Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth.

Jordan Peterson tries to morally condemn pickup artists without condemning fornication:

Peterson ends up twisting himself in knots, so it is possible that he had something profound in mind but wasn’t able to articulate it.  The closest he comes to a reason that pickup artists are immoral is to claim that they aren’t communicating in an honest way.

Even this doesn’t work, because pickup artists are in fact quite honest in their communication with women.  The women they are hoping to attract are looking for an exciting bad boy for no strings attached sex.  Through both their words and nonverbal communications, pickup artists are very carefully signalling that they are aloof jerks offering no strings sex.  If the pickup artists in question were really boring loyal dudes hoping to lure hos into matrimony, they would indeed be communicating in a dishonest way.  But they aren’t.

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

H/T Nick Mgtow

Related:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Game, Jordan Peterson, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

379 Responses to Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth.

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    Though I kind of liked the things Peterson said when I first heard him I started getting the feeling that he’s not really a “hero for men” beyond that he was bothered by the situation men are in, but he never seemed willing to pull the trigger on actually doing the things that put men back in authority over society and their relationships as a whole. This post cements my feelings further that he is still just a piece of the academia machine, he’s just the squeaky wheel right now. This blog post by Adam Piggott, in which he criticizes Peterson (and Peterson eventually responds directly) has helped me to see Peterson with a little less of the rose colored glasses, if you dont mind me posting it.

    https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2018/04/28/not-only-is-jordan-peterson-not-an-alpha-male-hes-a-member-of-the-left-intelligentsia/

  2. Gaza says:

    Clean your room, sort yourself out, just be yourself. Got it.

    His feminine framing is a leftists/cuck tell.

    Women dislike game/pua in the same way as Peterson: its a “lie” to present something you are not.

    That is reserved for women jumping from the carousel.

    Anything that obsscures or impedes a womans right to sort thru men (extract resources) to maximize her dualistic mating (bad boy fux and beta bux) approach is morally wrong.

    Peterson cant escape his leftist nature. Nor can he risk his status, as affirmed by the leftist religion to which he subscribes.

    So while the overton has shifted such that he finds himself at odds with the totalitarianism inherent in his religion, he is only willing to go so far.

    At first, he was railing at the beast in earnest. I think his “crisis” with his church redpilled him, but like many of his ilk, the ultimate pain of losing his ego investment and status steered him away from hatefacts and back into the purple pill of approved opposition.

    Plus, The purple pill is much more profitable. His crisis gave him FU money. Hes not burning his ships anytime soon.

    Expect more contortions and doubling down on the state of messy rooms, peter pans, and how to build better betas. All with the occasional jab at the mouse while the elephant in the room trumpets and smirks.

  3. The Question says:

    “The women they are hoping to attract are looking for an exciting bad boy for no strings attached sex.”

    This is the crux of the issue. The notion that women are seeking a “good man” and somehow get tricked into hooking up with Harley McBadboy is laughable. It’s like saying you were looking to buy a 1968 Camaro but somehow unknowingly found yourself behind the wheel of a 1970s Citroën 2CV – and it’s all the car salesman’s fault!

    Yet the charade goes on because men like Petersen are terrified of telling women they bear some responsibility in the situation.

  4. Pingback: Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth. | @the_arv

  5. Minesweeper says:

    well, this is one of dalrocks blindspots. as a happily married man with kids in an still intact marriage, he just cant see the possibility that awaits other(many) men.

    nor what has become of them. your a lucky man sir, the rest of us, have to feed amongst the wolves and to pay extortion all to just see our kids.

  6. Gaza: “Women dislike game/pua in the same way as Peterson: its a ‘lie’ to present something you are not. That is reserved for women jumping from the carousel.”

    It’s early days yet, but I nominate that for Best of Thread.

  7. seventiesjason says:

    Women don’t dislike game. Women are the ones who feed it and keep it going

  8. feministhater says:

    Peterson did some good to bring this all to the forefront, however, he cannot and will not place blame on women for their problems and instead demands men clean our rooms and be better providers for the damsels in distress. He cannot fathom that women are the ones who like the system as is, that they actually want to be deceived and then still be able to blame men.

    He places blame on men manipulating the very system that manipulates men, he doesn’t like that some men figured out how to game the system to their advantage and abuse it. Instead of realising that the system itself is damaged and feeds off of good men, he decides instead to ignore the bad system and go after the men who figured it all out.

    PUAs still peacock but at least they realise the game is a fraud.

  9. Wraithburn says:

    The thing to understand about Peterson is pretty well encapsulated in his forward to Maps of Meaning, which you can read in the preview on Amazon.

    In it, he talks about how for years he was a socialist. He eventually found himself disillusioned with this ideology, but the conclusion he states in the forward is that it was not socialism that was the problem. Instead, it was ideology in general.

    Peterson’s mission is to remove ideology.

  10. feministhater says:

    Just realised that Jordan Peterson and his newly found flock will never, ever fix the problem. They’re like controlled opposition that still believes in the fairy tale of equality. Thus all their solutions will likewise be full of hokum as they will never, truly engage with the core of the problem: rebellion.

    Eventually women will turn him to their whims and men will become disinterested in what he has to say; as they start to see more and more of his ‘man up’ rants but no reprimand from him for the bad behaviour of women who use and abuse the system to their advantage..

    Why is Peterson upset that PUAs would rather game the system, not commit and get what they want without the effort; does he not realise that this is exactly, the epitome of what women have been doing for ages? Women have gamed the institution of marriage, of dating, of commitment and then eventual divorce, all with the foresight to garner resources from men they didn’t earn without having to pay for them or stay within the confines of marriage like their grandmothers did.

    In effect, he’s blaming PUAs for realising that the social contract has been destroyed and that it currently is run to defraud the man who enters into it.

  11. feministhater says:

    I will be nobody’s fool, Mr Peterson.

  12. Anon says:

    Jordan Peterson is ultimately just another Tradcon. That is why the hype around him is absurd.

  13. princeasbel says:

    I’ve linked this video before, but for anyone still deluded about the wonders of pickup artists, they are a SCAM. Feel free to say women want easy sex and they’re just as sinful as men- fine. But PUAs lie all the time. This video is just one good example of that.

  14. Frank K says:

    So while the overton has shifted such that he finds himself at odds with the totalitarianism inherent in his religion, he is only willing to go so far.

    Peterson reminds me of Bil Maher, who likes to act very red pill, yet drinks the leftist kool-aid by the gallon,

  15. earl says:

    Jordan Peterson tries to morally condemn pickup artists without condemning fornication

    This type of man bashing will continue as long as there’s people out there who think women never sin. And when it comes to fornication, they are just as involved.

  16. feministhater says:

    Peterson is merely Yesterday’s Leftist.

  17. Frank K says:

    “but for anyone still deluded about the wonders of pickup artists, they are a SCAM”

    They’re simply one side of the AF/BB coin. Promiscuous women are the other side of the coin.

    Real alphas don’t even have to try, the women throw themselves at them. I’ve seen this with my own eyes, women literally running after Chads, begging for their attention. Wannabes have to twist themselves into knots with “game” and typically have to settle for fat uggos, if they reel in anything at all.

  18. feministhater says:

    Excellent comment by Gaza up thread! He’s got the FU money, he ain’t going to rock that boat no moar.

  19. Stan Vinson says:

    In defense of Mr. Peterson, he is a leftist so he cannot call a whore, a whore. Condemning the PUA (a man), on the other hand, is perfectly okay.

  20. Frank K says:

    This type of man bashing will continue as long as there’s people out there who think women never sin. And when it comes to fornication, they are just as involved.

    I’d say that they’re more than merely involved. They are the gatekeepers of fornication.

    I have heard it said that when a woman meets you, she decides within seconds if you’re attractive, in other words you will either give her the tingles, or you won’t (and if you’re average you probably won’t). Granted, not all women will then fornicate based on those feelings, but many will.

    And many, if not most men, do not give women the tingles, hence how the term “incel” has come to be the modern equivalent of leprosy in an age where sex is supposed to be free and easily available and the World Health Organization has declared that “Failure to find a sexual partner is now a disability”:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/723323/Sexual-partner-fertility-disability-World-Health-Organisation-IVF

  21. Christopher says:

    The comments on youtube.com for the video are even more interesting than the video. I do not think most guys are buying what he is selling.

  22. Gaza says:

    @seventiesJ

    Women dislike anything that (a) reveals or even acknowledges aspects of their actual nature that may be construed as unflattering; (b) interferes or complicates their ability to sort out male heirarchy; and/or (c) enables men to know their actual value (let alone improve it and take action informed by that value.)

    IME, game aware women will reveal one or more of these objections straight away when the topic comes up – even indirectly.

    Further, awalt, when it comes to men knowing their value. A man knowing his value is really what is behind thre effectiveness of dread as well as the core of preselection.

    They are conflicted (shocking!) because they need that masculine confidence that largely comes from high internal value to generate tingles but they also hate it because it means he has options.

    They may like Game/pua tactics because it can generate confidence and other signals of status in men, but knowing that the signaling can be inauthentic upends the benefits of more “confident” men in the pond.

    I hear you on one front: women hate Game and PUA like they hate when their man spends long hours at the office or gym. Meanwhile they love men with toned arms, high incomes, and who are “successful” and “confident”.

    People in general dont like to see how sausage is made. And women want fried ice.

    But The game/pua issue is hated because it is disruptive to the primacy of the female sexual strategy, their ability to spot weakness or lack of fitness in potential mates, and the mental lubrication they need to keep the hamsterwheel going.

    Women dont really want men to man-up, not if it means stocking the pond with fake alphas. A similar perspective is how we see this play out in how women would rather share top men (no-strings, ons, Tinder) than take a chance on an unproven man when she is young. Again, Tingles>marriage.

    This preference is revealed in what concerns women the most about game/pua. You’d think their worry would be solely about the LTR/marriage/betabux prospects faking it, but its more perverse: they are more worried about giving up a ONS to a fake alpha than they are about some mid-level engineer faking a couple of alpha streaks on the way to the alter.

    This is simply because the modern woman values tingles more than marriage. By the time they are “ready” to change lanes, any fake alpha is just gravy. The settling is already baked in; whether its cane sugar or splenda is mostly irrelevant by then.

  23. SnapperTrx says:

    I’ve said before that you are either playing the game well or not, but you are always playing if you want sex. Why? Because this IS a game, and women are ALWAYS playing. They play for keeps and they are ruthless.

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Frank K: I have heard it said that when a woman meets you, she decides within seconds if you’re attractive, in other words you will either give her the tingles, or you won’t (and if you’re average you probably won’t). Granted, not all women will then fornicate based on those feelings, but many will.

    Actress Lena Headey (Queen Cersei on Game of Thrones) : “We’ve all had that moment where you look into someone’s eyes and there’s some kind of recognition there, whether you act on it or not.”

    As quoted on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0372176/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

  25. Oscar says:

    A consistent, coherent world view is a blessing, and impossible to construct without an objective, eternal point of reference (i.e., God).

  26. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A man with game is like a woman with fake boobs.

  27. seventiesjason says:

    Most men who practice Game as a lifestyle or how-they-interact-and-deal-with-women usually are the ones who seem to care what women think. Seem to care what they want. Seem to want to play the intricate hop-scotch of what makes female sexuality tick. Seem to care about what women want….while at the same time religiously-fervently telling everyone “they don’t care what women think”

    And that to me borders on the absurd.

    Maybe that’s my problem, or always was. I just took things at face value. My parents did. The successful dating relationships I have witnessed have also behaved like this.

  28. seventiesjason says:

    I have heard women say that RPL. They usually decide within a few minutes of meeting a man if he is date-hook-up worthy of her time.

    Seen it over the deaceds first hand.

    “But looks don’t matter! Looks don’t matter! Women only care about personality and if they are funny!” (sarcasm)

  29. Hazelshade says:

    In the video, Peterson said the PUAs have a “psychopathic” goal when they go to a bar trying to convince women to have sex with them. Considering that men trying to convince women to have sex with them has been natural and realistic up until now in human history, I think Peterson using the word “psychopathic” here tends to undermine his point about using language well.

  30. earl says:

    Yes I’ve heard that too…but if women base their mate choices off of deciding within a few seconds…what happens when she meets the next guy that does that to her while she’s still with the guy who did it first?

    I think you know the term for this, guys.

  31. earl says:

    Real alphas don’t even have to try, the women throw themselves at them.

    Yes that was how I understood the difference…when I did the chasing it usually failed, when they chased me it succeeded. Same thing when it came to witnessing it with other men.

  32. Trust says:

    @: “The closest he comes to a reason that pickup artists are immoral is to claim that they aren’t communicating in an honest way.”
    ___________
    It’s laughable.

    While I have no respect for PUA, I cannot muster much contempt for them either.

    I also cannot fault their supposed “dishonest.” So, look at PUA tactics, and let’s see what they are being dishonest about:
    * Act like more of a jerk.
    * Act aloof and detached.
    * Always show up late or otherwise make her wait, to make her think you have more important things to do.
    * Only give her backhanded compliments.

    That’s only the tip of the iceberg. So, if men have to resort to falsely pretending to be a bigger jerk and less interested than they are, what exactly is their complaint? I’ve yet to hear a woman cry “I really truly thought he was a jerk, but he’s actually nicer than he let on?”

    If they were getting sex by saying “i love you” when they didn’t mean it, I would get the dishonesty complaint. But that is hardly the “deceit” you get from PUAs.

    It would be like an honest person getting a job by pretending to be a con man. Only HamsterCo would hire them.

    Of course, these same people are not only NOT bothered by women feigning attraction to get a man down the aisle, but they want the full power of the government to reward them for it with a house, lifetime alimony, and child support.

  33. Minesweeper says:

    honestly who cares about PUA’s ? they are very rare indeed – how many do you personally know ?

    the amount of females who spend **2** hours per day grooming them selves – hair, make up etc even at school – would surprise you.

    game is just male makeup. its meant to be fake, just like everything else it.

  34. Frank K says:

    It would be like an honest person getting a job by pretending to be a con man. Only HamsterCo would hire them.

    You nailed it.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    If someone wanted to expend the time / effort, it probably would not be all that difficult to justify PUA’s using quotes from Jung. Just to tweak Peterson. That could induce some cognitive dissonance if done properly. Because his blue-pillness probably only goes so far.

    He’s “conservative” in the sea-anchor sense; he wants to conserve the liberalism of his college years, so being arrested by the pronoun police offends him but he’s not about to sign up for rolling back any of the privileges women have been given.

    It is pretty funny that Peterson is the man a number of churchgoing writers are afraid of, in the “why are young men listening to him and not us? Why? Why?” when he’s just another moderate leftist who is just a decade or so behind his colleagues.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hazelshade – Peterson’s use of the word “psychopathic” in the context of PUA’s likely stems from his own blue-pill pedestalization of women. If I remember rightly, he met his future wife when they were both children, married some time after grad school. That’s a fine thing and it used to be the standard, but it also means he has zero understanding of what college women are like now…

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    RPL
    A man with game is like a woman with fake boobs.

    Nope. Not even close.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gaza
    People in general don’t like to see how sausage is made. And women want fried ice.

    Yep.

  39. James says:

    I spend some time a while back listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson’s lectures, kind of liked some of it, liked the way he seems to try to be objective and fair to opponents and people with other points of view. After a while of listening, I got tired of the constant mythology and Jungian references and Bible as symbolism and myth only. I don’t quite to know where to place Peterson, another talking head? He seems only to have gotten all the media attention by having opposed the force use of other pronouns that “he” and “she” only that was a proposed bill in Canada, and this is what put him in the limelight.

    As far as the points about PUA in your post, yes, that’s true. The women know what’s being offered, or, at least as they get older.

  40. Pingback: Jordan Peterson can’t handle the truth. | Reaction Times

  41. fourfourseven says:

    PU-guy here, long time lurker/reader, first comment.
    A previous poster equated men with (PU)game to women with fake boobs.

    That’s nonsense.
    Pu=the wrapping/package, Red pill = gains in LMS (looks, money, status) is the product you wrap up.

    Also, the repetition of debunked PU-criticism does not make said criticism more true.
    Classic example in the comments on this post by Dalrock: “mimimi, women decide in seconds whether they want sex with you or not, all PU is a fakedy-fake-scam!”
    Game-aware answer is:”That is what they TELL you, Padawan of game! Hast thou not read and digested the book of pook or the rational male? Don’t listen what they say, watch what they do!”

    Women have even told me directly after fornication when I TOLD THEM HOW I “TRICKED” THEM that “you would not have needed all those stressful players’ tricks, I knew right away that you are a real catch!”.
    Sure honey. 😂
    It just so happened that the utterance of such soundwaves by female humans only happened AFTER I started game in earnest and increased massively after I added especially immoral sexual acts to the very first “escalation”.

    Game works. Massively. Even for pauchy, middle aged guys with somewhat of a beer gut and a boring, socially good, well-paid beta-job. Like me.

    The problem is not that game works (because genes only care about amoral, evolutionary strength) – the problem is that society PERMITS it to work.

    From a religious perspective (I can only imagine this), game is a weak imitation of the devil. But even a little bit of the fel flame is enough to get the weaker, more immoral gender burning with unjust, misplaced passion.
    Which they should be punished for, but aren’t – hence, degradation of society/ civilization continues.
    Females shouldn’t be attracted to all of this (said in a prescriptive, “lets have civilization and not degradation to mad max” way), but they are (–> biology, lack of punishment).

  42. seventiesjason says:

    “Game works. Massively. Even for pauchy, middle aged guys with somewhat of a beer gut and a boring, socially good, well-paid beta-job.”

    What kind of women? All nines and perfect tens? lol!

  43. John James R. says:

    Peterson is the Trojan Horse with a bunch of ‘Man Up’ admonitions spilling out once he got inside the red pill gates.

    Find me one single criticism of females in all of his cultural/gender related speeches. I’m not saying there isn’t one but I’d be surprised and I’d like to hear it.

  44. Jonathan Castle says:

    Snapper: “Because this IS a game, and women are ALWAYS playing. They play for keeps and they are ruthless.”

    This is the heart of a lot of men’s frustration, we don’t think relationships should be based on gamemenship and posturing. Forever.

    But women love, love, love it! …until the odds turn hard against them midlife. Then they want to retire from the game and settle down.

    The old order greatly limited this drama to a brief courtship / mate selection period early in life. It suited men better.

    PUAs are realist in the sense they see the world as it really is, not as we want it to be.

  45. Jonathan Castle says:

    I don’t get the hate for Petersen.

    So what if he’s not 100% red pill pure? He’s still an ally for free speech, and against leftist feminism / globalism.

    Never make enemies out of friends if you can avoid it.

  46. slumlord says:

    Peterson’s got some legitimate points. The Masters of Game realise that superficial game is not enough and that “inner Game” is the true source of power. Knowing a few routines may help you get laid but it’s not a long term bet.

    The other thing that people don’t get is that Petereson is a classical liberal (in the European sense) he is a strong believer in the power of rationality and reasonableness despite all of his talk of Jungean archetypes, he still fails to recognise the irrational component of human nature.

    He’s the best of 19th Century Liberalism but unfortunately that system was unstable.

  47. Nikephoros II Phokas says:

    “If someone wanted to expend the time / effort, it probably would not be all that difficult to justify PUA’s using quotes from Jung. Just to tweak Peterson. That could induce some cognitive dissonance if done properly. Because his blue-pillness probably only goes so far.”

