-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

Exactly. If you think politics isn't nuanced, then it's time to graduate from 8th grade and at least move on to high school. Maybe in 8 years, you'll start to become more perceptive.

[–]Aquila4760 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There's no meaningful nuance in today's politics. That's a high school perception of politics or just sheeply tardling self-congratulatory sophistry. The choice is between dry smeared shit and fresh hot shit.

[–]logicalthinker1-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you don't even know what "the establishment" means or refers to, then this subject is too complicated for you.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet-1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy

I think Jordan Peterson has far more understanding of the truth about women than anyone who has to visit this subreddit.

But not more than any of the men who run this subreddit.

We've dealt with guys like Peterson before. At best they are naive fools. At worst, they are manipulative con artists with a plan to have you fall on a sword on their behalf.

If you do decide to take Peterson's advice to heart, be sure to let us know how your great crusade is going. We can always use a good laugh.

[–]darkkramer12 points13 points  (11 children) | Copy

Dude I’ve had some some respect for you, really thought you had better things to do than strawman a random teen guy in the comment section with some delusion about how a slight appreciation for Peterson is gonna mess my life up.

I was just saying that he has spent decades reading all the literature and knows all the science about how the two sexes differ, which is closer to the truth than the anecdotal observations that Rollo and the TRP sidebar is built upon.

Jordan Peterson isn’t a naive fool for not promoting Dark Triad PUA to the masses, he has no reason to do that as a 56-year old psychologist. Why would he? He does talk a lot about alpha males and why nice guys fail with women, which is RP enough for someone doing what he is doing.

Just because he might not have personal experience with or encourages machiavellian behavior for spinning plates it doesn’t mean he can’t have a more fundamental understanding of how the mind of women is made up than you guys do.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

I'm not an expert on Jordan Peterson. I've seen a handful of videos, never read any of his books. But I think you're missing something here:

JP is obsessed with the notion of social good, rather than individual good. His entire framework is based on what is good for society as a whole rather than the individuals make up that society. This is why he loves talking about how monogamous societies have an advantage over non-monogamous societies. This is perhaps true, but better for who? The individual? I don't think so. Certainly not the individual man? Going out to war for some king's dick-waving competition and getting an axe in the head while his wife back home raises kids and probably fucks the prince. Good for society - kids, defence, duty - but cuckoldry for the individual man.

The notion of chivalry gets talked about alot too. I have always wondered if chivalry was ever real or if it is a giant shit test on men propagated by a myth - literally, King Arthur is a myth and even his lady cucked him with Alpha Lancelot no matter how chivalrous he was. This is a myth, and it is designed to make men servants if not slaves to not just women but the elites in the charge at the time.

This is a hyper-individualized place. We believe in putting yourself first. Putting Ms. Perky Tits on a pedestal might be good for society, working yourself to death for 'government' or 'business' elites might also be good for society. But in neither case is it actually good for the individual man.

JP wants to somehow get back to monogamous societies so men can have kids and dutifully go to work to help society. It is nothing to do with not taking advantage of the individual man. In fact, that's exactly what he is advocating.

[–]darkkramer1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Jordan literally always talks about changing yourself for the better instead of trying to change the society. Watched many of his videos and he never says that anyone should protest or try to enforce societal norms on a larger scale, he tells people to be the change they want to see.

”Take a look at yourself for christ sake, what good are you!?”

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

Yes, but the object of this change is for societal good. The individual improvement is not taken to where it should be - improve yourself, damn the rest.

It's also societal good to have babies (whether they are yours or not is irrelevant) and to stay out of trouble and be a good boy fighting wars or working for the man.

Essentially, he advocates men to be better to help everyone else. Not themselves, as an end in and of itself.

[–]darkkramer1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Hahaha you’ve proved yourself not to know shit about Jordan Peterson as you said yourself

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Maybe. But I don't need a fake Internet dad.