    You could quote Jung to completely destroy Peterson’s entire worldview.

    For instance, in one of the last books he published before he died, Jung was very clear that you can’t have Christian morality without a deep belief in God, which is exactly what he’s trying to do.

    That’s why Peterson is so careful not to clearly answer questions about whether he believes in God or is a Christian (he doesn’t and he’s not).

  48. Rum says:

    I am not sure why I do this, but what the heck. Peterson can defend himself pretty well.
    JBP has up about 400 hours of his stuff on U tube. The vast majority is from while he was still teaching and before he became stadium-filling-famous.
    I have had a long standing appreciation of the Nietzsche/Jung axis of thought, iso it took me about 5 minutes of watching to become a major fan – years ago. Consider this; FN and CJ did not write their important works in English. They were written in German (and deal with difficult subjects) therefore translations have inevitably been extra difficult to follow. JBP really knows these subjects and can put them DIRECTLY into good English prose. That matters a lot.
    If you think F. Neitzsche & C. Jung were not red-pilled, I do not know what to say to you. How about: “When you go unto a woman, take a whip” level red-pill.
    Remember Roissy? I cannot prove it, but JBP has pretty obviously been reading him and slightly rephrasing his ideas for years. Maybe you guys were not around in those days, but Rum started commenting on Roissys blog starting in 2007 and he (still) has a pretty good memory regarding how redpilling was first conceptualized and who was borrowing from whom thereafter.
    Peterson has said many times that causal sex and high partner counts are bad things for anybody, not just girls and women. In other words; The PUA lifestyle produces bad outcomes also for the guys with high counts, not that game per se is not operative.

  49. AustralianIrishman says:

    Long time reader, first time commenter. I have read and listened to both Peterson and quite a bit of PUA stuff over the past few years and I have a bit of background knowledge on the psychology behind it all so I can probably contribute something useful here:

    Peterson starts by referring to the instrumental use of language. This describes the old school Mystery Method, NLP, David Deangelo et al style game perfectly (as well as a huge amount of the current industry, which is really just rebranded material ripped off those guys). The frame is “alphas get girls, so if you mimic alpha behaviour with your words and body language girls will sleep with you”.

    Peterson then says this is a “psychopathic goal”. I believe he means that in a technical sense psychologically, not the lay “that’s morally bad” sense. The psychopathic worldview sees emotions as levers to pull on to get what you want, which is also exactly the frame many PUAs had/have. He then goes on to describe the alternative as he sees it – tell the truth.

    The fascinating part from my perspective is this – some of the more sophisticated pickup artists already came to this realisation! Some of them went down the path of lying, then realised how psychologically damaging it is. To summarise their conclusions – if you lie and then get the girl you have just told your hindbrain/ego that you couldn’t have gotten her without lying. This is very damaging to your view of yourself and your self worth. If you lie to her and she still doesn’t like you you’ve just sacrificed your integrity AND failed, which is even worse.

    To summarise, Peterson says that PUAs are unsophisticated and psychopathic, which (referring to the majority of the PUA industry) is true. He then makes almost exactly the same claim that some of the more intelligent / experienced PUAs make – that instrumental (ie goal directed) use of language takes you to a place you don’t want to go. This is also consistent with his other works on the relationship between language and truth that make no reference to PUAs.

    Dalrock, I would have to disagree with your assertion that Peterson dislikes the fact that PUA behaviour calls into question the idea that women find chivalry to be sexy. Your assessment conflicts with many other things Peterson has said. For example – he has specifically stated that women externalise their mate value calculations to the dominance hierarchy (“women sleep with alphas” in PUA language). He also states that dominance hierarchies are not necessarily moral, and can become tyrannies (ie the guy at the top is not necessarily a good person). This is a far cry from the blue pill, naive framework of many conservative and Christian authors that you rightly pillory on your blog (the “women like good men, so if women don’t like you then you must be a bad man” trope). I do believe, however, that he focuses too much on the beta / provisioning side of hypergamy and hasn’t quite come to terms with the alpha / feral side and how much of an influence it is on the current US (and to some extent whole western) SMP.

  50. Frank K says:

    I don’t get the hate for Petersen.

    I think that it’s more the acknowledgement that he isn’t a reliable ally. At some point a false accusation will be sent his way and before you can say “me too”, he’ll be banished to the memory hole.

  51. Anon says:

    Fourfourseven correctly said :

    “Game works. Massively. Even for pauchy, middle aged guys with somewhat of a beer gut and a boring, socially good, well-paid beta-job.”

    To which legendary ladies man Seventiesjason said :

    What kind of women? All nines and perfect tens? lol!

    Answer :

    1) Game works *better* on hotter women, rather than on average-looking women, as the hotter women are inundated with more betatude loserdom and refreshing respite from it is just immensely attractive.
    2) That said, Game improves a man’s results on two parameters :
    i) A man might get women 2 points higher than before. A man who was only getting 4s will not get 9s, obviously. But there is a second, and huge other point :
    ii) A man will get a lot more volume than before. Men clueless about Game probably miss about 90-95% of the opportunities that come their way, since they a) don’t know how to pick up signs of interest that women throw their way, and b) don’t know how to open women who are easy to open.

    Hence, a guy who has infrequent success with 5s will go to a life of much more frequent success with 7s. This two-fold improvement makes the world a very different place, courtesy of Game.

  52. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    “…so it is possible that he had something profound in mind but wasn’t able to articulate it.”

    Nah, Dalrock, you got it all wrong. He turned his back for a second, juuust a split-second, and wouldn’t’ya’know’it, the friggin’ Atomic Dog Cannibals of Anubis [1] ate the friggin’ Pen of Light! [2]

    He’ll enlighten you tomorrow. When he gets it back.

    After he takes his pills, cleans his room and finishes tikkuning the ollam for the United Nations, of course. [3]

    1, 2. From two… illuminating discursions… in Peterson’s 12 Rules of Life.

    My parents lived in a standard ranch-style house, in a middle-class neighborhood, in a small town in northern Alberta. I was sitting in the darkened basement of this house, in the family room, watching TV, with my cousin Diane, who was in truth—in waking life—the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. A newscaster suddenly interrupted the program. The television picture and sound distorted, and static filled the screen. My cousin stood up and went behind the TV to check the electrical cord. She touched it, and started convulsing and frothing at the mouth, frozen upright by intense current.

    A brilliant flash of light from a small window flooded the basement. I rushed upstairs. There was nothing left of the ground floor of the house. It had been completely and cleanly sheared away, leaving only the floor, which now served the basement as a roof. Red and orange flames filled the sky, from horizon to horizon. Nothing was left as far as I could see, except skeletal black ruins sticking up here and there: no houses, no trees, no signs of other human beings or of any life whatsoever. The entire town and everything that surrounded it on the flat prairie had been completely obliterated.

    It started to rain mud, heavily. The mud blotted out everything, and left the earth brown, wet, flat and dull, and the sky leaden, even gray. A few distraught and shell-shocked people started to gather together. They were carrying unlabeled and dented cans of food, which contained nothing but mush and vegetables. They stood in the mud looking exhausted and disheveled. Some dogs emerged, out from under the basement stairs, where they had inexplicably taken residence. They were standing upright, on their hind legs. They were thin, like greyhounds, and had pointed noses. They looked like creatures of ritual—like Anubis, from the Egyptian tombs. They were carrying plates in front of them, which contained pieces of seared meat. They wanted to trade the meat for the cans. I took a plate. In the center of it was a circular slab of flesh four inches in diameter and one inch thick, foully cooked, oily, with a marrow bone in the center of it. Where did it come from?

    I had a terrible thought. I rushed downstairs to my cousin. The dogs had butchered her, and were offering the meat to the survivors of the disaster.

    I dreamed apocalyptic dreams of this intensity two or three times a week for a year or more….

    3. Peterson: “I worked on the UN Secretary General’s High Panel for Sustainability report [A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development UN Panel on Millennium Development Goals, published 2013] that was delivered, I believe, in 2013, and rewrote the underlying narrative.” (Committee members included Skipp… I mean the Right Honorable John Podesta. LOL!) http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/an-eminent-person.html

    Also,

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/direct-from-lunatics-mouth.html

    …from personal correspondence Peterson chose to publish, publicly:

    I don’t completely understand the driving force behind what I have been working on, although I understand it better now than I used to, three or four years ago, when it was literally driving me crazy. I had been obsessed… often dreaming extremely violent dreams, centered around the theme of destruction. … It was in this way that my concern with war, which is the application of death on the general level, led me into concepts and ideas concerning the meaning of life on the personal level, which I could never have imagined as relevant, or believable, prior to learning about them—and which I still believe border on what might normally be considered insanity. … I was willing to devote my life to acting upon what I had discovered, whatever that might be, without reservation— knowing somehow that once started, an aborted attempt would destroy at least my self-respect, at most my sanity and desire to live. … I don’t know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I’m not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing.

    “Ah, yes, very interesting. [pregnant pause. scribbles. pause. absently taps Mont Blanc on notepad] Hmm. Yes, do go on…”

    Incoherent Clownworldnetics is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Dialectical prop, in the political sense. Dialectical flop, in all others. (In my opinion.)

    For the triggered: The avuncular shtick you love so much is chaff, not the payload.

    Marquesses Rules for Revanchists: “Rule one. Always remember to tie your shoes. That way, you won’t trip over your own laces. By the way, you are completely, utterly alone. Rule two. Always wear cotton socks. Or, that newfangled moisture-wicking polyester. No one likes smelly feet. Organized dissent is Hitler. Rule three. One time, when I was a young lad, I was dreaming about my hot-ass cousin Diane and some funny dogs…”

  53. Dota says:

    Rum

    Peterson is a businessman first and foremost. He pushes back against some leftist norms, but never directly challenges the actual power structures in society. Look at how he backs down when confronted with the Jewish question –

    That’s cowardice. But it’s this cowardice that keeps him mainstream enough to pad his Patreon account.

    Peterson is a right wing pied piper who leads genuine conservatives down a dead-end street. He is to the right what Noam Chomsky is to the left – a gatekeeper.

  54. earl says:

    The problem is not that game works (because genes only care about amoral, evolutionary strength) – the problem is that society PERMITS it to work.

    Yup things like the sexual revolution, the pill, and the general choosing to be immoral amongst the womenfolk & cads is the reason why a lot of this happens.

    If the guys who used game were honest with themselves…the main reason it works is because women choose to let it work. If women collectively stuck by only rewarding the God fearing guy who marries them…that’s what ‘game’ men would play. But as such most women reward the guy who knows how to trick them best or how to charm them best.

    Also I tend to agree game is like fake boobs. You are trying to trick someone into thinking you are more sexually desiring than you really are. Women just do this by trying to look younger and putting on things that make their boobs and butt perky.

    Female game could be reduced to wonderbras and yoga pants.

  55. Rum says:

    Dota
    If Peterson were primarily motivated by money, he has taken an odd path towards it. I mean, he worked for 30 plus years as an academic with a part time private practice in Canada then starts posting videos on Youtube – which are watched by few at first. BTW, the main reason he put his stuff on Youtube was that he expected to be fired or silenced before very long, given the climate in academia, and he wanted an accessible record of his thoughts to be out there beyond the reach of academic censorship. How many people can you name who got rich doing that before?
    And who says that there is only one righteous redpill answer to the JQ? – or that one should try to answer it in any given forum – or according to someone elses framing – while in front of a camera?

  56. On the Psychopathic comment, I think it’s important to note that he isn’t calling it psychopathic because it involves picking up a woman, h’s calling it psychopathic because the goal is independent of the woman the pick-up artist is talking to. He’s trying to go home with a woman, it doesn’t have to be a particular woman. And it’s not the case that just because it’s common that it’s natural. Lying and prostitution are common, that doesn’t make them natural (and they are in fact not).

    Dalrock, I’m not sure you’ve defended the honesty of pick up artists. Just because pick-up artists are signaling a message that matches what the women are trying to hear doesn’t make what they are saying and doing honest. If, for instance, a pick-up artist were to wear certain clothes with the intention of signaling a social class to which he does not belong, that would not be honest even if he was doing so with the intention of also signaling no-strings-attached sex. Or if he were to say something about the woman’s appearance or behavior which he didn’t actually think, that would be dishonest no matter what was signaled by it.

  57. Oscar says:

    Why the consternation over Dr. Peterson’s “psychopathic” comment? Isn’t it generally accepted that women are attracted to men with “dark triad” traits? Isn’t psychopathy one of them? Don’t PUAs take pride in cultivating dark triad traits?

  58. Anon says:

    TimFinnegan,

    If, for instance, a pick-up artist were to wear certain clothes with the intention of signaling a social class to which he does not belong, that would not be honest even if he was doing so with the intention of also signaling no-strings-attached sex.

    Yeah, that still makes PUAs no more dishonest than women who wear makeup, use perfume and hair products, and wear wonderbras and high-heel shoes. These are all things that make a woman’s genetic fitness appear far higher than it actually is.

    Furthermore, this is something ALL women do, vs. the sub-1% of men who actively use Game (of whom only a fraction are real PUAs). I guarantee that if you went back to the 1920s, despite no obesity, tattoos, or piercings in women then, you would find very few of the women of that era attractive by today’s standards.

    You are still buying into the misandric frame.

  59. earl says:

    Why the consternation over Dr. Peterson’s “psychopathic” comment? Isn’t it generally accepted that women are attracted to men with “dark triad” traits? Isn’t psychopathy one of them? Don’t PUAs take pride in cultivating dark triad traits?

    Not only that the second trait is all about deceit. Not so much being decietful about wanting sex…but trying to appear more sexually desirable than one is.

    ‘Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait which sees a person so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals.’

  60. earl says:

    I guarantee that if you went back to the 1920s, despite no obesity, tattoos, or piercings in women then, you would find very few of the women of that era attractive by today’s standards.

    Whoa let’s not get carried away here…the lack of obesity and tats for 1920s women makes them certainly more attractive than the obese tatted up women we have now.

  61. Dota says:

    Rum

    I’m not saying there isn’t any value in Peterson’s work, but we can’t discount the possibility that money plays a pretty big part in it. Peterson has an acute antenna for the undercurrents of our time and has figured out how to monetize it. He isn’t the first person who has figured out how to detect an undercurrent of anguish in society and then profit. Bashing political correctness is a dead end street. PC is merely a social convention that is being enforced by elite power structures in society. He never talks about this. He attacks Social justice clowns but said clowns are merely foot soldiers.

    And who says that there is only one righteous redpill answer to the JQ? – or that one should try to answer it in any given forum – or according to someone elses framing – while in front of a camera?

    He has often sidestepped the issue of the JQ by claiming that Jews are merely more intelligent than others and as such step on more toes than other groups. But when confronted with actual references and evidence about their involvement in communism, or even the bolshevik revolution (as the video shows) he completely backs down. That’s cowardice. That’s a man who’s decided that his Patreon account is worth more than telling the truth. He made a choice there and it is plain what that choice is.

  62. Boxer says:

    Dear Dota:

    He has often sidestepped the issue of the JQ by claiming that Jews are merely more intelligent than others and as such step on more toes than other groups. But when confronted with actual references and evidence about their involvement in communism, or even the bolshevik revolution (as the video shows) he completely backs down. That’s cowardice.

    The Christian bolsheviks starved and slaughtered more Jews than Hitler ever did. Why not talk about that? Is it cowardice on your part?

    The reality is that everyone here who bleats about Jews just sounds like a pathetic male feminist, who wants to project the blame for white slut behavior onto Jewish men. Maybe Peterson is wise to cucks like you… He is, after all, a clinical psychologist, and knows your motivations.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  63. You finally bring up JBP and you DON’T go over the whole “enforced monogamy” bruha? Shame, seemed like red meat for you, Dalrock what with all those women in public suddenly confessing that they don’t want marriage.

  64. earl says:

    There were Christian Bolsheviks?

    That’s news to me.

  65. Minesweeper says:

    Dota, JP dosnt back down over the JQ in that vid, he can’t answer it as the question is nonsense. The questioner was making a particularly religious argument to where the probably wasnt one.

    I wouldnt answer it either.

  66. Boxer says:

    There were Christian Bolsheviks?

    Stalin was a Christian priest. He was ordained in Tblisi. He was radicalized in the seminary.

    That’s news to me.

    You are aware that Russians were overwhelmingly Christian, aren’t you? In any case, read Montefiore’s biographical study. You’ll like it.

  67. Dota says:

    Boxer

    The Christian bolsheviks starved and slaughtered more Jews than Hitler ever did. Why not talk about that? Is it cowardice on your part?

    First, I’m neither white nor Christian. Second, I’ve never denied the cowardice of white christians and whites in general for enabling the cultural and spiritual malaise that has afflicted the west. I immigrated to Canada over 15 years ago and in that time I’ve seen plenty of whites piss away their lives with booze and hedonism, squandering their birthright and leaving nothing behind for their children. I’ve also spoken about white elites who have betrayed their own. The Jews may have invented feminism, but it was the Fords and Rockerfellers that bankrolled women’s studies departments all across the US (and they still do).

    The reality is that everyone here who bleats about Jews just sounds like a pathetic male feminist, who wants to project the blame for white slut behavior onto Jewish men.

    Which male feminists “project the blame for white slut behavior onto Jewish men.”? What planet are you on? As far as I know male feminists deny the existence of slutty behavior and bend over backwards to enable female degeneracy. You might be thinking about chivalrous tradcons who most certainly project blame for women’s degeneracy, but usually target white men and not Jewish men. Perhaps you should define your terms better before accusing others of being ‘cucks’ while knowing anything about them and hence making an ass of yourself.

  68. Dota says:

    edit – while knowing nothing about them

  69. Boxer says:

    Dear Dota:

    Which male feminists “project the blame for white slut behavior onto Jewish men.”? What planet are you on? As far as I know male feminists deny the existence of slutty behavior and bend over backwards to enable female degeneracy.

    I consider the loserish white nationalism, that’s popular in Dalrock’s comment section, to be a covert subset of feminism.

    That the beauty of the white aryan woman shall not perish from the earth

    (Fuck’n lol)

    You might be thinking about chivalrous tradcons who most certainly project blame for women’s degeneracy, but usually target white men and not Jewish men. Perhaps you should define your terms better before accusing others of being ‘cucks’ while knowing anything about them and hence making an ass of yourself.

    What motivates the ressentiment in your case, then? That’s not a rhetorical question. Honestly interested.

    Best,

    Boxer

  70. Dota says:

    Minesweeper

    Dota, JP dosnt back down over the JQ in that vid, he can’t answer it as the question is nonsense. The questioner was making a particularly religious argument to where the probably wasnt one.

    Then perhaps JP should have voiced that objection. Instead, he submissively bowed in defeat. Furthermore, religious arguments like this are made all the time about muslims. History, race, and geopolitical realities (oil/resources) all go out the window when analyzing the Muslim question. So why do Jews get a pass when their religious prejudices are called into question when analyzing their motives? This is the true source of JP’s cowardice.

  71. Dota says:

    What motivates the ressentiment in your case, then? That’s not a rhetorical question. Honestly interested.

    People getting away with bad behavior without said behavior even being acknowledged. Not everyone will face justice in this life, I know this. But when evil goes unacknowledged, that’s the greatest form of injustice as far as I’m concerned. That’s why I despise manginas and white knights, for they fail to acknowledge the everyday evil that women perpetuate.

  72. Gunner Q says:

    Jonathan Castle @ 6:24 pm:
    “I don’t get the hate for Petersen. So what if he’s not 100% red pill pure? He’s still an ally for free speech, and against leftist feminism / globalism.”

    Peterson is a high-level globalist and by his own admission, demon-possessed. Nothing he says can be trusted. Two links for further study:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/two-reports-one-shill.html

    http://gunnerq.com/2018/05/08/cracks-in-reality/

  73. Flaming Man of Iron says:

    I’ve watched this video or maybe another video of Dr. Peterson’s opinion. And… Not knowing what sites he read, frankly he’s not criticising “game”, he’s critising PUA. And having seen what passes for PUA material out on the web, some of it really is dishonest manipulation tactics. If you’ve read his book, and watched his videos, Dr. Peterson is very anti-dishonesty.

    I do agree that he’s speaking from some degree of ignorance on this topic. Another point about this video is that it’s easily a couple years old, back when he was still overweight. Having watched so many videos of him, I would encourage others to be more generous towards him. Were he to meet with Dalrock, Roosh, Athol Kay or any of the other luminaries in the Manosphere, I’d like to think he’d be willing to change his mind.

  74. earl says:

    You are aware that Russians were overwhelmingly Christian, aren’t you?

    Yeah and the Bolshieviks were about eliminating religion. So my thought is the two ethos don’t go together.

  75. Boxer says:

    People getting away with bad behavior without said behavior even being acknowledged. Not everyone will face justice in this life, I know this. But when evil goes unacknowledged, that’s the greatest form of injustice as far as I’m concerned. That’s why I despise manginas and white knights, for they fail to acknowledge the everyday evil that women perpetuate.

    That doesn’t really answer the question, but OK. You think that “The Jews” are somehow behind all the evils in the world, despite the fact that history and demography shows otherwise. You can’t blame those of us who are grounded in reality for ignoring these sorts of looney rantings, that sound like the stock-in-trade of the homeless shelter and fortified wine industries.

    Jordan Peterson wasn’t cowardly in his response. If anything, I found him to be overly polite.

    The reality is that most of these supposedly powerful Jews, who kooks imagine control the world, are henpecked husbands with feminist wives. I suppose that’s one stereotype I hold about the Jews. In my experience, their women are some of the worst shrews imaginable. For all their power, Jewish men somehow get fucked in the ass on a regular basis in the divorce courts, too. Granted, I don’t have peer-reviewed studies to back that up, but I’ve seen enough of it to convince me.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    TimFinnegan (previously halt94) says:
    On the Psychopathic comment, I think it’s important to note that he isn’t calling it psychopathic because it involves picking up a woman, h’s calling it psychopathic because the goal is independent of the woman the pick-up artist is talking to. He’s trying to go home with a woman, it doesn’t have to be a particular woman.

    If this is correct, then Peterson should also refer to the women that are picked by PUA’s as psychopathic, and for the same reason. They want to go home with a man, it doesn’t have to be a particular man. Does he do that?

    Somehow I doubt it. Because he’s a blue-pill pedestallizer.

  77. Anon says:

    Whoa let’s not get carried away here…the lack of obesity and tats for 1920s women makes them certainly more attractive than the obese tatted up women we have now.

    Come on. There is more to it than tats and piercings.

    i) There was little or no make-up.
    ii) There was no leg-shaving, upper-lip shaving, etc.
    iii) Little in the way of deodorants.
    iv) Not much dentistry.
    v) No real culture of exercise or fitness.

    They would look live plain-jane 6s without makeup. No tattoos, but no makeup either.

    If you doubt this, go to some third-world country and go to the rural areas. Look at the women there. They are conservative and have no tats, but there are no cosmetics, crooked teeth, hairy legs, and they do hard labor all day long. The average woman in 1920s America lived under similar conditions.

  78. Boxer says:

    Yeah and the Bolshieviks were about eliminating religion.

    Wrong.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1008.9306&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    So my thought is the two ethos don’t go together.

    Again, where did the Bolsheviks overwhelmingly come from, if not from Christian homes in Russia? Why was there a Marxist working group in Stalin’s seminary? Inquiring minds want to know, yo!

  79. Boxer says:

    If you doubt this, go to some third-world country and go to the rural areas. Look at the women there. They are conservative and have no tats, but there are no cosmetics, crooked teeth, hairy legs, and they do hard labor all day long. The average woman in 1920s America lived under similar conditions.

    You don’t even need to go that far. Just look at our women, sometime…

    Real beauties, no?

  80. Dota says:

    Boxer

    I never said Jews control all the evils of the world. All I’m saying is that the evil that they do commit (in whatever capacity they possess) goes unacknowledged. I can’t make it any plainer than that.
    JP has spoken about how religious prejudice motivates muslim behavior (and he specifically mentioned Afghanistan) whereas when it’s time to analyze the role of religious prejudice as how it affects Jewish behavior, he goes mute.

  81. earl says:

    Again, where did the Bolsheviks overwhelmingly come from, if not from Christian homes in Russia? Why was there a Marxist working group in Stalin’s seminary?

    Well yeah the Orthodox church was the major power in Russia until the Bolsheviks came. Did Orthodox Christianity create Bolsheviks?

    http://www.bolshevik.info/religion-soviet-union170406.htm

  82. Boxer says:

    Dear Dota:

    I never said Jews control all the evils of the world. All I’m saying is that the evil that they do commit (in whatever capacity they possess) goes unacknowledged. I can’t make it any plainer than that.

    That’s not the position of Peterson’s heckler, so why call him a coward for dismissing those looney ravings I just saw in the youtube clip?

    Saying “all Jews are…” is a little like saying “all Christians are…” It’s apt to make folks defensive (check out Earl’s responses for an example). In reality, nearly all the bolsheviks were Christians, and Stalin was a Christian priest; but, only a kook would hold every Christian accountable for the shit that went down in the Holodomor, no?

    Best,

    Boxer

  83. earl says:

    I was talking about female obesity mostly. The graffiti on the body isn’t as bad as ballooning up.

    Which would be more attractive…a plain jane 6 with no makeup, crooked teeth, etc or an obese woman who has make up, shaved legs, deodrant, went through orthodontics etc.

    Real beauties, no?

    They aren’t fat. They certainly got a better head start there.

  84. Boxer says:

    They aren’t fat. They certainly got a better head start there.

    At some point, I’m going to force you to come to one of my family reunions. You need to see them all up close and personal, like, to really appreciate them.

  85. earl says:

    Well I don’t know Mormons…but I live near a big Mennonite farming community and I see their ladies from time to time. Mostly plain janes-no makeup in that bunch but I don’t see too many obese ones…this is an example of what I would see when their groups are in town.

    Either that or people aren’t appreciating how much I abhor female obseity.

  86. Anon:

    The statement “pick-up artists are behaving dishonestly” doesn’t make any claim to the dishonesty of women. I was specifically contesting the claim that pick-up artists are not dishonest because of what Dalrock said in his post. The relative dishonesty of women is tangential.

    Anonymous reader:

    I agree that the symmetry there follows logically. But people believe many contradictory things so it’s not out of bounds for Jordan Peterson to believe (truthfully) that the men are behaving psychopathically while ignoring the symmetrical conclusion.

  87. Dota says:

    Boxer

    Perhaps you should allow JP to make those objections himself instead of speaking on his behalf. Clearly he’s smart enough to detect them as you just did?

    Also the fellow in the video said “Jewish individuals” and not “The Jews” or “All Jews”. Big difference.

  88. Boxer says:

    Perhaps you should allow JP to make those objections himself instead of speaking on his behalf. Clearly he’s smart enough to detect them as you just did?

    Several times a year I’m accosted by street people, who want to tell me all manner of looney nonsense. I don’t waste time arguing with them. I smile politely, thank them for their time, and sometimes I toss a dollar into the coffee cup as I move along to wherever I was going before. Peterson apparently has the same strategy. Good for him.

  89. Before I married my wife, and since my wife died, I am exactly that man: boring loyal dude hoping to lure a chick into matrimony

    And indeed I have been communicating in a dishonest way. See my post “The trouble with Rotherham“, pretending to be an exciting dangerous violent lawless asshole, an aloof jerk seeking no strings attached sex.

    I have tried lots of different personas. I know what persona works. Heartiste is correct, and if anything understates his case. Playing a really bad man, even worse than that recommended by Heartiste, works best. I can play that character convincingly because I have monsters inside, and I let them out to play, but I am not really that person. I must dance, and women call the tune.

  90. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    Boxer, your attention to detail is a credit to civic nationalists everywhere.

    Here, I found a roster of the Bolshevik leadership cadre of the first politburo, with religious persuasion:

    Stalin … Greek Orthodox (Stalin)
    Bubnov … Russian Orthodox (Bubnov)
    Lenin … culturally Southern Baptist, but really liked the Russian Orthodox sense of aesthetics, you know? (Blank)
    Trotsky … Church of Latter Day Saints, Mormon (Bronstein)
    Sokolnikov … Church of Christ, Scientist (Brilliant)
    Kamenev … [the dudes who handle the snakes and shit, I forget. no offense.] (Rosenfeld)
    Zinoviev … Donated to Benny Hinn once (Radomyslsky)

    Lenin:
    An intelligent Russian is almost always a [Southern Baptist] or someone with [Southern Baptist] blood in his veins.

    Zinoviev, to the September 1918 meeting of the Communists:
    We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They[…ir ignorance of the Gospels, the Word of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ] must be annihilated.

    I hear the Cheka were mostly Druids (Irish Catholics).

    If you’re bored, the wikipedia page on “Jewish Bolshevism” is hysterical. CANARD! That’s a great word.

  91. Dalrock, you appear to be very suspicious of JP, based on this and your previous comment. After reading his book and following him for some time, I would have to say your concerns are both correct and incorrect.

    They are on the mark because he has not gone full red pill yet, but I think the concern you and others have expressed here is somewhat misplaced, because in my estimation he continues to drift further into red pill territory. I can say with almost complete certainty that he would not say what he said in that video (made years ago while overweight) today. For example, in another older video he described MGTOW as “pathetic weasels,” then when later given an opportunity by an interviewer to correct any misstatements he had made recently, he chose the MGTOW remark, apologized for the language he used, and said that he had personally known many men divorce raped (not the term he used). He also re-justified his remarks in a sense, which watered down the effect of his non-apology apology. However, I’ve been searching for baby steps towards the light, and this represented a baby step (not actively namecalling MGTOW and actually acknowledging men’s pain from divorce rape). Some may think I’m bending over backwards to make him look better, but again, I’m looking for progress, and believe I see it.

    He has also been interviewing and citing Warren Farrell more often lately. Yes, I know Warren Farrell is a huge blue pill beta, but he is one of the best compilers of statistics about the harm men have suffered in the past 30 years (including divorce rape, a society that hates fathers, false rape accusations, and dozens of other issues), who is allowed to speak because he has a feminist background (we must accept that the Left only allows certain voices to speak, and even certain blue-pill ones can advance the red pill cause, however glacially they move). I believe JP has attracted so much vitriol from the Left because they correctly see the danger he poses as a Trojan Horse for red pill knowledge to men. Many commenters have identified his leftist background. Yes, that is why he is allowed to speak. He may have started as a leftist blue pill professor (this is why he is a Trojan Horse), but he is now carrying a number of messages to men that are nothing short of destructive to the entire leftist subversion of society.

    Read his book to see what I mean. These messages may be subtle (how could they be otherwise in our current climate of compelled speech), but they are the kind that slowly wake men up from their blue pill slumber. And no, I’m not referring to the oft-cited simplistic “Clean your room”-type sayings. I’m talking about (my extreme paraphrase):

    1) Women who claim date rape are psychologically damaged and need lots of therapy to fix (talks at length about this crazy woman in a compassionate way while clearly indicating that she is messed up…it just so happens this now represents an indictment of a large portion of women with the #metoo movement).
    2) People are often raised to be overly naive and are unaware of how easily they can be taken advantage of (I was, and that’s why I was divorce raped…had I followed this advice I could have potentially avoided choosing a poor marriage mate).
    3) You need to learn to say no (addresses the blue pill “Nice Guy” attitude).
    4) Stop blaming others for your problems and adopting a victim attitude (this is an essential, perhaps foundational, component of basic Red Pill wisdom).
    5) Stop limiting boys’ free play and repeatedly warning of the negative effects of overprotective mothers on children.

    I could go on. The point is that while JP does not come out and announce he is Red Pill, and in fact still has many legacy blue pill influences, he is, IMO, certainly a force for good and an ally to what I understand to be the (ill-defined) objectives of the community represented in part by this blog. By all means, continue to influence him in the right direction, but don’t pretend that his impact has been either negative or neutral to our goals.

  92. What a load of garbage any male or “Christian” promoting promiscuity or “whoremongering” as the Bible calls it shall be guilty. Has these males not understood that in the latter days doctrines of demons shall be teaching men to Abstain from Marriage. This whole movement is of Satan. Anybody promoting or accepting game is aiding the degeneracy and corruption of our young males.

  93. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    Oh yeah, I finally found the Pen of Light. (Those dogs left behind an awful mess.)

    It was in that spirit, with some paper in front of me, that I asked my question: What shall I do with my newfound pen of light? I asked as if I truly wanted the answer. I waited for a reply. I was holding a conversation between two different elements of myself. I was genuinely thinking—or listening, in the sense described in Rule 9 (Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t). That rule can apply as much to yourself as to others. It was me, of course, who asked the question—and it was me, of course, who replied. But those two me’s were not the same. I did not know what the answer would be. I was waiting for it to appear in the theatre of my imagination. I was waiting for the words to spring out of the void. How can a person think up something that surprises him? How can he already not know what he thinks? Where do new thoughts come from? Who or what thinks them?

    Since I had just been given, of all things, a Pen of Light, which could write Illuminated Words in the darkness, I wanted to do the best thing I could with it. So, I asked the appropriate question—and, almost immediately, an answer revealed itself: Write down the words you want inscribed on your soul. I wrote that down. That seemed pretty good— a little on the romantic side, granted—but that was in keeping with the game.

    What shall I do with my wife? Treat her as if she is the Holy Mother of God, so that she may give birth to the world redeeming hero.

    How shall I educate my people? Share with them those things I regard as truly important.
    What shall I do with a torn nation? Stitch it back together with careful words of truth.

    What shall I do when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.

    1.2 million followers on youtube.

    Well, the good news in all of this, if you could call it that, is that there is definitely a yawning spiritual chasm out there. Murika needs Jesus.

  94. Anon says:

    Earl,

    Which would be more attractive…a plain jane 6 with no makeup, crooked teeth, etc or an obese woman who has make up, shaved legs, deodrant, went through orthodontics etc.

    What a false choice. While there should be NO women who are fat with tattoos, that is certainly not 100% of women. To claim that is the case is just as bad as when the White Nationalist-Leftists claim the inverse, which is that all white women are perfect 10s.

    It is true that women a century ago were not fat, but there were also no women who were higher than an 8 on today’s scale. In effect, they looked like this.

    Earl – you are resigned to the fact that the maximum that you can get is a 5 or 6, so see that as the upper limit. That is why the 8s and higher just don’t enter into the equation of comparing eras.

  95. Anon says:

    Joshua Ephraim said :

    Anybody promoting or accepting game is aiding the degeneracy and corruption of our young males.

    Enter the cuckservative. He obviously has no problem with female degeneracy, but when men adapt around a rigged game that they did not create, this is somehow a problem.

  96. Anon says:

    Earl,

    If your sole criteria is non-obesity, then you should focus on getting an Asian girl who is a 6 or so. I think that is the best outcome that you should pursue.

  97. Nick Mgtow says:

    Thanks for sharing Dalrock.

    I share an article almost named as the one that made me discover your blog:

    The rise of feminism is crippling the welfare state.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/look-at-what-s-going-to-happen-to-sweden-s-fabled-welfare-state

  98. YoreyC says:

    (((Juden Peterson)))

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    It is true that women a century ago were not fat, but there were also no women who were higher than an 8 on today’s scale. In effect, they looked like this.

    Ridiculous. Perhaps you have the 1920’s confused with the 1820’s? It’s not difficult to find images from the US in the 1920’s with any search engine.

    In the US girls tended to look more like Flappers.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Flapper

    Actress Clara Bow was known as the “it girl”, because she had “it” and was a major sex symbol; she was copied by many women in the 1920’s, her style is distinctive.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Clara_Bow

    Here are some more images from the 1920’s, although some are not. Note the short skirts (and shaved legs), the shaved armpits, makeup, etc. They look nothing like the ridiculous image you posted above.
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=flappers&t=brave&iax=images&ia=images

    Makeup, short skirts, shaved legs, and adequate dental care were all common in the 1920’s US. Not just in major cities but in smaller cities and towns. Plenty of still and moving pictures from that time make the case clear.

    Earl doesn’t have to go back 90 years, though, just back to the 1960’s or 1970’s. Fat people were much less common before the 1980’s. Lots of possible causal factors, way off topic.

  100. earl says:

    Earl – you are resigned to the fact that the maximum that you can get is a 5 or 6, so see that as the upper limit.

    That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Sure there’s women that are more attractive today than those the 20s…but there’s plenty of women today who are very much less attractive than the 20s women and obesity is the biggest reason.

  101. Anon says:

    AR,

    Here are some more images from the 1920’s, although some are not. Note the short skirts (and shaved legs), the shaved armpits, makeup, etc. They look nothing like the ridiculous image you posted above.

    You are still selecting women from the upper class elites. A lot of lower-class women didn’t even have family photographs in the 1920s. Classic apex fallacy.

    The average woman of the era still had to work in hard labor, and started having kids no later than 20. US life expectancy in 1920 was still just 53.

    Makeup, short skirts, shaved legs, and adequate dental care were all common in the 1920’s US.

    LOL! Adequate dental care does not exist even in 2018 Britain, but you think it existed in 1920s America?

  102. Excellently distilled sir!
    As much as JBP is still a classic liberal with a trad con bent with regards to intersexual dynamics, his work and his current talks are necessary.
    Why? Because he does shed light on hard red pill truths, especially for men who can understand. No one is saying swallow all he says, but for the greater population he is necessary.

    Any man with a red pill mindset can look at his thoughts on intersexual dynamics and see that he not trying to sell a bridge.

    In the end men have to undergo a metamorphosis internally, no one will “save us”.

    Peterson at least pushes men to look inward while explaining to them that they shouldn’t be naive of the real world.

  103. fourfourseven says:

    OSCAR: Why the consternation over Dr. Peterson’s “psychopathic” comment? Isn’t it generally accepted that women are attracted to men with “dark triad” traits? Isn’t psychopathy one of them? Don’t PUAs take pride in cultivating dark triad traits?
    —————
    No, most schools of serious PU don’t. For English readers, a writer named illemitableman has a big blog post out where he shows that you can’t fully be dark triad if you are not a clinical psychopath.

    The dark triad fad is over – the interesting thing about DT is that it shows what maximum female sexual attraction is like in highly concentrated form.

    As a regular Joe you can learn from that (without all the raping and killing women that true dark triads are really fond of) – for example you can mirror & cultivate psychotic coldness (which you will never have as a healthy man) into a stoic outlook, train yourself to be more cool/relaxed towards females. Of course that also spills over into other areas of life, like salary negotiations etc.pp.