He's fucking obsessed with gay-ass 'be a respectable man, earn good boypoints' shit and be a 'chivalrous faggot.' That's why he talks about monogamous societies being better than not. Not because the individual is better off, but because society is.

Dissident groups like here hate 'doing whats best' for society, because it inevitably results in men being cucked for some other group.

Men pairing up, and shutting up, is essentially his way of things.

You would do a lot better explaining how my assessment is wrong then being a beta-good-boy

[–]darkkramer0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I don’t have to explain anything to you just because you haven’t seen enough of his material, it’s not my job and I’ve already spent far too much time arguing about Peterson with nitpicking roid rage dudes. It’s only logical my first comment got 190 upvotes because I have a decent view on this stuff in some way

[–]JonathanMekerset0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Speak for yourself bro. I ain't about to get life-raped by putting huge amounts of emotional investment in a girl who can cheat on a whim and not face social repercussions. Unicorns don't exist.

[–]dkt2 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy

You can't revert society to that. U.S. government and economy is simply incompatible. Enough BP optimism. Look at the bigger picture.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

He doesn't think that you can, he just wants it to.

Why? Because society functions better with enforced monogamy and it's better for children, stop suggesting he's naive enough to believe his wants are one and the same as what he thinks is realistic.

[–]dkt2 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

Do you think romanticizing about something that is unrealistic is BP or red pill?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

No I don't, but I think romanticising is an inaccurate and loaded way to describe it.

He's an academic, his job is to think. More specifically he's a clinical psychologist, his job is to think about people and society. Unless being a clinical psychologist is BP by your definition then I fail to see the issue.

[–]WholesomeAwesome-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

No amount of data and intellect is going to guarantee against major intellectual fuck ups.

[–]gbdoragnic-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

> it would be foolish to just generalize him as a whiny beta for something not so accurate he has said once

Whiny beta is your interpretation of a perfectly fine human.

> He’s obviously just careful with his words about female behavior because it’s a risky subject

He has always stayed true to himself, this notation that he is simply careful with his words when he brings into conflicting view points is simply a excuse.

> he just has a different viewpoint about what is beneficial and brings value to people.

This is about Misunderstanding of PUA

> LTR with a good submissive girl would be more ideal than fapping off into sluts from Tinder like many PUAs tend to do.

PUA is a set of tools and ideologies about attraction, LTR are possible with the mindset.

> The main thing that differs him from Red Pill is that he wants to revert society back to the norms of monogamy and sexual conservatism while stopping shit from breaking loose,

Never going to happen, at least he understand what men love so much about feminism, easier access to sex, used to be you were almost expected to marry a women before sex, his views on casual sex or not TRP compatible and we aren't martyrs

[–]banthrow16 points17 points  (5 children) | Copy

The thing is JP is right. If you don't return to monogamy, your civilization will end in a couple of generations. Lets see an example:

1) Civilization A: liberal women, RP men. Hypergamy, plates, single mothers, etc.

2) Civilization B: Conservative monogamy, nuclear family, kids, somewhat oppressed women taking care of the kids.

What happen when civilization A goes to war with Civilization B? want to bet? damn right Civ. B will crush A, families are soldier-making machines. Civilization A don't stand a chance.

That's why Christianity crushed all other religions and rule the world up until today. They simply outfucked and killed everybody else.

Hypergamy and RP ideals produce no or broken families, kids without fathers, etc. Templar knights all came from huge conservative christian families.

[–]1iLLprincipLeS4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Currently, there is a very high birth rate in Africa and in Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3,1 in Muslim countries. Africa is projected to have 4 billion people, and MENA 1 billion people. Nigeria alone is projected to have 400 million people in 2050. In most Latino countries, there is a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brasil. Birth rate is positive in India as well. On the other hand, white female TFR in the US is 1.75, in Europe 1.5, in Canada 1.5. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in the event of race mixing, you will need more than 2.1 in order to simply sustain the white population at one level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who are having kids are usually non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborn and more than 38 percent of French newborn are already non-white. White female TFR is negative in all western countries. Therefore white people will disappear if they do not change their behavior.

In all feminist countries, you have negative birth rates that could lead to the disappearance of the native population if birth rates are not raised. Whites in the US are projected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies you have massive third-worldization, lowering of IQ, race mixing with blacks, conversions to Islam, etc. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden, is dying right now due to third world/Muslim immigration. Muslims are outbreeding Europeans in almost all European countries.

Barbarism, to paraphrase Lenin, is the last stage of feminism. Sparta, where women became very influential, died due to low birth rate. In decadent Rome, they were ultimately forced to tax single people in order to get them to marry and have kids. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire - low birth rates, people did not want to get married, men thought that women became unmarriable, infanticide, depopulation, extreme promiscuity, easy divorce, repeal of anti-luxury laws, etc.. Those masses of low IQ people swarming the Europeans are merely the symptom, not the cause. They are just like the opportunistic infection that takes advantage of an already weakened organism. The real cause though, is the weak immune system of the organism.

Luxury corrupts. Feminism is decadent behavior that can only occur in rich and powerful countries, who feel that they are not threatened by anything, and can therefore engage in various types of decadent behaviors that are actually weakening them. J. D. Unwin found that after a nation becomes prosperous, it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, he says, could be irrevocable. The British historian Sir John Glubb noticed that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilizations, before they collapsed. These are the stages of civilizations:

  1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).

  2. The age of conquests.

  3. The age of commerce.

  4. The age of affluence.

  5. The age of intellect.

  6. The age of decadence. (We are here. Decline could also be observed, as the western share of the world's economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region of the world). The age of Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness (for example by building border walls), pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, feminisation, the welfare state, a weakening of religion. Decadence is due to: too long a period of wealth and power. Selfishness, love of money, the loss of a sense of duty.

  7. The age of decline and collapse.

This is how feminism destroys itself:

  • It destroys itself due to its low, negative birth rates, leading to population decline of the feminised group. (You could clearly observe this in Europe, where there is Islamization going on and European cultures and peoples are dying). In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate are from countries that banned abortion (Argentine and Ireland). One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party (who wants to increase the german birth rate), is because they don't want to be mothers or to have more than one kid.

  • It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (dumb women have more kids, while smart and career women are often childless). For example 40 percent of German college educated women are childless. This leads to IQ drop. Right now the IQ of western populations is dropping, and east Asian students are now outperforming western students according to PISA surveys, with some eastern european countries now outperforming western countries as well.

  • It destroys itself because according to various studies, women are less xenophobic, and more foreigner friendly, compared to men. They will welcome everyone. In other words, hello refugee crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, willingly took more refugees per capita (who are mostly young single black and Islamic males) than anyone else in Europe. And many people are calling Germany crazy for taking lots of Muslim refugees. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of western converts to Islam are women, as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with blacks. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open the borders. Feminist groups allied themselves with muslims to protest against Donald Trump. Feminist groups such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot are also known to support open borders. Recently, it was found that British women travel to Calais to help refugees and to have sex with them in the "Jungle" migrant camp. This is happening in other european countries as well. Do you think that women in Europe do not know that it is mostly young migrant males coming in?

When low IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ "Give me, Give me, I'm Victim" people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won't find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything.

Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.

In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jews) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed – whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes. So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group.

Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females don’t care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open it’s borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group.

All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.

[–]1OneRedSock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The age of decadence makes sense. I have for some time believed that atheism is a luxury.

What resources do you recommend to read more on these topics?

[–]IdontmindIdontmind0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So what are y'all going to do about the parts of society aiming to erase the female gender?

[–]SeyiDALegend28 points29 points  (1 child) | Copy

This sub needs to understand that being openly 100% Red Pill is not pragmatic if you're in the public eye. Jordan is doing just as much good for society as this whole Red Pill community put together nowadays. This isn't about being right or wrong but doing our best to stop society falling into compete anarchy one step at a time. Stop treating him like the enemy for God's sake. I can excuse a few blue pill moments from Dr. Peterson while he navigates the minefield of public discussion on controversial topics under the watchful eye of the left wing media.