    @seventies jason:
    I get it, you dislike game. As guys like you wouldn’t even believe me if I posted body shots of me (bleergh!) and my former women or current gf (yummyumm!), I will just answer you in style:

    PU-answer: Well of course, but only for me. I can even show you my trophy gallery of perfect 10s in my condo later this evening – they never leave!

    Red pill answer: Yes, I agree mate! This pick up thing wouldn’ t work on quality women anyway, seems like a bunch of insecure guys to me. By the way, is your younger sister in town again? Her trip to France sounded really great, I would like to catch up with her as I know nothing about France myself.

  104. fourfourseven says:

    @topic of “lying”:

    As a semi-good PU-guy, you don’t have to lie. It can only backfire anyway. And there is simply no need to do that.
    Quite on the contrary, you get lied to a lot, especially on the topic of “well, ummm eehhh, i’m just you know like separated, ehhh, recently, but we still like live together and he doesn’t know we broke up like emotions and hamster and s**t!”

    As a competent PU you don’t do lying, you don’t tell chicks that you will now marry them or love them forever and you don’t show up in a rented Ferrari that you can’t really afford.

    You say “hi”, you sparr alittle bit verbally, or go aggressively for their number, you overuse irony to the point of absurdity…you can do a lot of fun, harmless things.

    Telling a woman that “No, I’m not looking for something serious” really means “I want to do you right now and I promise you nothing, this means I’m in control and be both know that turns you on!” only sounds surprising to MEN WITHOUT GAME – the chicks know fully well what it means.

    All of that is neither lying nor psychotic.
    It is also not psychotic to immediatly ignore women you don’t click with or who try to game you. People do this all the time and in many contexts, it’s just when women are hit with their own tactics that everybody gets all worked up.

    Peterson just says that because he wants an excuse to smear PU and /or true Red Pill by association with a buzzword. And like every leftist at heart, Peterson knows that fully well.

    Extreme violence, torture, rape, massive and cruel emotional exploitation, hurting people just because you can – THAT is psychotic.

    I think his plan to work as uncle Tom will backfire. The young guys hear the words like PU or red pill – and will google them…
    /movie voiceover:
    …and so, it begins!

  105. fourfourseven says:

    What a load of garbage any male or “Christian” promoting promiscuity or “whoremongering” as the Bible calls it shall be guilty. Has these males not understood that in the latter days doctrines of demons shall be teaching men to Abstain from Marriage. This whole movement is of Satan.
    ————-
    As a complete layman with only a bible, I agree with your relegious interpretation of these real events. Definitly looks like Satan to me. See above, even a tiny spark of the fel flame is enough to ignite the loins of women.
    ——————–
    Anybody promoting or accepting game is aiding the degeneracy and corruption of our young males.

    Game is a tool.
    Is negotiating for a great salary with gamemanship sin, too? (explicitly without lying or massive twisting of truth)
    Is negotiating for a beautiful, stable girlfriend satanic game, too ?(explicitly without lying or massive twisting of truth)

    What you do with game is your choice.
    I’m not denying that of course the nature of this tool lends itself easily to bad behaviour.

    But so does the pssession of firearms, which can easily tempt you to solve a problem (for example a real, serious dispute between real men) by shooting it up.

    Strangely enough, nobody except lying, ultra-secular leftits would say the arms company killed the guy…

  106. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer: The Christian bolsheviks starved and slaughtered more Jews than Hitler ever did.

    The Bolsheviks killed more than 6 million Jews? Never heart that before.

    Bolshevism was a largely Jewish enterprise. Leadership overwhelmingly Jewish. The Bolshevik Revolution could have occurred without Stalin. It could not have occurred without its many Jewish leaders, thinkers, propagandists, Chekists, and financiers (e.g. Jacob Schiff).

    Nor would the Revolution have been so savage against Christian priests, churches, nuns, etc, absent so many Jewish leaders in the leadership and Chekists ranks, who were motivated by millennia old hatreds against Christianity.

  107. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    You might want to watch The Chekist:

  108. info says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    The 6 million people killed was derived from the numbers of the Holodomor of Ukraine by the Bolsheviks at the time in one estimate.

    Its not the 6 million jews but Slavs killed by starvation.

  109. Boxer says:

    Dear Red Pill Latecomer, et. al.:

    The Bolsheviks killed more than 6 million Jews?

    Yes.

    Never heart that before.

    Being punny? No matter. Aside from the book I recommended to Earl, Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union. is also interesting.
    https://books.google.com/books/about/Jews_and_Jewish_Life_in_Russia_and_the_S.html?id=bJBH5pxzSyMC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Bolshevism was a largely Jewish enterprise.

    Only if you believe anonymous internet kooks… and Christian neo-bolsheviks.

    Nor would the Revolution have been so savage against Christian priests, churches, nuns, etc, absent so many Jewish leaders in the leadership and Chekists ranks, who were motivated by millennia old hatreds against Christianity.

    I wonder why the revolution was so savage against garden variety Jews, then?

    Back to the original topic: Male feminists like you have been raving this way for fifty years. You have as much traffic now as you did in the 1960s, i.e., none. Regular folks vacillate between thinking you’re nuts, to opining that you’re illiterate, and back again.

    Jordan Peterson’s been at his own game for a relatively short time, and he’s done far more to torment the feminists than cartoonish anonymous antisemites who blather on the internet. Serious men are about results. That’s why people pay good money to hear him speak in packed auditoriums, and they laugh at your goony tirades, posted to a handful of fellow mentals.

    Best,

    Boxer

  110. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    You are still selecting women from the upper class elites. A lot of lower-class women didn’t even have family photographs in the 1920s. Classic apex fallacy.

    You mean every 1920s American wasn’t represented with those photos of professional models and Hollywood film stars? I laughed pretty hard last night when those attempted examples appeared.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  111. Boxer says:

    Dear Four Four Seven:

    As a semi-good PU-guy, you don’t have to lie. It can only backfire anyway. And there is simply no need to do that.
    Quite on the contrary, you get lied to a lot, especially on the topic of “well, ummm eehhh, i’m just you know like separated, ehhh, recently, but we still like live together and he doesn’t know we broke up like emotions and hamster and s**t!”

    If you are banging married wimminz, as you claim, then you aren’t doing due diligence. Aside from the fact that you shouldn’t give these sluts the dick and attention that they’re after, you’re also courting a subpoena. That aside, this is always a funny game wimminz play, and I’ve encountered attempts at it. (Suddenly the “roommate” becomes an “ex,” and then later the “ex” turns out to be the “ex-husband,” and then a short time later, it’s revealed that “we just haven’t filed the papers yet,” and “we still have sex but it doesn’t mean anything…”)

    Another funny lie that a huge number of wimminz tell is “I’ve never fucked on the first date before!” (Yeah, I guess I’m just that special, huh?)

    Best,

    Boxer

  112. Spike says:

    On the whole I like Peterson, as he says many positive things about the predicament of men and the ridiculousness of the Regressive Left.
    He does have several flaws. One of them is that he can do what he’s doing here: waffling on about not much. Another, he is unwilling to sheet home the blame for the social predicament, not to feminism, but women’s psychotic need to keep it’s foundations while denying they are feminists! he does this with the manipulations of the elites as well.
    A good thing: God warns us about idolatry. He warns us in The Ten Commandments, in Deuteronomy, Samuels 1 & 2, Kings 1 & 2, the Gospels and the Book of Revelation.
    Peterson can be helpful, but he’s no idol.

  113. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer, if the Bolsheviks had killed as many as 6 million Jews, we’d hear about it constantly. There’d be movies and TV shows about it (winning Oscars and Emmys), and memorials and museums dedicated to it, etc.

    Why would Jews talk incessantly about the Nazis, yet ignore the Bolsheviks, if the latter were just as bad to Jews?

  114. seventiesjason says:

    JBP has helped me. No, he is not a savior, nor does he have all the answers. He’s an engaging speaker. He can talk on a variety of topics……what I find inspiring is what he just said concerning that “gender pronoun thing” was that he was not afraid. He was calm. He ignited something in people that just had not been done in awhile. I believe that resonated with many people…….the whole PC thing. “No. I am not doing that.” and he eventually will have to pay the price for it.

    He’s a college professor. He’s a classic liberal. He’s done a lot. What’s not to be inspired by that? Does he have all the answers? No. Nor have I expected him to.

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    You are still selecting women from the upper class elites. A lot of lower-class women didn’t even have family photographs in the 1920s. Classic apex fallacy.

    First you made a sweeping claim about US women in the 1920’s. Now you shift your goalposts rather than admit Earl has a point. That’s not very good logic, is it?

    Again, here is what actual, average women looked like in 1920s America :

    http://www.outlookweekly.net/images/unzippingthepast.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/22877628/364940516.jpg?470

    That photograph of women is interesting. It appears they are standing in front of their place of employment in a large group. Notice the details, such as garments that are not at all like the prairie dresses you claimed up the thread were typical of the 1920’s. Two further things stand out:

    First, notice that most of them have bobbed hair and makeup, unlike the ridiculous photo up the thread you claimed “they’d look like this”. So you undermine your own absurd “no makeup in the 1920’s” claim with this image. Plus “bobbed hair and makeup” are two of the fashions of the flappers, but didn’t you just claim that only the upper class women did that? Yet here you provide an image of women who are obviously employees. Thanks for supporting my point!

    Second, how many of the women in that undated photo are obese? Wasn’t that Earl’s point? You’ve just provided evidence to support it.

    Looks like Earl doesn’t have to do much more on this subtopic, since you’ve managed to buttress his argument while demolishing your own.

  116. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Boxer, if the Bolsheviks had killed as many as 6 million Jews, we’d hear about it constantly. There’d be movies and TV shows about it (winning Oscars and Emmys), and memorials and museums dedicated to it, etc.

    I have so far given you two credible historical sources. You’re ignoring them.

    Why would Jews talk incessantly about the Nazis, yet ignore the Bolsheviks, if the latter were just as bad to Jews?

    Again, more “the Jews” nonsense. They’re not all of one mind on anything, and the ones I know don’t spend all day obsessing about the Christians who starved and murdered their grandparents. Only guys like you do that.

    JBP has helped me. No, he is not a savior, nor does he have all the answers. He’s an engaging speaker. He can talk on a variety of topics……what I find inspiring is what he just said concerning that “gender pronoun thing” was that he was not afraid. He was calm. He ignited something in people that just had not been done in awhile.

    Peterson has pushed the so-called Overton window so far, so fast, that I’m continually amazed. Bear in mind that he’s operating in Toronto, cultural sewer of pozzed out Canada, which makes his operation all the more humorous.

    Most of the people on this blog who hate him, simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a young man, growing up today. Anyway, he’s not insulting any of you married bros, with this lecture. He’s insulting guys like me, and I have no problem with it.

    Best,

    Boxer

  117. Mad_Kalak says:

    As much as I like Dalrock, and readily admit that Peterson is wrong sometimes, Dalrock doesn’t hold a candle to him. Careful Dalrock, you’ll end up like Vox Day, who attacks everyone who doesn’t see the light of Vox’s brilliance (he’s a genius you know, just ask him).
    And Peterson readily admits that women are at fault for much of what’s wrong with society. He is the world’s most prominent anti-feminist. His mistake here, in my estimation, is that he thinks rational discourse will affect women, not that he is purple pill or blah blah blah.

  118. DeNihilist says:

    Anon, & Anonreader,

    Actually, looking at the photo in front of the store, I was struck by how “related” these women looked. Thinking it may be a family re-union, and this is a photo of the women side of the family.

    As for JBP, the obvious thing to me, is that he is more a centerist then supporting any side. The criticism from all over the spectrum supports this theory. Not only that, but me thinks some of the critics are quite butt-hurt that this guy, a relative newby, was able to find a sweet spot and take it into international fame and fortune.

  119. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    As much as I like Dalrock, and readily admit that Peterson is wrong sometimes, Dalrock doesn’t hold a candle to him.

    You’ve heard the expression “damned by faint praise,” of course. This is its reciprocal. (I don’t know what it’s called. But what a compliment, bubelah! Now, don’t get all puffed up and headstrong, Dalrock. Stay humble.)

  120. feministhater says:

    As much as I like Dalrock, and readily admit that Peterson is wrong sometimes, Dalrock doesn’t hold a candle to him. Careful Dalrock, you’ll end up like Vox Day, who attacks everyone who doesn’t see the light of Vox’s brilliance (he’s a genius you know, just ask him).
    And Peterson readily admits that women are at fault for much of what’s wrong with society. He is the world’s most prominent anti-feminist. His mistake here, in my estimation, is that he thinks rational discourse will affect women, not that he is purple pill or blah blah blah.

    Did Jordan Peterson address the promiscuity of the women in question when they engaged in sexual intercourse outside of marriage to PUAs? If they didn’t engage in promiscuity, they wouldn’t be able to be deceived, would they?

    Nope. Then Dalrock has a point. They are as much to blame for their own ‘deception’ as the PUAs. Jordan has not admitted to himself that women are the primary chooser of who they sleep with and therefore are to be blamed for the consequences thereof.

    Jordan Peterson is blaming PUAs for not playing the game according to the rules as defined by feminist, sexually positive women. Yet the PUAs are giving these women exactly what they want. If they are not, how about these women don’t sleep with them? How about we expect something out of women, to take some responsibility for their actions, or is Jordan Peterson to shit scared to call on women to limit their sexuality? I’m guessing he is.

  121. feministhater says:

    Dalrock doesn’t hold a candle to him.

    Why does this matter? It’s not an ego contest. Nobody here cares about Jordan Peterson’s ego or lack thereof. Dalrock disagreed with him and you’re all here puffing out your chest for another man… last I heard, actual disagreement without violence was exactly what Jordan Peterson has called for…

  122. feministhater says:

    Most of the people on this blog who hate him, simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a young man, growing up today. Anyway, he’s not insulting any of you married bros, with this lecture. He’s insulting guys like me, and I have no problem with it.

    Hate is rather a strong word. Can you point out who actually ‘hates’ Jordan Peterson?

  123. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Hate is rather a strong word. Can you point out who actually ‘hates’ Jordan Peterson?

    This is one example:

    Peterson is a high-level globalist and by his own admission, demon-possessed. Nothing he says can be trusted.

    I’m not going to re-write this thread for you, so perhaps you ought to come out with your point.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  124. feministhater says:

    Peterson is a high-level globalist and by his own admission, demon-possessed. Nothing he says can be trusted.

    I looked, I missed it so can you please point this comment out to me. Thank you.

    Furthermore, was this a random comment from one person or is there a common theme of this ‘demon filled, high level globalist’ from most of the comment section that would warrant the comment you made? I don’t see the hate you describe, especially not from ‘married men’ on Dalrock’s site.

  125. feministhater says:

    Nevermind, I found it.

  126. seventiesjason says:

    When I watch his lectures online from over the past few years……most of his attendees in the class are or seem to be women. At the protests……most of the people shouting him down are women, and their fellow white-knights who don’t care about his position…..they just care if the women are gonna put out for them because they *care* about women and their feelings. Many of his defenders at these rallies are men. People who watch him online seem to be more men…..according to his big hype and sweep to fame.

    He’s a classical liberal……he appeals to that “greater good” of learning for learnings sake that HAS been lost in the liberal-arts higher education tradition. People respond to that! It’s a good thing.

    Made some gaffs about MGTOW. Oh, he never calls out female behavior. He’s not doing this or that. Is it his job to????

    The answer is no. He’s just a very well rounded and articulate mane who struck a nerve, and it s a good thing. Take it for what it is.

  127. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Boxer

    Classic – I love the troll bait about the Bolshevik revolution; you may even entangle someone in that sophistry. Nicholas, Alexandra and their five kids don’t appreciate your bullshit and they certainly were not shot in the Urals by Orthodox Christians.

    As to @Jordan Peterson

    He’s a globalist wolf n sheeps clothing erected as a straw man for illiterate cuckservatives to follow. Anyone that has actually sat down and visually read his writings can determine that he makes no sense. He is not a Christian, he is an atheist and at best a fool.

  128. feministhater says:

    I read Gunner’s post. Interesting read,I don’t know exactly what to think but I don’t see hate. Merely a warning on Peterson. Are you a Christian Boxer? Do you believe people can be possessed? If not, I suppose that would seem hateful to you.

  129. Coloradomtnman says:

    @seventiesjason

    Is Jordan Peterson a Christian? Is he against the destruction of Christendom? Is he against the destruction of the West? Is he against the destruction of the family? Have you actually read a single chapter of any of his books?

    Dalrock is wise to bring up the Demon-eyed Peterson; his own words show him to be a madman; a literally insane warped individual. (Yes I have watched his videos and read as much of his writings as I can stand. I already make my bed so his Jungian insanity was not ground-breaking)

    Ask yourself why the left has embraced him …. the answer is self-evident.

  130. ingracious says:

    I thought I’d just chime in again.

    I will admit upfront that I’m quite a long-term viewer and subsequent fan of Jordan Peterson, and I find it very good that he’s being mentioned on this blog more often now – even if it’s only because of his unignorable popularity with men, and young men in particular. I still consider NO criticism of his viewpoints to be off-limits. There are things he’s clearly ignorant/blue-pill about (Islam is one, modern marriage and male/female relationships is another due to his prior good fortune, then there’s the history of feminism and what it represents), however, this video that’s been used as an example of him “condemning PUAs” has been so clearly misconstrued it’s unbelievable to me.

    The context of what he’s talking about is stated at the beginning: “(H)ere’s two ways to use language.”

    One is “instrumentally” – that is, the vocal sounds/general communication that a person can produce in order to get what they want. Language as a tool, like a crowbar to open a jammed door.

    The second would seem to be summed up as ‘truthfully/genuinely’ – using language and communication as a way to sincerely express how you feel, what you believe, what you want for the future, and so on. How people then react to what you say is irrelevant: The content of what you’re saying isn’t based on what you believe would get them to react the way you want them to, it’s based on what you want to say to them. How they react is up to them.

    In this video, Jordan Peterson is not condemning the PUA community in general as being “immoral” (passing moral judgement on their lifestyle of seeking cheap, no-strings sex), he is condemning the specific methods of communication which are taught and encouraged within that community as being coldly manipulative. In the dichotomy he presents, the PUA community is his chosen example of a community which openly propagates the manipulative, “instrumental” usage of language in contrast to the honest, upstanding way of using language which he himself seemingly puts forward for his clients/students as being a better way to behave in the world.

    I myself agree with his assertions in this video that much of the goals of PUAs as well as the methods they use to achieve those goals are psychopathic – a psychopath being defined as:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychopath

    “a person having a character disorder distinguished by amoral or antisocial behaviour without feelings of remorse”

    Because people in the PUA community DO teach methods for acquiring sex that are cold and manipulative.

    Men who’ve never had much luck with women get suckered in to PUA seminars, where they’re given these robotic, canned mannerisms, interjections, behaviours, clothing and hairstyles, and conversational word combos that are meant to lure and manipulate women into dropping to their knees and sucking their dicks like they would for someone who isn’t a complete loser like they are – it’s meant to allow them to disguise that fact, at least for the night! You’ll even have wingmen with you, to help smooth out the process and help you “land a babe”!

    Or, if the young padawan wants to more permanently improve his ability to bed women on his own, then these blogs and seminars will provide him with all of the symptoms/ingredients of a psychopathic personality disorder which he can then overlay upon his mind and act out in the world as a natural member of the tribe! Maybe they’ll even become natural behaviours! Then he’ll get lots of sex!