[–]banthrow4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Actually JP said exactly that in the munk debates. Today's society is more about being right than being effective. He's about being effective.

[–]citizennoname14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

So I have no idea whether Peterson is right about these guys, but I don't think it would affect what he was trying to say if he were completely mistaken. He's trying to say something about honesty and the use of language in psychological context and he grabbed the closest most engaging example to use that he could find. He wasn't making a point about "PUAs".

I'd been an agnostic for six years of high-school living in a fundamentalists baptist home without telling a soul on earth. I came across Jordan Peterson and he convinced me that telling the truth to my family was the best thing to do , , , and it was. He brings his real point out when he says "you have to decide to begin with whether of not you are willing to risk the consequences of the truth." And other places he indicates that the truth will turn out better, but usually not immediately.

I don't know or care too much about Jordan Peterson's sociology, he's not a sociologist. But as a psycho-therapist he's great. And here he was making a psychological point about being completely honest. It's a good point.

[–]Luckyluke237 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

for all the good Jp does, it's hard for him NOT to see " puas" in a bad light. the dude married his high school sweetheart.

the concept of fucking women when you can and never having a "family" is a foreign concept to him.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy

What's with the weird obsession that the mods and seemingly most of the endorsed and above contributors have with shitting on Peterson?

Not just pointing out where he's mistaken or expanding on his points but out and out maliciously attacking him.

Remember a few months back where (what seemed like) hundreds of people for 30 days bans for professing support towards JP in the first Peterson sticky?

The normal output for mods and contributors is of such a high standard, yet where Peterson is concerned it is such an obvious contrast it's bizarre.

It looks like the message is conflicting with the "core" trp message of enjoy the decline and providing an alternate message of "fight the decline"

The seemingly bizarre and reactionary response to this alternate message is very strange.

There is a massive blindspot amongst an overwhelming majority of Men towards the bad behaviour and danger of Women, a visceral reaction even to the very thought of this. TRP is the acknowledgement of this.

I don't think TRP and JP are mutually exclusive. If we lived in a world where everyone cleaned their room and had their shit together, Women would not change. TRP would still exist, it would just manifest differently, instead of fucking you in a nightclub toilet on a Girl's not out, some married chick would instead give you her number and you'd fuck her 3 weeks later when her husbands out on a conference.

Quantitatively the outcomes of Women's excesses would be less, but relatively still the same.

[–]modTheRedPike[M] -7 points-6 points  (5 children) | Copy

Remember a few months back where (what seemed like) hundreds of people for 30 days bans for professing support towards JP in the first Peterson sticky?

No I don't remember that. I do remember banning people for concern trolling or throwing tantrums because their shiny object was being questioned. It seems the message was received, given the much better tempered comments in this thread. Well, except perhaps you?

[–]Jake_le_Dog7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

Was that "Well, except perhaps you?" necessary? I don't see op concern trolling.

You're intimidating a member for his use of free speech to criticise you guys. It looks like an abuse of power to me. It's not the first time I've seen it either, though you mods were protecting an EC then, which is okayish, or at least it's loosely defined that it can happen in this sub's rules. But to intimidate based upon opinion is too much.

I too have criticised you guys in my previous two comments on this thread. Will you ban me for questioning the sincerity of authority's intentions on this sub?

[–]modTheRedPike[M] -4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy



You're intimidating a member

Does he need a hug?

criticise you guys.

He is welcome to attack the ideas until his last breath. Go nuts. That's not what is happening here. That is not what happened in the last spergathon. He is whining about the sub. There are plenty of other people disagreeing with OP in this thread that are not banned. If you can't see that, then it would be pretty clear you are not acting in good faith here. And this is when I get intimidating again so you might want to hit speed dial for mommy--that's what gets people banned.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I am working on a more indepth response to it

[–]modTheRedPike0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


[–]EscapeTheGoat7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

Look like as much respect as I have for Peterson as an individual man and academic (he's a very good psychologist in many ways). I think he's naive. A large contingent of people worship him and while he does have some good points, he really doesn't get it. Chivalry was built for a world where everyone's life was super shitty and women basically had to have a lot of children just to keep humanity going. The world has changed. Chivalry has stayed and become the shitstorm that is the feminine imperative despite the great advances we've made in science and technology and healthcare. It's time to throw that shit out the window. This to me is the crux of RP, and this is what Peterson doesn't understand. He's a dinosaur.

[–]tommycanyouhearme1230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Are you making up your own definition of chivalry? That's a popular thing these days. Chivalry: the medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code.

[–]SelfTaughtPiano0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Where does he advocate chivalry? Genuine question

[–]HeresRickGrimes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think he has a larger deeper point which is that if shit hits the fan and society collapses, we would naturally revert to a more traditional society. So it's naive to throw it out the window since it's the default state we would find ourselves in. Traditionalism really only survives in the absence of secularism which itself is possible due to a few factors one of them being existential security as you mentioned. But it's in no way a guarantee. The world is changing and this century will bring both technological marvels on the one hand and global systemic problems on the other. I think the larger sociological problems that societies will face in this next century will actually lead to a resurgence of religion, culture and identitarian politics on a larger scale which will make traditional conservatism more and more attractive to large segments of decaying societies.

[–]MrMelbourne5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Virtually ALL social interaction has an element of manipulation where there is a need to be met or a want to be fulfilled.

So men figure out a way to interact with women in a given context and seek to get sex from women (of their choice) with the greatest chance of success in a reasonably short timeframe with the least amount of resistance and an outlay of relatively few resources.

It shows that men are good problem solvers, innovative and can apply themselves to a given task with intent.

This should be applauded; no?

All women have to do is turn, look attractive and not be overly disagreeable. Being that women are the gatekeepers to sex and men want sex, can men be blamed for doing what they do when in fact it is the most natural thing in the World?

Perhaps the condemnation from the likes of Peterson comes from the fact that PUA(s) have figured out ways to circumvent the traditional/biological/psychological/cultural hurdles that women (and society) place in front of men so that sex comes at a higher "price" and more has to be done in order to "earn" it.

[–]Throwaway123515153 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Peterson isn't a bad guy and his lectures are enjoyable, but he seems to advocate for a level of watered down stoicism that just isn't realistic anymore. He advocates for the "good man" tradcon image of the hardworking christian guy with a big happy family but to what end? Does he think the good ol' American christian family with good moral values exists anymore?

Society is heading in a far different direction, and refusing to adapt to that is asking for suffering. If you think the type of guy who Peterson is advocating for is winning at all in modern society, you're sorely mistaken. Because as traditional and morally aligned as you are, you're still going to end up raising a family with a washed up Liberal Arts major who's taken 10+ dicks in her "experimental college phase" alone.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Bang some sluts and have some fun. That's just agency in my opinion. No use preparing your psyche for some dreamlife that will never actually happen.

[–]JonathanMekerset4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Can someone tell me why this scratchy voiced pedo lookin dude who still believes in marriage (lol) is considered a representative of the manosphere

[–]BostonPillParty2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Doesn’t mean he has nothing good to offer those who live in disarray.

TRP + JBP = a much better live, for me personally

[–]Mr-Ed2093 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

The criticism I have of Peterson is his idealism in literally every topic he broaches. He does a good job of criticising and shaming beliefs which don't line up to his traditional conservative mind set. The rather patronising way he talks about young men needing to grow up and adopt responsibility - as if it's something they never realised was possible before. It's typical boomer rhetoric, but he fails to address why such a decline is happening in society and seems to just brush over the now huge economic inequality which exists. He's not living as young person today, attempting to forge a way in society and dealing with stagnant wages and sky high property prices.