    The very reason I came to this blog in the first place was because of that distinctive psychopathy that permeates the PUA community and their discussions.

    I initially started reading here because Dalrock was linked on The Rational Male, a blog which I read very regularly for a time and for which I even ordered both Rational Male books – however, once I began reading here, I never went back. This in spite of all the useful red pill knowledge I acquired on that blog and in the comments, as well as from many other manosphere blogs like Heartiste and so on – I had read them so intently for so long, but I no longer wanted anything to do with them. I didn’t consciously know why I began so strongly preferring to read Dalrock over Rollo, but it clicked for me fairly recently when I heard Karen Straughn in one of her videos describe what men were specifically “turning to” in the various communities of the manosphere.

    She said that some men were turning to, quote: “The social nihilism of the PUA community.”

    That was it. That was why I found all of these PUA blogs, all of these pick-up tactics and quick tricks, all of these PUA seminar videos SO. FUCKING. DEPRESSING!

    It was the “social nihilism” as Karen Straughn put it, or the “psychopathy” as Jordan Peterson puts it here – the complete lack of care or concern for other human beings, and the complete lack of desire to be anything resembling a moral, principled human being. It was just about fucks and sucks and duck-lipped bimbos and the “tools” you can utilise to bed them as quickly as possible. Nothing else matters, because nothing really matters in the PUA community – they’re “social nihilists” who just want sex, and any and all methods that work to achieve that end goal are A-okay by them.

    Who are they even fucking tonight? It doesn’t matter.

    That, in fact, is the very idea that Jordan Peterson mentions in the video when he first uses the word “psychopath”: “The individual (the girl who is being picked up) doesn’t matter.”

    It’s like a male fish prodding itself against a larger female fish over and over, until the female fish finally turns to expose its slimy, moist fuck-hole long enough for the male to squirm around inside, ejaculate and then go off to find another female fish to poke and prod and cajole all over.

    It’s like a point-and-click adventure game:

    Use: Light conversation on – Bar Slut

    Nothing happened.

    Use: Negging on – Bar Slut

    Bar Slut became interested.

    Use: Casual touching on – Bar Slut

    Bar Slut became aroused.

    Use: Isolation and close on – Bar Slut

    *screen fades to black* – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ljLPZEfjs

    “You are winner.”

    It’s just cold, calculating, unfeeling manipulation in order to achieve a single, meaningless end goal, the methodological knowledge of which is then transmitted like a mind disease between hosts within the PUA community so that they can all live equally vain, empty lives playing showdogs for sluts while attempting to tame the sluts for their own perverted gain – it’s psychopathic, at least to some degree, and I can’t believe that so many commenters here are acting as if Jordan Peterson is some crazy man for calling it for what it is!

    And on top of that, to then mischaracterise his clear assertion in the video that the METHODS/THINKING PATTERNS that PUAs UTILISE are psychopathic in nature and then extrapolate what you WANT to hear where instead he is somehow morally shaming PUAs and perhaps even men in general for seeking casual sex is just absurd. He is describing a set of behaviours and their nature, not morally judging a lifestyle.

    I am indeed biased here in wanting to defend Peterson, but I feel I’ve argued my point on this matter. I don’t actually know whether Jordan Peterson is against PUAs in general, all I know is that this video alone is not evidence of that.

    Just like most everyone here: I don’t begrudge PUAs for their lifestyles, and I don’t begrudge them for using tactics which allow them to take advantage of the fucked up social landscape which we all exist in where casual sex and carouselling is the norm.

    But, I do JUDGE them for the behaviours they engage in. It is not a good thing that they’re doing, no matter how much nihilistic, calculative sense it makes for them to be doing it.

    I mean, I thought this was a place of principle? With commenters who have standards about these things? People’s reactions here are truly disappointing.

    —–

    I also wanted to quickly (I’m sure I’ll make a liar of myself soon enough) address the general talk here about how Jordan Peterson is a completely blue-pilled cuck of a man who has no idea what he’s talking about, and who is just teaching men to “be better betas” and “get back on the plantation” and so forth.

    This is clear evidence that you people who are saying this have in no way paid attention to what Jordan Peterson has been saying, particularly on national TV and radio around the world.

    Jordan Peterson, unlike Doug Wilcuck or whomever, is not teaching men to be weak. He has expressed in multiple places that men should be competent, self-reliant, and have a self-chosen purpose in their life. They should stand up straight, seek to face their fears, and hold to the truth. They should absolutely be capable of violence and malevolence, and yet not seek to utilise their capacity for those things – like a sword kept in its sheath.

    He is taking young men, like myself, ones whose lives are empty and purposeless, weak and pathetic, and he is communicating – through his words in Youtube lectures alone – that our life situations can be changed for the better. If we put in effort, seek to live rightly, and treat ourselves well, then we can give our lives purpose, make ourselves strong, and create a world around us that we actually want to live in.

    All of that is noble, absolutely noble. There is no other such source of encouragement within the lives of young men like me today, to the absolute shame of the modern world, and I would not want to think about the staggering number of young lives he’s likely saved from suicide through his willingness to speak the views he has.

    I strongly recommend this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER1LOarlgg

    I can only attribute the comments that some people have made here to pure ignorance and prejudice – I struggle to even conceive how you could actually genuinely listen to what Jordan Peterson has to say, and then come away thinking he’s nothing more than a pathetic charlatan or some bullshit term like “controlled resistance”. Sure, some of his views are kooky, but to dismiss him entirely? Why do you think he’s become so popular off of HOUR-LONG low-quality Youtube videos where it’s literally nothing but him talking? And with a Kermit the Frog voice to boot? I was there from the beginning – his popularity is organic.

    I’ll give some video recommendations:

    If you haven’t watched the Cathy Newman interview, then sorry for my French, but BRUSH THE FUCK UP ON IT. Ten million views and counting within the span of five months on a 30 minute video of two people talking, if you haven’t seen it then you ought to not be such an ignorant prick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=24s

    He smacks the interviewer over it in that video, but Jordan Peterson is also the only public figure I’m aware of who’s come here to Australia and gotten on TV who is openly against the ‘gender pay gap’ (even if they did misrepresent him through editing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWB7s9fDMpw

    He’s also openly anti-Communist, and speaks of the Communist failures of the 20th century quite regularly and in detail. In a world where Bernie Sanders – the pathetic, cucked-by-BLM fucking muppet – almost won the Democrat party nomination in 2016, you’d better fucking believe that having someone who holds such sway over young people like Jordan Peterson who then says ‘Socialism didn’t work – it doesn’t work’ is pretty damn important. Everyone I know who’s my age here in Oz would’ve voted for Bernie. Socialism is a philosophy of weakness, so the weaker and more vulnerable young men are left to become then the more socialists there will be among them – ignore that cancer at your own peril.

    This entire interview with Maajid Nawaz is also terrific intellectualism, even though Jordan doesn’t have anything to say about Islam (he says he’ll have to learn more about it – I hope he does toot sweet): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBfT38xbhU&t=437s

    At 07:10-07:55 is relevant to this blog and Christianity.

    I can’t be bothered to find it in that interview (even I have a limit of patience), but Jordan Peterson once again makes public mention of a concept that he has expressed in many places: “Men mate across and down dominance hierarchies, whereas women mate across and UP dominance hierarchies.”

    Do you know what this concept is also called? Any guesses? …Hypergamy! Jordan Peterson is expressing, in multiple public venues/channels without fear, that hypergamy exists and that it influences women’s behaviour. He is exposing hundreds of thousands of young men in his audience to that very concept.

    Find me one other public figure who is doing that. I challenge you to do so.

    That Cathy Newman video has 10,000,000,000 views, and it’s not because of Cathy, it’s because of Jordan Peterson standing up to her over common feminist talking points and making a fool of her for the world to see. You can watch the interview for yourself. I did on release day.

    I’m sure I’m not the first to say it, but I will state it here definitively in closing:

    Jordan Peterson is a historical figure.

    The influence he is having on the world – not just the US/Canada, but the world – will go down in history. The conversations he is sparking, the concepts that he is expressing and the young men that he is saving from going down the path to hell – it’s all magnificent to watch, and to be swept up in.

    Jordan Peterson is not perfect, he is not a messiah, he is not correct on everything or even most things – because of course he isn’t. He’s just someone who’s saying things that no one else is saying, at least not in the way that is obviously drawing people to him instead of them.

    If you are not able to grasp why he’s so popular or what is so important or valuable about most of what he’s saying, then may I suggest that you may be – to bring it back again – a fuddy-duddy. A goddamn fuddy-duddily-duddly.

  131. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    “Not only that, but me thinks some of the critics are quite butt-hurt that this guy, a relative newby, was able to find a sweet spot and take it into international fame and fortune.”

    Yeah, its totally fascinating how a fellow with no connections whatsoever to extraordinarily powerful “anti-Christian anti-traditionalists” in apex-politics (except for consulting on and being entrusted with their messaging, probably for years, probably as his professional sideline, as he has mentioned a successful institutional public relations consulting practice in interviews) was thrust into the searing media limelight (enduring all the harrowing character-nuking, career-destroying softballs of being… pilloried! just destroyed! flayed alive! in one tweet!… as an emerging luminary of “The Intellectual Dark Web,” complete with flattering professional photography) and became an overnight sensation completely organically with nary a queef from the establishment. (I heard he was shadowbanned from youtube, patreon, twitter, facebook, instagram, snapchat, linked in, the domain name system, tinder, uber, pornhub and even worldstar. Sheeeeeeit!) A man who preaches, if you discard the friendly “aww shucks, what about those crazy kids and their pronouns?” routine, a state of learned organizational helplessness and radical atomization in his followers Which is anathema to entrenched power, absolutely terrifying to them.

    It beggars belief. (*psst* if you ask me, all signs point to hegelian antithesis)

    While other, less imaginative, figures we know, and may or may not love, get banned by parliaments, violently harried by social justice mobs, financially wrecked and occasionally thrown to the wolves, to probably get murdered, in prison, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Butthurt losers all, I reckon.

    What is the difference? Quality? You’ve read his stuff, right?

    Tie your shoes!

  132. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    I read Gunner’s post. Interesting read,I don’t know exactly what to think but I don’t see hate. Merely a warning on Peterson. Are you a Christian Boxer? Do you believe people can be possessed? If not, I suppose that would seem hateful to you.

    So, you don’t see hatred for demons in Gunner’s post? It sounds like you’re accusing him of Satanism. Why are you accusing Gunner of loving demons? Where’s your evidence?

    (See how easy your game is? I used to play at your nonsense as a teenage kid…)

    Regards,

    Boxer

  133. Boxer says:

    Dear Colorado:

    Dalrock is wise to bring up the Demon-eyed Peterson; his own words show him to be a madman; a literally insane warped individual. (Yes I have watched his videos and read as much of his writings as I can stand. I already make my bed so his Jungian insanity was not ground-breaking)

    LOL! What a looney tirade! Please feel free to pen a full length kook rant on Peterson, and submit it to my blog.

    boxer at v5k2c2 dot com

    I’ll be glad to publish it.

  134. seventiesjason says:

    The “left” had embraced JBP?

    No. Most of the left has not and will not embrace him because he does not toe-the-platform on every single *issue* and *agenda* they propose. Watch SJW’s, newsmedia personalities, and countless other academics criticize him…..and they are ALWAYS on the left.

    He is not a conservative either. People tend to thing of the marble doesn’t roll one way, it MUST roll the other.

    The right, alt-right and “conservatives” are looking (demanding????) a man stand up and be Moses to all of them………like the left does. I remember the 1990’s……..every woman creaming their panties over then President Clinton…..and his personal behavior towards women was abysmal way before Lewinski….but they followed him like a diety because he had a letter “D” for his political affiliation. The right is looking for all their politcal leaders now to fit this mold.

    If you are going to hold all your potential leaders to the success or failure in your personal life you have problems. The left seems to do this more than the right….at this time…………

    I am frankly tired of every conservative, or small “c” christian, or someone who even “leans” to the right on some issues get blasted because they don’t “toe the line” on every brusied shin, or every butt that has to be wiped or running nose that has to be blotted.

    Take JBP for what he is. A classical liberal

  135. Otto Lamp says:

    If you dropped Peterson into 1960, he’d be a mainstream Democrat in the JFK mold.

    A classic liberal is right. And he suffers from many of the same blind spots 1960 liberals suffered from.

    But, he’s at least pulling in the right direction.

  136. Anon says:

    AR,

    First you made a sweeping claim about US women in the 1920’s. Now you shift your goalposts rather than admit Earl has a point. That’s not very good logic, is it?

    I made not such admission nor did I shift the goalposts. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

    Second, how many of the women in that undated photo are obese? Wasn’t that Earl’s point?

    Nope. The entire point of the thread is that women of the 1920s would look plain and non-descript by today’s standards. Sure, they were not obese, but they did not have any modern cosmetics, shaving, etc. You again fail to understand what the discussion is even about.

    I know you have a sentimental attachment about the decade you grew up in (I am similarly attached to the 1980s), but that does not change the facts.

  137. feministhater says:

    So, you don’t see hatred for demons in Gunner’s post? It sounds like you’re accusing him of Satanism. Why are you accusing Gunner of loving demons? Where’s your evidence?

    This is why it’s pointless to debate with you. You clearly said hatred of Jordan Peterson. If he were possessed, and I haven’t got a clue that he is, it is the demon one hates, not the person who is possessed.

  138. feministhater says:

    Take JBP for what he is. A classical liberal.

    That is my take too. I really haven’t got to know enough about Jordan Peterson to make a valued judgement on the matter.

  139. feministhater says:

    Nope. The entire point of the thread is that women of the 1920s would look plain and non-descript by today’s standards. Sure, they were not obese, but they did not have any modern cosmetics, shaving, etc. You again fail to understand what the discussion is even about.

    Are you sure? Gillette was advertising razors to men and women during that time. Safety razors were invented mid 19th century, by the early twentieth century they were common place with Gillette’s disposable razor blade making it more easy to use and available to the common man and woman. They did have cosmetics, they did have razors and soap and other methods for removal of hair. It was common place. The roaring twenties spring to mind… did you forget your history books?

  140. seventiesjason says:

    I lived in what was then called West Germany as an exchange studen in the 1986 / 1987 academic year in cosmopolitian, international, militarily occupied West Berlin………

    Times MAY have changed, but one aspect of culture shock for me back then was this.

    Women. Did. Not. Shave. Not their hairlip. Not their pits. Not their legs. This was in 1986 / 1987. Fellow teenage girls had legs as hairy as mine. I was 16 / 17 at the time. My host mother had a grip of armpit hair that belonged in the jungle, or aftermath of societal collapse.

    There were Gillette commercials on TV. Guys for the most part were clean shaven. I mentioned once how American women shave their legs and armpits……

    was told by girls my age with laughter: Only whores, Ameriphiles, prostitutes that sleep with teh American / French and British troops here shave.

    They thought the whole practice was rather repugnant.

  141. DeNihilist says:

    Peterson is a centerist. As he stated in the Munk debate, the left has its bit to play in society by being the conscience of society, to speak for the downtrodden.

    But as he so aptly pointed out, whereas on the right, they do call out the far rightists, neo-nazis and their ilk. Yet the center-left will not ever call out the crazies on the far left. He kept asking the 2 pinkos, “are you willing to call out the radicals on your side?” Of course neither directly answered this, but went around and around the question.

    And for those of you who think he is a leftist, get off of the MRA sites for a bit of fresh air, and actually see how many leftist are wanting him silenced. The piece in the LA Times was pretty well balanced so of course, the great thought leaders of the feminism movement (Josh Whedon being one – https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/06/02/white-knight-joss-whedon-tries-to-win-his-feminist-credentials-back-gets-dragged/) had to attack the author.

    When all sides are against you , you know you are doing god’s work!

  142. Anon says:

    seventiesjason,

    Women. Did. Not. Shave. Not their hairlip. Not their pits. Not their legs. This was in 1986 / 1987.

    Indeed. And this was in 1986-87 in what was a first-world country. Imagine the 1920s in America or anywhere else.

    For men today to see that now would be quite jarring and boner-killing. One of the biggest knocks against feminists is that they shave their heads but not their legs, revealing their upside-down psychological orientation.

    Now women even shave their pubes or at least contain it to a landing strip.

  143. John James R. says:

    @Kalak,

    “And Peterson readily admits that women are at fault for much of what’s wrong with society.”

    I’ve listened to Peterson a lot and have never gotten that impression ever. You have a link? Quote?

    Your choice of words is interesting as well; “admits.” Why would he have to ‘admit’ that? It’s almost as if we all know that he is ultimately a ‘Man Up’ guy which means he’s on female side, naturally. Therefore, he would have to ‘admit’ that women are at fault. Like he just inherently wants women to be infallible but even he must, at some times ‘admit’ that they have faults. If a guy mugs me on the street, I don’t later come out and say; “I admit it. That guy mugged me. I’ll give you that. I will concede that point. I readily admit to it.” That’s what you seem to be saying.

    ‘Admitting’ is an acknowledgement of guilt which he would only have to do if he is naturally on their team (via the tradcon route); something that many of us are starting to sense.

    It doesn’t matter though because he’s never blamed women for anything. He’s dispelled some widespread and illogical anti-male sentiments but that’s not nearly the same as blaming or criticizing women.

    Let’s see Jordan call out women and tell them to get their fat asses on a treadmill. Until then, ho-hum. Just another enabler of female degeneracy. Men just need to ‘be better’ is what I get. Yeah some things are unfair, but just ‘be better.’ Don’t be a MGTOW creep (by avoiding the rigged, incentive-free game of modern marriage/life) but just ‘be better’ blah-blah. Fall right into the trap of total sacrifice and overburden for zero rewards….again.

    I would define leftists as contrarians or ‘ironists’ basically. The hipsters who always have to be the first to take the attention-grabbing, unexpected stance. The first to be cool. We all know that game. There are even memes about it. But leftism is so widespread now that the New Leftists are starting to dabble with calling out the Old Leftists who have grown tiresome. Peterson is a New Leftist and it’s working. He’s calling out Leftism before calling out Leftism is cool. Paglia did it too. The funny thing is that we end up agreeing with them even though we took different routes.

    His immediate dismissal and hostility towards MGTOW gave him away. He usually will be open-minded and at least interested in any form of human behavior, but not MGTOW/PUA. He got his claws out on the spot. That’s when I lost interest in Peterson. A tired-of-his-wife trad-con who reads the classics instead of going golfing.

  144. ZMAN says:

    Ok…I have to chime in here to let you guys in on the current “dating scene” and other observations in the USA amongst the younger generation 28 and under. What I will disclose for you will probably also make sense for most other Western Countries since they seem to be having the same issues. A little about me so you know where I am coming from; 25 years old, a little under 6’2 and around 185lbs, athletic looking, regular job nothing special, spent some time doing the military thing. Spent a lot of time playing sports while younger, moved around a lot as a young child, and ended up living out in a rural area during my HS years before going to University and gaining a degree.

    It is not just feminism that is wrecking women but the degeneration of maintaining a healthy body and putting forward a positive feminine image. I would comfortably state that roughly 40 to 50% of all the women of my generation are obese and when you add in those who are overweight it is probably somewhere in the ballpark of 60% of all the women of my generation are not maintaining the proper bodyweight for their height. This is a major red flag for any man with self respect. Are you going to take up with a fat assed slob of a woman? I most certainly am not.