And likewise with women. He's not a young man existing in the dating sphere attempting to find a LTR in a slew of ever ageing promiscuity. He can't appreciate how dire things have gotten. The economic landscape has changed massively and it's affecting how we date and pair up. Women have been granted access to jobs in the face of equality but we never considered it's effects on hypergamy. In the days of old when men had ALL the money things were arguably more equal between the sexes. Women had their privilege from birth and were expectant to become good mothers; men in society were respected because they built the roads and held all the resources. In those days chivalry made sense - because women were capable of viewing men as something with tangible value.

All PUA's tactics revolve around value creating schemes for men. Which in days gone past weren't all that necessary given the inherent way men previously were granted value in societies (and women's) eyes . But in the current landscape, having game and some understanding of these things is essential for any man who wants to protect themselves from polygamy, cuckoldry and whatever else is out there.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's too bad since homeboy says a lot of correct stuff but misunderstands this one key matter.

[–]red_matrix2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't he can explicitly say much since the media will crucify him (well, they already are).

[–]TRPDigesting4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

While I'm not inclined to say he's deviated TOO far from it, it's worth noting that this video is from several years ago.

JBP has been through the ringer on debates with lunatics lately, and he's spoken about how it's had a huge effect on how he's able to articulate himself.

He doesn't have a fully red perspective, but at least he's one of the only figures in media that actually has something halfway useful to offer up for men.

I guess the fact that he's as popular as he is (in spite of his argumentative flaws) is just evidence of how starved men are for anybody to step forward with something that resonates and empowers us (rather than stuff us back into our box).

[–]SeasonedRP1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It is a sad commentary on the state of modern education that people actually think Peterson is some genius who bases his views on science. For those who don't understand statistical methods well, and who have a limited math background, read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff, a bestseller in the 1950s. You'll see why the supposed science Peterson spouts is nonsense, though that is unsurprising as psychologists aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in academia.

And the other commenters are correct-he is a BP Tradcon.

[–]Wholesomeloaf1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

TRP is to understand the world for what it is. JBP clearly understands TRP, he simply doesn't believe that is the way the world should be. The "culturally enforced monogamy" is what he believes is the best solution to what he perceives as a societal problem. Then again, I don't think he genuinely believes it will ever happen, in his life time or the next. All his media suggests he's simply going around in circles and he's probably just riding out his new-found exposure for that $$$ retirement in a decade or so at this point. He appears sincere in his efforts though, I'll give him that.

Yet he's one man doing a much better job at "improving society" than we are. He's helped countless individuals get over their "I hate this world, it's so unfair" pussy mentality to actually getting their shit together. Meanwhile we're all here trying to get our dicks wet as often as possible, resigning to the fact "The world is the way it is. I'm in this for me and me alone".

Imagine he were preaching TRP values and attempting to unplug the millions of people his media reaches. First, we don't try to unplug others. They need to unplug themselves. And second, imagine if every single other person was aware of and swallowed TRP - can you? I don't think it works like that. It's a paradox. If everyone unplugged from the Matrix, the matrix would no longer exist, and therefore there's no line to draw between BP and RP. Everyone would be RP and I'm not so sure that works. Societal hierarchies whether SMV, economics, physical strength etc will always operate on the pareto distribution. You will always have those at the top, and those at the bottom. What's the alternative? It starts with a C and ends in ommunism and it's what the radical-left want. We all know how bat-shit crazy those folks are.

He's just one man telling individuals how to better themselves while also explaining how societies and humans in general work and why we're going in the wrong direction. No one, including JBP, has any viable solutions. Take what resonates with you (including stuff in this TRP sub) and ignore the rest.

[–]hearse2232 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The comment section is where the best content is located

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

Jordan Peterson is such an awesome source of material. I am able to articulate so many fresh insights just by pointing out where he is wrong.

It may be time again for me to issue the whole Tradcon movement yet another public beating.