    In regards to putting forward a positive feminine image, there are a significant amount of women in my generation who want to paint their bodies and look like ex-cons, soldiers/sailors, bikers, etc. These are the women who want to be pseudo-hard asses or think they are edgy and are making their mark on the world by making sure you know that it is her body and her choice. These women I laugh at because deep down I know they have no respect for themselves, most assuredly have mental issues, and have been pounded out on the regular. In fact, I worked with a blonde haired blue eyed girl who if she actually tried she could of been an attractive woman, yet she decided to get an all black quasi-sleeve tattoo on her arm and has tats on her ribcage. I couldn’t help but make fun of her arm tat by trying to rub it out like it was put on by a sharpie. She didn’t appreciate that! This woman was always drinking beer, practicing lesbianism with several different girls even though I knew of several men who had sex with her, and she claimed that she wanted to have a family one day! From my experience interacting with several of these types of women, they also seem to exhibit a lot of masculine traits and carrying themselves in more of a male manner. Its like these women have actually just become men without the plumbing of a male. Again I have to ask myself do I want to take up with a woman like this? No and I wouldn’t even risk sticking it in lest I find myself with some disease from this type of whore.

    Women in the miltary has led to the ruination of the military. Let me tell you about the women who want to become Military Officers. First off, these women cannot physically compare with men and it shows during the Physical Fitness test which is also skewed in women’s favor and there is nothing “Equal” about it. The males must do more pushups and run a much shorter 2 mile run time than the females. Furthermore, during a specialty course Air Assault School we started with approximately 40 women in my class, do you know how many completed it and passed? 2. The majority of the women couldn’t climb the rope on day zero. Pathetic.

    I have found these military women tend to be the most promiscuous as well, hence I went on an overseas program with a group of students and military personnel that I will relay here: Of the women that were there the majority were in relationships back home with boyfriends and fiances. What these boyfriends and fiances do not know is that there lovely girlfriends were getting pounded out on a nightly basis! These women are so bold and without shame that they post pictures of themselves back home married to their cuckolds after getting banged out overseas!

    Furthermore, I have found the leadership in the military to be extremely effeminate as one Light Colonel an almost 50 year old man exclaimed to myself and others that he was a male feminist! This is your typical pussified fat Western Male with a fat shrew feminist wife with their 1 biological daughter and another adopted daughter. The biological daughter lives in their basement and gets banged out by her live-in boyfriend! The daughters both have the typical feminist appearance of unnaturally dyed hair, piercings, and fugly tattoos. The enlisted side of the house is not much better as one senior enlisted man is your typical “Patriotard” who is beer belly fat, chews tabaccoo like hes hard, tatted up, and loves the empowered females so much that he started a females group “sisters in arms” and has regularly closed door meetings with them. This is the same guy who has been married multiple times, filed bankruptcy, currently losing his ass through a divorce, and is now getting ready to get married again! One 2LT who is a nice guy, athletic, and good looking is marrying a woman who I shit you not has the nickname of Backseat “her name”. This dude is in for a world of hurt!

    In regards to women in general of this generation: the “easiest” women got taken out really quickly in high school and turned into single mothers, some as early as 14. These are the women who matured early and wanted nothing to do with the guys in their same grade and went for the seniors or even guys who were not even in High School! Some made it out of high school but got knocked up right out of high school by the first guy who kinda had a job but she really wanted to get banged out by him. These types normally are associated with the lower class types or who grew up in dysfunctional families ex: single mother households.
    Another type of this generation are the party types who are also extremely easy like so easy as long as you have a functioning dick they will let you pound them out. These are the girls who starting experimenting with alcohol and weed in their teens, like to go to night clubs, travel around, go to festivals, etc. These girls are never without attention either because if they do not have it then they will literally die! I’ve watched as they’ve gotten older and the mileage really adds up and they start looking like shit by the time they are in their early 20’s and then they start getting into even harder drugs like meth, heroine, and bath salts. Look for these girls on Plenty of Fish, Tinder, Instagram where they will be acting as prostitutes, and any sugar daddy website.
    Another type you will find are what I described earlier as the “masculinized female”. This is the female who was more of a tomboy, played sports, and wanted to hang out with the guys. These types normally have brothers that they looked up to in an unhealthy way and wanted to be one of the guys so to speak. Their family lives are normally marked by a divorce whereby she no longer gets the appropriate relationship with a father figure that encourages her female nature and instead looks to embrace a more masculine nature. You find these women in male spaces trying to be men which of course they fail miserably at.
    The last type that I seem to run into are the career types. These are some of the most annoying women that I encounter because they always want to give you their resume and pretend that they are awesome. Plenty of Masters, PhDs, and other nonsensical madness here is the norm. These women actually think that advanced degrees make them attractive instead they should put up a sign on their foreheads that says I went for extra long schooling to get indoctrinated and now I am a debt slave and I need a man to bail me out of this mess. They like to feign like they are independent but if you hang around long enough they reveal that they are still getting money from their parents or some other source you don’t need to know about. In terms of choosing men, these women are only slightly better than their counterparts but they normally have a string of boyfriends going back to high school and if they don’t then you will find them taking care of the furry pointy eared children who they spend time with to try to suppress their maternal instincts until they find some chump who will put up with their shit and put a ring on it.

    Quite frankly with what I have seen this society is really degenerate and dysfunctional. I haven’t even gone into the laws of gynocentrism and feminism that are so pervasive. With that being said I think the “switched on” modern man has several options on how to make the most of the situation:

    1. Go MGTOW and live life on your own terms as much as you can. Want to make a lot of money? Awesome do that. If not, who cares? Want to tell your boss to eat a shit sandwich then do it. Want to live on a boat, fine! Want to join a monastery and become a monk, then that’s cool too.

    2. Become a PUA. This is for the more unscrupulous man who has no problem with pounding out the “empowered woman” since you can find plenty of those. Issues will be STDs, false rape claims, jilted lovers, potential for paternity fraud, etc. Can become a dangerous lifestyle but will wake you up to the nature of woman.

    3. Expat. Get the hell out of the Western World for a more traditional Society where feminism/gynocentrism isn’t wielding the influence like it is here and the laws are in your favor. Issues will be blending in, learning a new language, and starting a new life.

    4. Go Off Grid. Live out in the woods in a cabin or perhaps become a vandweller? Start your own religious community and unplug from modern society. Live off solar panels, firewood, rain catchment systems, farm your own land, etc.

    Anyways, I hope this helps.

  145. feministhater says:

    And for those of you who think he is a leftist, get off of the MRA sites for a bit of fresh air, and actually see how many leftist are wanting him silenced.

    This is only because they are attacking their own. He is the liberal of yesteryear. If this were on any other issue, civil rights, human rights, anything to do with censorship of speech, he would probably be on board. The real trick with Peterson was that the only time he decided to say ‘enough is enough’ is when someone would be forcing him to speak. He didn’t do it when they would silence people with ‘incorrect thoughts’ or who said mean things, only when the political class went so far as to suggest that they would force you to speak words you did not want, that was a bill too far for him, nothing much before that though.

    You might call him centrist but that is only because we have moved so far to the left within the culture.

  146. seventiesjason says:

    Met many straight men here in California that get waxed “down there” because they think they’re a porn star…but have beards……strange times we live in.

    I would assume that in the BRD heute (Germany today) many more women just clean up down below…..but I would assume that many still do not.

    Surreal back then……..Pia, Simone, and Giesela (the hot girls in my Gynasium class back then) with hairy legs, clumps of pit hair seen full on during schwim (swim class) was a turn off for me…….even if I wanted to make a move (I was taller than many of my fellow male classmates back then) I just couldn’t.

    The nude sunbathing in some of the public parks in West Berlin were a frightening sight too. A long time ago.

  147. Scott says:

    Take JBP for what he is. A classical liberal.

    Probably not a bad assessment. Very similar in orientation to Jonathan Haigt. Even Dennis Prager.

    These folks are hoping for reasoned course correction toward some kind of values-neutral order of things where “equality” and “free speech” can really work this time if only we just get all these people of wildly different genetic and biological differences to read enough Jefferson and Voltaire.

  148. Scott says:

    “wildly variant” I mean.

  149. Anon says:

    DeNihilist,

    And for those of you who think he is a leftist, get off of the MRA sites for a bit of fresh air, and actually see how many leftist are wanting him silenced.

    I can’t believe you still think leftists don’t fight other leftists.

    Race Nationalists are leftists. That does not mean that SJWs don’t hate them.

    Everything that is not small government/free markets is left-wing.

    Peterson is a Tradcon, which is to say, a form of centrist who is left-wing when it comes to distributing resources from men to women.

  150. Anon says:

    seventiesjason,

    Surreal back then……..Pia, Simone, and Giesela (the hot girls in my Gynasium class back then) with hairy legs, clumps of pit hair seen full on during schwim (swim class) was a turn off for me…….even if I wanted to make a move (I was taller than many of my fellow male classmates back then) I just couldn’t.

    Switching gears, this could be what screwed up your ability to escalate ever again. You saw something jarring at a young age after having been conditioned to expect shaving (as we all are).

    This might have embedded something deep in your psyche that persists to this day.

  151. seventiesjason says:

    Speaking of “first world” country. Yeah…..there was no shock in those aspects. Flip the switch. Lights came on. Running water. Highways. Cars. Telephones. In fact….I remember calling back to the USA on Christmas Day 1986. Phone calls were SUPER EXPENSIVE……I only called home twice that year, and it was a brief conversation………….but clear as a bell. My mom and dad sounded like they were right around the corner.

    I got really homesick in early 1987 for about a month or two……….there was no Internet. No email. Had to write letters back then. I remember around that time I started to “dream” in German as well. I was fluent by that point…..some of the German humor I never understood. Germans are not “funny” people……I don’t think that has changed too much…..their humor was…….different. Not like much of Brit or American humor.

    There were two TV game shows I watched and still could never understand even after becoming fluent in German. One was called “Die Grosse Price” and the other was “Wetten Das”

    West (and East) Berlin turned 750 while I was there. What a party it was!!!!! I was so freakin’ young and a teenager!

  152. @Everyone complaining JBP has never called out women

    Jordan Peterson VICE interview (FULL)

    This interview of JBP by VICE has JBP, a mainstream “leftist/centrist/pick a label” according to many of the comments on this site, stating that women wear makeup in order to attract sexual attention in the workplace, and that this might not be a good thing for intersexual dynamics.

    This alone is a subject I have not heard any mainstream pastor, politician, professor, or commentator outside of manosphere/TRP discuss. The interviewer, a typical leftist, is shocked that JBP would dare to mention such a taboo topic, and refuses to answer JBP’s question of why women wear makeup.

    For all who complain that he’s never addressed issues relevant to us, this seems like an answer to that. I’m sure we’ll be hearing shortly that this is so blue pill etc., etc., but I’d really like to see anyone of comparable status, with a comparable platform, who has said anything like this recently.

  153. Rum says:

    Seventie,
    I was in Berlin during the Einheit 10/2-3/1990. Berlin in general has seemed to me like a strange and intense place for an American. But that night; indescrible.

  154. Bee says:

    Boxer,

    “Again, where did the Bolsheviks overwhelmingly come from, if not from Christian homes in Russia?”

    You grew up in North America but that has not made you a Christian. If a man is born in a stable that does not make him a horse.

    Most of the Bolsheviks came from homes that were not very devout, a few exceptions that rebelled. No different than North America today, very few truly devout Christians.

    Look at Michael E. Dyson and James Cone, they both teach at Seminaries but I don’t accept them as devout Christians.

  155. Mad_Kalak says:

    Feministhater,

    You watch one Peterson video linked to on Dalrock’s blog, and you’re an expert on Peterson’s writings and videos, eh?

    He is a strong proponent of socially enforced monogamy. That counts as addressing promiscuity of both sexes. Blog post here: https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    To those to call Peterson a “globalist cuck” or some such, thinking he’s some sort of fake, let’s be clear: He is not addressing you, and has done more to bring people to sanity that you ever have posting on Facebook or here.

    Peterson is a classical liberal who is speaking to those values. It’s not up to him to advance YOUR values, you should do that for yourself. Build up your own following. Create your own YouTube channel and astound us with YOUR wisdom. Create a blog like Dalrock and with good content you’re going to get YOUR message out. But don’t complain that Peterson is not parroting what you think, that’s just sad.

  156. seventiesjason says:

    Anon….

    I was going to curtly answer “no” to your above observation……but after some thought……..you *may* be on to something.

    I never got drunk or even drank before living in West Germany. I picked up cigarette smoking while there…though I had smoked before. I was such a naive teenager in so many matters. I knew German history quite well for my age….and not just the two world wars………I did have to defend the USA at one discussion about the aftermath of the second world war. I mentioned that “The Allies, including the Soviet Union…..were much kinder to the German people that Germany would have been if they had won the war.”

    I remember…..recall……being at a teenage house party of Thomas…….his father was a sugeon….super rich family. Brittina was talking to her gal pals as I walked by…….

    “Wirklich groß, amerikanisch, niedlich, schöne Zähne und ein Lächeln. So naiv, totale Jungfrau, viel Arbeit mit ihr.”

    Which means something like “really tall American, cute, good smile. he’s a virgin though…..too much work to deal with there.”

    It really hurt me at the time………I mean, I was a teen so those pangs and statements coming from a pretty girl sting that much more at that age.

    Will ponder it more Anon…but you *may* be on to something………they were so much more *worldly* and *older* than I was even though we were the same age. I guess it was a European thing? Maybe a big city thing…..but the hair on those women was a bit underving at the time for sure 🙂

  157. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    It really hurt me at the time………I mean, I was a teen so those pangs and statements coming from a pretty girl sting that much more at that age.

    Of course, I don’t know the story, but are you sure you were hurt by the remarks of that woman? It’s conceivable to me that your psychic pain, at least in part, was due to her tacit admission that she was a promiscuous slut.

    Young men who pin their hopes on finding a traditional, marriageable woman are often broken-hearted to realize the truth about the wimminz they falsely pedestalize.

    Will ponder it more Anon…but you *may* be on to something………they were so much more *worldly* and *older* than I was even though we were the same age. I guess it was a European thing? Maybe a big city thing…..but the hair on those women was a bit underving at the time for sure 🙂

    I think any normal American boy, of your generation, would find it unnerving to see the real character of these wimminz, on display in a deracinated city like Berlin. It’s more than just culture shock. It ruptures the very definition of womanhood.

    Unfortunately, what was on display only in especially degenerate places in that generation is now universal wimminz behavior throughout the United States as well.

    Best,

    Boxer

  158. seventiesjason says:

    Rum. Must say I am a bit envious! That was the “official” unification right????

  159. feministhater says:

    Peterson is a classical liberal who is speaking to those values. It’s not up to him to advance YOUR values, you should do that for yourself. Build up your own following. Create your own YouTube channel and astound us with YOUR wisdom. Create a blog like Dalrock and with good content you’re going to get YOUR message out. But don’t complain that Peterson is not parroting what you think, that’s just sad.

    No one is doing this, why do you care what we think? We disagree with him, sometimes his methods, you have nothing to be whining about. We are discussing an issue around Jordan Peterson and will continue to do so as much as we like, we will not stop for you. You’re pissing in the wind and it’s blowing back on you.

  160. feministhater says:

    <blockquote?You watch one Peterson video linked to on Dalrock’s blog, and you’re an expert on Peterson’s writings and videos, eh?

    Projecting much?! Did I say I was an expert? Got an itch to scratch, fuck face?

  161. feministhater says:

    I’ve watched more than one video, even defending Peterson on occasion and liking what he was doing and saying. This in no way means I have to agree with him. I have an opinion on him, OMGAWD! Call the executioner! Can’t have that!

  162. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anyone see the Lost in Space reboot on Netflix?

    As might be expected, the women have been updated: https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/tv/2018/04/12/the-original-lost-in-space-really-sucked-but-the-netflix-reboot-is-worth-watching/

    Maureen Robinson (Molly Parker) is a super-smart scientist who helped design the Jupiters — the smaller ships that will carry families down to their new planet. …

    In the original series, Maureen (June Lockhart) was the dutiful wife cooking dinners; in the reboot, women fare sooooo much better — they’re smart, tough and capable.

    The new Maureen isn’t cooking dinner, she’s saving the day. And she plans to end her troubled marriage.

    The new Maureen has a biracial daughter from a previous marriage. So she’s been divorced once, prior to her marriage to John Robinson.

    I don’t know whether her “plans to end her troubled marriage” refers to her first or second marriage. (I haven’t see the reboot.)

  163. feministhater says:

    I don’t know whether her “plans to end her troubled marriage” refers to her first or second marriage. (I haven’t see the reboot.)

    Don’t.

  164. John James R. says:

    “Don’t”

    No kidding. How is anyone with a touch of RP awareness going to support the enemy like that?

  165. Rum says:

    Seventie,
    Yeah, it was the ceremonial end of the separation. Midnight Oct 2-3. Million + people partying like they were living inside a dream that they really liked. They were burning Trabants like marshmellows on the end of the cables of building cranes. Massive amounts of fireworks going off right where the people were. There was some drinking, I think, but my memories are vague.
    Germans are hard to figure out because they are very orderly and obdient in regard to what the rules say but weirdly anarchic when off the clock. Lots of very dangerous things were being done, like with the fireworks, but no one seemed to care.
    Russian soldiers were everywhere selling their equipment. I bought some stuff from them. Just the new normal, I guess. Every garage band rock & roll outfit in the country was on the street corners cranking out 60s songs — lots of Beatle songs. Purple laser lights on everything and everybody.
    We were standing by the Brandenburg Gate at midnight when things really got intense. Surreal…

  166. Anon says:

    seventiesjason,

    Will ponder it more Anon…but you *may* be on to something………

    I was referring more to the negative imprinting of seeing all the unshaved hair, which you hadn’t seen anywhere up to that point.

    This is not an uncommon thing, so you are not alone. If men see something that they are trained to assume women take care of out of sight of men (use your imagination here), it can adversely affect their libido, interest levels, confidence, etc. in a variety of little-understood says.

  167. Rum says:

    I am confused by this. IMHO, the natural state of human females is to be as fury as G d made them. If that does not turn a guy on, maybe it is him who has crossed wires in his head, and not because of anything found in nature.
    I liked the unshaven German girls just fine the way they were.

  168. Opus says:

    Can”t see anyone referencing Vox Day’s forensic take-down of Peterson. At first I thought that Vox was, in true Vox fashion, just going too far, after all Peterson was treated by Channel 4 [Americans: Channel 4 is nothing to do with the BBC] as if he were a fully paid up Nazi and made C4 ‘s presenter look like the raving Femnazi that she is. I could see however that Peterson is shaky on history (far too much myth; far too little empirically correct fact) and indeed as Vox revealed it is in his historical misunderstanding that Peterson reveals his global leftist borderless one-world ideology.

    In Vox’s taxonomy Peterson is that most dreaded of all types, the Gamma but as we say round here: Nutter.

  169. seventiesjason says:

    Deeper than that Anon……………you got me thinking………I came back from Europe at the end of August 1987 and I was so much *older* than my peers back in rural New York State. While there I grew almost three inches to my final height.

    Yet….while there, my peers in Gymasium (the boys and girls) were so much older than me. They drank, smoked, had pretty frequent sex…..their worldview was just older…….my host brother (who was my age) had sex at 14 for his first time. We got along, but there was a period where we were just tired of each other……..probably the last few months. I had made some of my own friends in Gymnasium and met a cool guy from the UK while there. He was an exchange student as well. He was the one who helped hone my style and fashion (Mod / modish / skinhead-two-tone).

    The body hair on women was a stigma to me. I can admit that. The under-arm hair was really a shocker…….and I found it pretty uncivilized…..but these were the “people” who did sack Rome right?

    I was just still an awkward teen. I did well in school. My host family liked me, I did get “grounded” once for two weekends (lol). I got stupid drunk once and was picked up by the Berlin Transit Police and brought home at 3am. My host dad was “disappointed” as I recall. My host brother was happy because it ruined my “polite American” attitude I had for just about for all my stay there.

    I just felt like a kid around my peers for the most part when it came to matters of sex……..

  170. Anonymous Reader says:

    ingracious
    The second would seem to be summed up as ‘truthfully/genuinely’ – using language and communication as a way to sincerely express how you feel, what you believe, what you want for the future, and so on

    Question: how does Jordan Peterson define “truth”? Do not assume his definition is the same as yours.

  171. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    Nope. The entire point of the thread is that women of the 1920s would look plain and non-descript by today’s standards.

    Earl doesn’t like fat women. He finds fat women unattractive. He commented in an offhand way that women of the 1920’s would look attractive by comparison because they aren’t fat.

    This set you off in your spergy way for some reason or other. But the fact of the matter is, all your ignorant babble about women of the 1920’s is irrelevant because all Earl was saying is “No Fat Chicks”.

    If you find Earl’s position reprehensible, too bad. It’s Earl’s opinion and he’s entitled to it, just as you are entitled to your uninformed, ignorant ranting. Of the two, Earl’s opinion is more based in reality.

  172. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater to Anon
    Gillette was advertising razors to men and women during that time.

    You are wasting your time. Anon can’t be bothered with facts, he’s too angry over Earl’s “No Fat Chicks” preference to engage in rational thought. Look, Anon can’t even perform a basic search such as “leg shaving”, perhaps because it would prove him wrong yet again. He’s too worked up.

    It’s obviously some kind of personal, emotional issue. Best to just leave Anon alone. Let him calm down.

  173. seventiesjason says:

    Any Germans lurking here who can verify the “hairy” truth about todays “modern German girl” if they have come out of the stone age and if they shave their legs and armpits now? It is hit and miss? It is still an “American” or “prositute thing”? 😉

  174. Anon says:

    You are wasting your time. Anon can’t be bothered with facts, he’s too angry over Earl’s “No Fat Chicks” preference to engage in rational thought. Look, Anon can’t even perform a basic search such as “leg shaving”, perhaps because it would prove him wrong yet again. He’s too worked up.

    Sheesh, what an unhinged projector you are. They could show drive-through movies through your projector.

    Just because Gillette had early razors does not mean there was diffusion down to the average person. Duh!

    A few people in Haiti have iPads. Does that mean that the average person has them? The fact that Venezuela produces many beauty queens does not mean the average person in Venezuela has basic human necessities at the moment. You are the only person here who can’t grasp the concept of ‘averages’ vs. ‘Top 1%’.

    The average US life expectancy in 1920 was 53. Get a clue…it was not a prosperous world by today’s standards.

    Seventiesjason just confirmed that women didn’t shave their legs even in West Germany in 1987. Plus, Boxer told you that you are wrong too.

    Plus, no one likes fat women. That is not what this thread us about. Earl understood the purpose of this thread, but you cannot.

    You are just apoplectic that someone dissed the 1920s, as that was the decade in which you came of age. I should have chosen the 1910s to make the same points, in which case you would not have had a problem.

    Heh heh heh heh

  175. Opus says:

    German women have and for as long as I can recall had the reputation of being hairy.

  176. seventiesjason says:

    the ONLY American beer I did see on the store shevles that was being sold there alongside domestic beer was Samuel Adams…….the soapsuds the we Americans brew and are famous for could not pass strict German purification tests………most could not even now.

  177. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The ultimate Crazy Cat Lady: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/06/02/woman-admits-killing-husband-beating-family-cat/

    On Saturday, 47-year-old Mary Harrison told police she shot her husband, 49-year-old Dexter Harrison, because he was beating the cat. He was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

    Some of the female commentators are cheering.

  178. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    Just because Gillette had early razors does not mean there was diffusion down to the average person. Duh!

    The female fashion in the US 1920’s was for skirts / dresses down to the knee or shorter. For this reason leg shaving became common.

    But the real issue is Earl doesn’t like fat women. Why does this enrage you?

    A few people in Haiti have iPads.

    Non sequitur. Plus Earl doesn’t like fat women…

    The average US life expectancy in 1920 was 53. Get a clue…it was not a prosperous world by today’s standards.

    Non sequitur. Fashion doesn’t depend on life expectancy. Short skirts were in fashion in the 1920’s, therefore women shaved their legs. Photographic evidence exists, but you can’t see it because of your rage about Earl not liking fat chicks.

    Seventiesjason just confirmed that women didn’t shave their legs even in West Germany in 1987.

    That proves that the US culture in the 1920’s was not the same as German culture in the 1980’s. So what? US women were universally shaving legs / pits in the 1980’s. Italian women didn’t. Again, so what? None of this has anything to do with your increasingly hysterical reaction to a simple preference by another man.

    Earl doesn’t like fat women. This enrages you why?

    Plus, Boxer told you that you are wrong too.

    So?
    Is he apoplectic over Earl’s preference for “No Fat Chicks”, too? Or is it just the usual ankle biting?

    Plus, no one likes fat women.

    Wrong again. There is a distinct subculture of men called “chubby chasers”. You may be one of them, hence your spergy anger over Earl’s preference.

    You are just apoplectic that someone dissed the 1920s, as that was the decade in which you came of age.

    Non sequitur, but pretty funny. Thanks for admitting that you are innumerate.

    PS: Earl doesn’t like fat chicks, and you go ballistic. Why? Fat sister that can’t find a man? Or something else, like your fat girlfriend dumped you? It’s ok, Anon, you can tell us your problems…

  179. seventiesjason says:

    chubby chasers???

    No. Most men are so thirsty and desperate they “learn” to like morbibly obese and not so obese land whales

  180. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Whoa let’s not get carried away here…the lack of obesity and tats for 1920s women makes them certainly more attractive than the obese tatted up women we have now.

    Wherupon Anon goes ballistic and types out a lot of silly nonsense that is easily fact-checked with any search engine in a matter of minutes.

    It is obvious there is an emotional issue involved for Anon.

    In Earl’s support:
    https://stateofobesity.org/rates/
    https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
    https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/healthy-weight-basics/obesity.htm

    Type II diabetes used to be called “adult onset” until far too many teens and even children developed it. Obesity is very expensive in multiple ways. “No fat girls” is just prudent.

    Sugar and simple carbs are not our friends.

  181. Oscar says:

    I was stationed in Germany from 2005-2009. I saw zero hairy chicks. They’re also thinner than American chicks. Sadly, they’re also more feminist.

  182. Oscar says:

    Wait… it was actually 2004-2009. Time flies.

  183. Sharkly says:

    seventiesjason says: Which means something like “really tall American, cute, good smile. he’s a virgin though…..too much work to deal with there.”

    It really hurt me at the time.

    I feel bad for you bro! Not about what she said, but about how you were probably hurt by your misconstruing it.
    It sounds to me like she was totally letting you know she was DTF with you. You just needed to show her that you were confident, and desirous of her, enough to take her up on her offer by batting away her pretend objection.
    It sounds like she was wanting you too reply “It’ll be fun! A little work never hurt anybody. But, I’ve got so much virgin essence bottled up inside me it might be too much for you. Maybe I should find a full grown woman for my first time so I’m not disappointed.” Then let her come back with why she is worthy to have you.

    You did the right thing by not fornicating. And I do not recommend immorality to anyone. But it really sounds like if she said that loud enough for you to hear, she really wanted a shot at you.
    You were foreign and of course exotic to those girls(preselection), and she said you were tall, cute, and had a good smile. Riding you like a rented mule would be no work at all for a whore, it’s what they do! The work part was just a playful neg about your virginity. Whores really strive for the chance to steal a man’s virginity.
    Proverbs 6:26 For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread, And an adulteress hunts for the precious life.
    I think due to your internal self deprecating programming, you took the neg as literal and her obvious attraction and her indicating you were Fuck Buddy material, as somehow a meaningless statement meant to set up the insult that you felt was the real thing she was saying.

    You may be a lot more attractive to women than you realize, and just be looking for rejection to be there. When, during the banter, they tease you, you get wounded, and see their teasing as hatred towards you.

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, there’s a lot of soy compounds in food and beverage now. Those soy products are pseudo-estrogens. In women they compete with estrogen at cell receptors. In men it appears that soy products act a whole lot like estrogen.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15084758

    “Just say no to soy” is not as easy as it seems, because it’s all over the place just like sugar. Read the label…

  185. seventiesjason says:

    Thanks Oscar. Where were you stationed, Weisbaden? When I was there, there was a huge American base there. I got my braces removed in Sept 1986, and my orthodontist arranged before I left to have this done at the American army base in West Berlin. As much as my peers dissed “americanism” to my face……they ALL wanted me to have my folks send Levis jeans from the USA to them (which they did do when I converted sizes from metric into standard).

    The teens in West Berlin called all American soldiers “Joe”. They called all British soldiers “Tommys” and they called the all Fresnch soldiers “enemies” LOL!

    Living in West Berlin was easy getting around….plenty of english being spoken. In school and at home it was German only, though my host dad spoke english fluently. He pushed me hard on the speaking German part. I was fluent when I left.

    We took a vacation to Cologne and that was fun, and spent a week in Dusseldorf…which I liked more than West Berlin. Beautiful city. I saw East Berlin (took a tour) and it was night and day. That tour made me a staunch anti-Marxist from that point on. It would bother me in college a few years later when teachers were telling us all “communism worked” and “it was propoganda by Reagan that gave it a bad name.”

    A few had the gall to tell me I was lying. They wanted pictures, and I explained on the tour they “confiscated” all cameras and you could only buy “postcard pictures” (all staged) at the end of the tour. A few teachers accused me of lying. More than a few women too.

    Sharkly…..idk……it was a long time ago. I was really naive on so many things. This one gal liked my host brother, she would always come over and want to see him. He would sometimes make me answer the door and “get rid of her” it was kind of funny looking back. My fellow peers, like I said were the same age as me…but they were just so much *older* than me. I wasn’t a dork, or loser……just awkward. Kind of like now, but it doesn’t really bother me as much. Most of my peers thought I was rich because my money went far. In spring 1987, the exchange-rate was getting me 6 1/2 Deutsch Marks for 1 dollar. Those were the days! My parents were sending me 150.00 a month. Had a grip of money as a teenager over there. My UK friend (Shaun was his name) and I went to see “The The” with Matt Johnson in a West Berlin nightclub. Awesome show.

    The girls in my class were polite enough, but I really didn’t see or understand flirting then or now….and seeing them in swimsuits in swim class was frightening. Pretty girls…..but that body hair!!!!

    lol!

  186. Mad_Kalak says:

    Ah feministhater, who never got out of his anger phase. I love it when you get on your soap box and bitch. And then you go straight to accusing someone of projection thinking that is some sort of kill shot. lol. I would actually get along with you if we ever met in person. Did I care that you expressed an uninformed opinion? Naw. Express away. So why get cranky when someone responds to your uninformed opinion?

    I was noting that the attacks on Peterson from the right (like Vox Day and now Dalrock of all people) are EXACTLY what I said was going on, that is bitching that he’s not red pill enough. So what, he’s putting his own message out about classical liberal values, not YOUR values. Why should he put out a message about YOUR values.

    So since this is a biblical blog, let me speak allegorically. To that, I say that Dalrock and Vox are doing the equilivent of complaining that there is to much cinnamon in the pie Peterson bakes, and that the pie is rhubarb and not strawberry, which is what flavor Dalrock like more. But no one is forcing Dalrock to eat the pie, and furthermore, Peterson’s not putting to much cinnamon in a pie Dalrock already has on his windowsill. If you, or anybody else, want people to eat strawberry pie, then go bake your own and see if anybody comes to eat it.

    ————————-
    As to the point that Peterson never calls out women, that’s just a plum ignorant point to make. Being against feminism means calling out women, by definition. Moreover, he says things like women who wear make up to work should be cognizant that they are sexualizing themselves in the workplace, this is the very red pill stuff this board laps up.

  187. Boxer says:

    Dear Mad Kalak:

    So since this is a biblical blog, let me speak allegorically. To that, I say that Dalrock and Vox are doing the equilivent of complaining that there is to much cinnamon in the pie Peterson bakes, and that the pie is rhubarb and not strawberry, which is what flavor Dalrock like more. But no one is forcing Dalrock to eat the pie, and furthermore, Peterson’s not putting to much cinnamon in a pie Dalrock already has on his windowsill. If you, or anybody else, want people to eat strawberry pie, then go bake your own and see if anybody comes to eat it.

    Sorta unfair to lump Dalrock in with the manlet Vox Day, don’t you think? This is one brief article. Contrast that with the neverending gamma-rage spew Cuckboy Beale regularly churns out. In one three or four day period, I counted something on the order of nine long articles by that loser, begging Peterson for attention.

    Peterson is decried by Vox — and by people here — as being insufficiently Christian. In the mean time, Beale invites you to “join my dark legion of evil” or some such faggotry, and the same cucks here lap that pseudo-satanic garbage up. It’s really amazing.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  188. Sharkly says:

    I have not studied Jordan Peterson enough to know much about him, but I do think he is a breath of fresh air compared to what normally comes out of academia. I also think we need to befriend him and try to red pill him even more, considering his sizable audience. He offers something other than the typical condescension to young males, who are now growing up learning they are “toxic” during their formative years, and not receiving even the same level of respect we older men got when we were growing up.

    My kook detector always lights up when some people are able to drag Jews into every conversation, or they say that our more moderate allies are really just plants from the far opposite side.

    My Mennonite side of the family is gifted with manly hair. On both the men and the women. LOL I guess I was genetically predisposed to love hairy women. I don’t mind my women natural, and find too much hair removal to be off putting. I, for one, don’t want a woman with no bush and penciled on eyebrows.

    Ingracious says: If we put in effort, seek to live rightly, and treat ourselves well, then we can give our lives purpose, make ourselves strong, and create a world around us that we actually want to live in.
    Your long post was another great one! I agreed with everything except the quote above, and that you didn’t wrap up your great exposition with some great take home line, but instead seemed to not know how to conclude your thoughts and oddly ended all that with a name calling insult towards your elders. Don’t worry, I was young too, and I still often offend needlessly.
    You can’t give purpose to your own life. God did. You chose your goals and causes, and how hard you’ll fight for them, but that still doesn’t change your purpose. You don’t make yourself strong.
    Ecclesiastes 9:11 Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.
    Time and Chance buddy! Time and Chance!
    Don’t get me wrong, I lift Bro, and am strong as F***, but I’m only as strong as my God given genetics(chance) and age(time) and health(chance) and effort(choice) allow, in this present generation(time). I could be stronger if I was born in the future with better understanding of physiology, better exercise devices, and better supplements and bio-hacking, I could be stronger if I had stronger parents, I could be stronger if I was younger, I could be stronger if I hadn’t messed my knees up at one point. only a small range of it rests on my choice. The same goes for mental strength and emotional strength Etc. Your ability to create the world around you is also very limited. Otherwise I’d have single handedly fixed every problem on this planet before you got here, so I wouldn’t have to listen to you complain. But alas my power to change the world was quite limited and only God can give success to my efforts, if He pleases.

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~George Bernard Shaw

    Anyhow, young men like yourself, seeking and gaining knowledge and wisdom, gives me hope for my sons.
    Carry on.
    Via con Dios.

  189. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Is he apoplectic over Earl’s preference for “No Fat Chicks”, too? Or is it just the usual ankle biting?

    Anonymous Reader oughta keep my pseudonym out of his chubby-chaser fetish articles. I’m not really interested in his weird sexual proclivities.

    No. Most men are so thirsty and desperate they “learn” to like morbibly obese and not so obese land whales

    I think most of these men are just too nice. Remember that most dudes are romantics at heart, and they want to believe there’s some morsel of goodness in their blubbery interests. Unfortunately, as Earl and anon have pointed out, most of these women are mental.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/02/28/synthesis-and-symbiosis/

    Best,

    Boxer

  190. freebird says:

    We are beggars
    We are so fucking weak
    And once upon a time we had the world at our feet
    Well, we’re all dying to meet our maker
    But all our gods have abandoned us

    We are all the shades of misery
    The reigning champions of tragedy
    They use their faith as a weapon
    They count our sins by the seven
    Blackwater at the gates of heaven

    All hail the corporatocracy
    The word of God written in binary
    All hail our apostasy
    The dying notes in an unholy symphony

    I found God clutching a razor blade
    He said – Look at the fucking mess they’ve made
    They’d trade their hearts if they were made of gold
    But they’re as worthless as the souls they sold”

    -Architects, “Nihilist”

  191. freebird says:

    “13. No woman is ever recorded as acting against Jesus.”

    Well there was that whole thing where Mary and Joseph had to run and hide to have the Christ-child because a certain royal couple was looking to kill them because a seer advised the real King was coming…..

    Not like that’s an important part of the story or anything….

  192. Oscar says:

    I don’t get Ted Beale’s obsession with Jordan Peterson. It’s fine for Beale – or anyone else – to point out where Dr. Peterson is wrong, but Beale’s anti-Peterson rants are almost as hysterical as those of the NYT.

  193. Oscar says:

    Jason,

    I was stationed in Bamberg. That base closed in 2012.

  194. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Dammit, I botched the formatting on that last comment. Feel free to delete it and leave this one in its place.

    A bit OT, but after Dalrock reamed Dr. Peterson for his refusal to admit that women have base desires and impulses I couldn’t help but notice that The Gospel Coalition is now doing likewise with their latest headline piece on Sunday: 21 Places Women Emerge Front and Center in Scriptures’s Storyline.

    It seems to be a list of lessons drawn from Bible references with the intention of teaching Christian men that not only are women specially favored by God, they might even be greater than the Creator Himself:

    4. A woman is the first and only character in the Old Testament to confer a name on God (Gen. 16:13).

    Given the significance of naming in the Old Testament, it’s notable that it is the abandoned servant woman, Hagar, who names God “the God of seeing.”

    The same woman also gave birth to a son whom God called “A wild ass of a man, whose hand will be against everyone,” and whose children eventually created the Islamic false religion. But aside from that, yeah, she was a pretty great lady.

    12. Only women are said to give general, regular financial provision (out of their own means) to Jesus and the Twelve (Luke 8:3).

    We are told elsewhere of the disciples’ communal moneybag. This is our only insight into the underwriting of their itinerant ministry.

    Didn’t Dalrock already deal with this one? Not only do we know that it was two men who recovered Christ’s body and financed an expensive burial for Him, we also know their names: Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. If you want to go even further, the gospels hint at other places that Nicodemus was working behind the scenes on Jesus’ behalf while He was alive, and while we don’t have much evidence for the apocryphal British legend that Jesus and Joseph once made a supernatural missionary visit to the Emerald Isle, I will note that a lack of evidence hasn’t stopped many modern pastors from teaching that Mary Magdalene was both a secret apostle and a repentant prostitute.

    13. No woman is ever recorded as acting against Jesus.

    Jesus’s recorded enemies were all men.

    . . . Except for that time that King Herod’s wife conspired with her daughter to have her husband execute John the Baptist and deliver them his head on a plate after he publicly hinted that they were both sluts. But we need to be reasonable here: Killing Jesus’ own cousin (and the man whose ministry paved the way for the Christ) is not the same thing as being an enemy of Jesus Himself.

    And even if it was, why would that be such a big deal? If an article like this is any indication, the modern church already worships women more than they worship Christ anyway.

    You can read the article here:
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/21-places-women-emerge-front-and-center-in-scriptures-storyline/

  195. Mad_Kalak says:

    Boxer said: “Sorta unfair to lump Dalrock in with the manlet Vox Day, don’t you think?”

    Upon reflection, yea, I guess so. You’re right about lumping them together. But he’s inside the same ballpark and playing the same game.

  196. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    Are you compelled to dig out Dalrock’s real name and use it when talking about him? Why not just call Vox Day that, since it is what he writes under?

    Yeah, Vox has his flaws, but I still agree with most of what he writes close to as much as anyone else. He is quite arrogant, but I don’t see a lack of that here either.

    ======

    His current track on Peterson fits other past pursuit of certain figures. Peterson is a sham, too many can’t see the flaws through their love for him. I can tolerate many flaws, but not by a poser like Peterson. He is part of the approved opposition and that should tell you enough.

    Failing to hold women directly accountable shows he is not really opposing feminism as well, as that is a required part. You cannot oppose something if you don’t oppose the actions that are a key part of it.

    Attacking PUAs is like trying to fix male cats in the wild. It is a wasted endeavor. Women are getting what they want and railing against those giving that will not help one bit until the demand stops. That will only happen when seeking and getting such things is fully shamed and morally opposed. That is unlikely to happen anytime soon however, even in churches.

  197. BillyS says:

    Mad_kalak,

    Being against feminism means calling out women

    How does he really oppose feminism if he won’t confront some of its major principles and results, including in the area Dalrock’s post touches on? Peterson is a poser.

  198. earl says:

    They’re also thinner than American chicks. Sadly, they’re also more feminist.

    I don’t know which is harder for women…losing the weight after becoming obese or losing the feminist attitude after years of brainwashing.

  199. seventiesjason says:

    Being a PUA doesn’t make you anti-feminist. In fact, by their behaviors…..they (PUA’s) are very feminist

  200. Coloradomtnman says:

    @BloshevikBoxer

    ‘Peterson is decried by Vox — and by people here — as being insufficiently Christian.’

    Peterson isn’t a Christian and doesn’t even claim to be one. Nice sophistry per usual.

  201. earl says:

    @Boxer…

    Thanks for reminding me of that St. Thomas Aquinas piece in my comment in your blog. A reminder that gluttony is a sin…so eating your body weight in junk food and drinking a gallon of soda is not good for your bodily health or soul.

  202. Boxer says:

    Dear BillyS:

    Are you compelled to dig out Dalrock’s real name and use it when talking about him? Why not just call Vox Day that, since it is what he writes under?

    You’ll have to forgive me for not showing enough respect to “The Dark Lord of Evil,” or whatever else his satanic majesty likes to be called. You and others here are welcome to worship him if the weird imagery appeals to you. To me, he’s a nobody, and I’ll call him what he calls himself in interviews and such.

    Yeah, Vox has his flaws, but I still agree with most of what he writes close to as much as anyone else. He is quite arrogant, but I don’t see a lack of that here either.

    I laugh at him for the same reasons I laugh at a few people in the Dalrock comment section. Beale’s odd obsession with Peterson is motivated by envy. He feels the countercultural crown belongs to him, despite the fact that he’s not smart enough to achieve a serious following. This bizarre entitlement complex strikes me as distinctly feminine in nature.

    Why do you like him, if I might ask? You don’t seem like the type of sucker who gets drawn in by goony “Legion of Evil” invitations.

    Best,

    Boxer

  203. Robert What? says:

    The idea that women find chivalry sexy is not a cultural “assumption”. It may once have arguably been an assumption. But with what we know today, it is a bald face lie told with full knowledge.

  204. earl says:

    I find Peterson to be quite confusing most of the time when he tries to explain something to be honest. Vox is along those lines as well. Plus Vox turns into the very gamma male he created when somebody challenges his supreme intelligence.

  205. feeriker says:

    Anyone see the Lost in Space reboot on Netflix?

    No. If you have, thank you for doing it so that I don’t have to.

  206. earl says:

    Plus, no one likes fat women. That is not what this thread us about. Earl understood the purpose of this thread….

    ‘I guarantee that if you went back to the 1920s, despite no obesity, tattoos, or piercings in women then, you would find very few of the women of that era attractive by today’s standards. ‘

    My point was back in the 20s there was much less fat women than what we have now…so despite the fact they may not be as attractive as the most attractive women we have now, they are certainly much more attractive than the larger majority of obese women we have now. Understand?

  207. Anon says:

    Anonymous Reader projected,

    Wherupon Anon goes ballistic and types out a lot of silly nonsense that is easily fact-checked with any search engine in a matter of minutes.

    It is obvious there is an emotional issue involved for Anon.

    This level of projection is a sight to behold. Few are capable of as much projection as Anonymous Reader.

    The average women in 1920s America did not shave her legs. Period. If you have a problem withj that fact, that is on you. The decade you grew up in wasn’t that great, ya know.

  208. earl says:

    I’d take any lady out of the 1920s photo over most of what I see at Wal-Mart…I’ll put it that way.

  209. Anon says:

    Earl,

    Some (but not many) modern women are still 8s, 9s, and 10s. They do, in fact, have sex with men. The questions is, which men, and on what criteria?

    About myself, given the choice between the fat, obnoxious tattooed 2018 woman and the hairy-legged, non-waxed upper lip, non deodorant 1920s woman, I would rather decline both. I can, and consistently do, do better.

    Are bluehaired fatties and pierced, shaved-head women around? Yes?
    Have 8s, 9s, and 10s vanished outright? Certainly not.

  210. CSI says:

    Anyone see the Lost in Space reboot on Netflix?

    * The mother and her two daughters are insufferably annoying mary sues.
    * The father is actually a decent male role model, stoic and good at holding frame around his wife, eventually earning her grudging respect.
    * The son is fairly nondescript, though his relationship with the robot is modelled after Old Yeller or The Yearling.
    * The female Dr Smith is a psychopath who’s only talent is scheming and manipulation.

  211. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Dalrock’s comment section has been the proving ground for some truly bizarre fights, and this is one for the record books.

    The average women in 1920s America did not shave her legs. Period. If you have a problem withj that fact, that is on you.

    Ethan Trex, the author of “History of Shaving” is on your side. Apparently women didn’t start shaving their legs until the 1940s. Armpit shaving apparently did become a fad in the 1920s, though.

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/22511/when-did-women-start-shaving-their-pits

    Best,

    Boxer

  212. earl says:

    About myself, given the choice between the fat, obnoxious tattooed 2018 woman and the hairy-legged, non-waxed upper lip, non deodorant 1920s woman, I would rather decline both. I can, and consistently do, do better.

    Well yeah I don’t think anyone would want a fatty or a smelly hairy woman…although it seems like most pictures even of the lower class women of the 20s didn’t have staches or super hairy legs. They were wearing dresses after all so you’d probably see at least some darker haired legs if they had them. They were still women back then and weren’t flowing with testosterone to make them as hairy as a guy. I’m assuming they probably took baths or at least had some basic hygiene back then…they had electricty at that time.

    So given that…I’d still take a 20s woman over a fatty today.

  213. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Ethan Trex, the author of “History of Shaving” is on your side. Apparently women didn’t start shaving their legs until the 1940s.

    Of course. 1940s sounds about right. Dentistry was also not common then, nor was deodorant. Anonymous Reader is so stupid that I actually have to spell out that what a famous actress did was not accessible to the average woman who lived a life of either hard labor of raising 6+ kids.

    Seventiesjason confirmed that leg-shaving was not done even in 1987 West Germany.

  214. earl says:

    Dalrock’s comment section has been the proving ground for some truly bizarre fights, and this is one for the record books.

    We must have nothing better to debate about.

    Which would you rather be eaten by…a shark or a bear?

  215. Sharkly says:

    Which would you rather be eaten by…a shark or a bear?
    I would have to go with the more sharkly of the two.

    At some point it ceases to be about improving your fellow man, and becomes an emotional experience.

  216. CSI says:

    Its perfectly normal for women to have a fair amount of hair on their legs, armpits and crotches. Its not inherently unattractive, that prejudice is purely a social construct, although its a prejudice common to many cultures throughout history, ours included.

  217. Anon says:

    Boxer said :

    Anonymous Reader oughta keep my pseudonym out of his chubby-chaser fetish articles. I’m not really interested in his weird sexual proclivities.

    Until today, I did not realize that Anonymous Reader is a fat fetishist. But now that you mention it, the fact that he butts into a discussion where there are no misunderstandings among the prior interlocutors and gets hysterical about things I did not say or even implied, means his uncontainable projection is truly about the internal torment he faces due to having a fat fetish.

    He is devasted that Earl (and all other men here) find obese women repulsive since this invalidates the very core of his identity. But he has to direct his projection somewhere, and the result is that new people learn of his fat fetish.

  218. Sharkly says:

    I’m confused now.
    So who is making our women shave their muffin? Is it the Jews, the illuminati, or the dark lord Vox? And why do the German women get out of shaving? Is it because of the Nazis, or is it against the Jews? Is that why skinheads shave their heads? How about you tell me, you Gillette corporate shills! Or do you think these weak arguments of yours and your hairy Nazi women are “The Best a Man Can Get”. Untermensch! This was planed since your Masonic Proctor & Gamble masters were selling Soap and Candles to the Union army. Betcha didn’t think I knew that! I also know y’all been pigging post-menopausal hippie whores who’s 1969 counterculture legs are as hairy as their 29 cannabis fed cats all fighting over their wig on shag carpet. Where is Da GBFM to explain all this? Feminist morons! Sheared like sheep! I’m not making this up, I saw it all on JewTube. And a friend of a friend of mine died fighting these skank scalping, bush busting Bilderbergers over in Holland. Sinead O’Connor, their Manchurian in the music industry, stabbed him as he was trying to escape over a seawall. For protecting maidenhair he was run through by a dyke on a dike. I could tell you more, but, someone’s here. Shit! It’s them! They’re onto meeeeeeeeeeeeeertyuiop[]\789+

    FORGET YOU WERE HERE AND WHAT YOU HEARD OR YOU WILL END UP LIKE SHARKLY.

  219. Nitpicker says:

    With all respect to Dalrock, I can´t see how the last sentence of the post can be deduced from the Peterson´s views and much less from the present video. he is talking about the use of language, not women nor relationships between men and women. He uses the example of PUAs more by coincindence (I´ve listened to the whole year of the lectures the video´s taken from and Dalrock used the only mention of the PUAs in its totality).
    Even though Peterson and Dalrock are not natural allies, in the matter of sex his view seems to be rather closer to Dalrock´s than, say, mine (Peterson´s adamant on monogamy and marital vows). I think there are things in Peterson´s views that could be used with much greater effect to demonstrate the differences between the respective positions of Dalrock and Peterson (and maybe even on his positions which are “friendly” to feminism and/or the chivalry concept).
    This post almost feels like ad hominem but I would be inclined to believe rather that dalrock is actually so much into his chivalry project that he tends to see related material where they are not (and by this I am not claiming that Peterson doesn´t have such material, he´s very much on the dragon slaying knight trail and he never claimed to subscribe absolutely to the traditional feminine & masculine roles for example).

  220. feministhater says:

    Ah feministhater, who never got out of his anger phase. I love it when you get on your soap box and bitch. And then you go straight to accusing someone of projection thinking that is some sort of kill shot. lol. I would actually get along with you if we ever met in person. Did I care that you expressed an uninformed opinion? Naw. Express away. So why get cranky when someone responds to your uninformed opinion?

    More shaming. You’re bitching right now, bitching that others have a differing opinion to you. It means nothing, no one cares what you or I think. I think it’s good to vent every once in awhile. If I didn’t get angry at certain things, I would have to numb myself to the point of nothingness, it’s good to be alive, no?

    You were so taken aback that others disagreed with Peterson, so much so, that you gave Dalrock a warning not to mess with Peterson as if Peterson was some sort of idol.

    Dalrock doesn’t hold a candle to him. Careful Dalrock, you’ll end up like Vox Day, who attacks everyone who doesn’t see the light of Vox’s brilliance (he’s a genius you know, just ask him).

    Why did you take issue with a criticism of Peterson? Did you really think what Dalrock wrote was an ‘attack’? Really? Are you that soft, weak and pathetic? Please, it was criticism and should be welcomed by you and Peterson.

  221. feministhater says:

    I find Peterson to be quite confusing most of the time when he tries to explain something to be honest. Vox is along those lines as well. Plus Vox turns into the very gamma male he created when somebody challenges his supreme intelligence.

    You and I agree on this. For all the theory in the world is useless unless one can apply it in the practical sense. Peterson thinks that merely telling boys to clean their rooms will alter their environments, instead of realising that the boys’ environment is what is leading them to not clean their rooms. ‘Cleaning rooms’ being a stand in for getting ones life in order.. of course.

  222. feministhater says:

    Just because Gillette had early razors does not mean there was diffusion down to the average person. Duh!

    Gillette sold razors by the millions in the 1920s, to the average person, they even had their older razor selling for far cheaper as the patent ran out. There were others means people used to remove hair as well, dating back to ancient Egypt. Whether women removed their leg hair is a social issue, not a technological one.

  223. earl says:

    . Peterson thinks that merely telling boys to clean their rooms will alter their environments, instead of realising that the boys’ environment is what is leading them to not clean their rooms.

    Actually cleaning their rooms is very similar to what Christ told the Pharisees (Matthew 23:25-26). Now I don’t know if Peterson meant it in a ‘man up’ sense to please women or a repentance of sin/disordered lifestyle sense…but the advice is sound.

  224. feministhater says:

    earl disagreeing just to disagree. The point wasn’t that boys shouldn’t get their lives in order but why they are not doing it in the first place.

  225. earl says:

    Some (but not many) modern women are still 8s, 9s, and 10s. They do, in fact, have sex with men. The questions is, which men, and on what criteria?

    I’d like to ask a 10 which criteria she has for a man…since she is theoretically at the top of the heap where does her hypergamy go? What would be an 11 guy?

    Also I’d like to know what makes a 10 a 10.

  226. earl says:

    earl disagreeing just to disagree. The point wasn’t that boys shouldn’t get their lives in order but why they are not doing it in the first place.

    Bringing up what Christ said is disagreeing to disagree? Read the verses…cleaning the inside leads the outside becoming clean. That’s altering the environment.

  227. feministhater says:

    Bringing up what Christ said is disagreeing to disagree? Read the verses…cleaning the inside leads the outside becoming clean. That’s altering the environment.

    In this case, yes. Why did you bring it up? To disagree.. If merely cleaning the rooms of boys would solve the world’s problems, it would be easy. Just get boys to clean their rooms… then what? What you going to do then, if every boy’s room was clean, what would you do then?

  228. feministhater says:

    The reason boys are not ‘cleaning their rooms,’ as we’ve discussed many times on this blog, is because they have next to no incentive to do so. Society provides shame, ridicule and slander to make boys do so but that is running on empty at the moment. No incentives need to be applied of course, boys should just do so without reason…. Peterson is much like a new try at this old game, trying to get boys to do what is needed by shaming them, anything that boys do that isn’t ‘good’ according to Peterson, needs to be shamed. Therefore, shame MGTOW, shame PUAs, shame game, shame anything that doesn’t subscribe to Peterson’s Orthodoxy.

    If you cleaned your room and then someone came in and messed it up, after which you cleaned it again and it got messed up by someone else again, just how many times is it appropriate to expect a man to keep cleaning that room? The reason boys are not ‘cleaning their rooms’ is because the disincentives outweigh the incentives to do so. The only way I know of to both ‘clean my room’ and keep my shit together is to go MGTOW and not let anyone else into that room to mess it up.. does Peterson agree with this? No, of course not but he has not provided me with a workable alternative, has he?

    Peterson is not owning up to the fact that boy’s rooms are messy because society keeps them so. You cannot fix that mess by expecting boys to clean it up. Boys are mistreated now, not taught properly, not brought up by men at all but by women, taught to hate themselves, taught to be effeminate, taught to defer to women. Just how is telling these boys to once again ‘clean your room’ going to help? It only works if you provide them with practical steps they can take to keep that room clean after they’ve put the effort in. What protective measures has Peterson explained to men and boys that, if put into effect, would allow them to keep their rooms tidy after allowing the state and women in? Peterson hasn’t got there yet, he’s still stuck in his denial stages as his ‘room’ hasn’t been messed up yet. In quite simple terms, he doesn’t understand the ramifications of what boys and men go through being brought up by this current system.

    It’s going to take far more than telling boys to clean their rooms to get society on the right track, you know this, I know this, everyone here I’m guessing knows this but does Jordan Peterson? Who knows?

  229. Opus says:

    Yesterday I was listening to an off-air tape I had made of a recent broadcast of an opera and after Act 1 the Composer-ess in discussing it with the continuity lady or as you would say anchor acknowledged its anti-arranged marriage message. The composer-ess by-the-way is not married unless she being a card carrying Lezzie as she is has tied the knot with another woman. I had not heard the opera for some time (which was why i was listening) but knew it well, indeed had once examined – in my hands – the ink manuscript of the composer-ess!

    What you may wonder does all this have to do so with Jordan Peterson. This: Arranged marriage far from being an oppression (as the composer-ess would have it) of women, acts as a preventative to women pursuing the most sexually attractive men. They all want the same sexually attractive man and the result is of course that the most attractive men form harems – what else can they do if they are to satisfy all those who seek them out. Attractive men thus do not prey on women, they don’t need to, indeed usually they are fighting women off. This does not seem to aid female happiness whether the women become plates to spin or fail to join the harem (in which case one not infrequently sees false allegations of rape and the like).

    Peterson a man who married his childhood sweetheart and has thus presumably never made a move on a woman ever is clueless and presumably envious.

  230. Hmm says:

    @earl:

    As to what makes a 10 a 10, great physical beauty plus a genuine smile and laugh. At least those will do until you know her better.

  231. The reason boys are not ‘cleaning their rooms,’ as we’ve discussed many times on this blog, is because they have next to no incentive to do so. Society provides shame, ridicule and slander to make boys do so but that is running on empty at the moment. No incentives need to be applied of course, boys should just do so without reason…. Peterson is much like a new try at this old game, trying to get boys to do what is needed by shaming them, anything that boys do that isn’t ‘good’ according to Peterson, needs to be shamed. Therefore, shame MGTOW, shame PUAs, shame game, shame anything that doesn’t subscribe to Peterson’s Orthodoxy.

    Wow, way to run really far on the wrong metaphor interpretation.

    Peterson’s “clean your room” is the exact same admonishment as another man once said… “But I say to you, first remove the plank from thine own eye, then you