[–]SteelSharpensSteel1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Quite honestly, if people don't learn to think for themselves, and make up their own mind on JBP, TRP, philosophy, you, me, etc, they deserve all the triggering that you give them.

I mean crikey, the ECs basically announced it to the sub (if you pay attention) on the last JBP post and what they were doing.

May many fish jump into your boat for the next one.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRuleZeroDAD3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I love the "ban bait."

A seasonal purge is always necessary. Just be dismissive of the morality of a thing, and you immediately suss out the guys who can't think critically.

The comment section on posts like this is always hilarious. I mean I've learned Rollo is stupid, Whisper is pedantic, GLO is too binary, JBP has more knowledge about women than those in this sub (never mind a n-count of ONE), and RPS knows nothing about the origins of monogamy.

The spergs are literally saying "my dad can beat up your dad(s)."

Fucking glorious.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Was chivalry ever not a myth? I haven't looked into it, but I've always thought it was a giant shit test based in myth. In this case, literally King Arthur. But even those tales talk about chivalrous men getting cucked - Sir Gawane comes to mind, to say nothing of King Arthur himself.

I can't fathom that JP would seriously advicate chivalry, considering it was never more than a myth designed to create babies (whether it is actually their's or not, is irrelevant to this goal) and have men fight for the king's dick-waving competitions like good little slaves.

[–]red_matrix1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

OP JP addresses some of your concerns about this on Goodbye to good men

[–]1DubbleFUPAwitCheez1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wash your penis gentlemen.

[–]Da_llluminati0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

sticky this all you want, it ain't getting above zero

[–]Zeparic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I've been out of the loop from TRP for a while and have on my off time watched quite a lot of Petersons videos. I agree with TRP in that he's promoting a losing battle, but I would really like to see an open dialogue from Peterson himself with this community, particularly with Rollo.

[–]ElOweTea0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Been saying this for a long time now, fuck Jordan Petersen.

[–]DickZinnendorf 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

Jordan Peterson is a leftist masquerading as right-wing. So he stood up to the trannies. Who cares. He spends too much time talking about sexual politics, and ignores more controversial issues like race and religion.

[–]Endorsed Contributorcholomite0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I followed his advice and now I have the cleanest cell in the whole gulag. Thanks JP!

[–]615bachelor-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

Jordan Peterson is a cuck pretending to be red pill. He shames pick up artist and tell them to “man up” and act like what they are doing is a bad thing. But he will never tell women to stop sleeping around with chads. I use to like him but once I watched more of his videos I realize that he is a trad con cuck who think wymen can do no wrong. Fuck him.

I know that may be harsh but I am tired of pozzed out faggots getting women the pussy pass. This is the reason that society is the shit show that it is today. If a pick up artist fucks a women then society just blames the artist for being a fuck boy but will never say anything about the women getting anal creampied by a different guy every weekend. This is just women’s nature. They want to fuck the bad boy Chad then get a pozzed out beta bug chasing faggot to foot the bill. But Jordan cucked out Peterson wants to tell man to man up.

[–]V1SoR-3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Can we change the main moderator? Clearly his views are not in line with the majority of this community.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFeralRed2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most of this community are lost boys looking for someone to tell them what to do, and how to have concern for "society".

This community tells you to live your life for you, not for whatever society tells you to do, and to reject the notion of some figurehead in the sky, or JBP tells you to do.

Think for yourself, realize anyone trying to change your behavior is sucking you into their own agenda. Don't be led around by the nose. Cattle. Might as well pierce your nasal septum so it's easier to attach the rope.

[–]JamzeNeu4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, instead, you can create another sub for discussing your views. You're free to do so, go ahead.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think you understand how this community works. We are a organic male hierarchy, the sort of thing that promoted humanity from monkey status to walking on the moon. RPS is at the top of it. If there are any changes it will be by him, not us.

[–]makemewiseredpill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Sounds like you mean we are captive (at least within this subreddit). An organic hierarchy would have the potential for a new alpha to come along and dethrone the old.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Aristocracies existed for a reason.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter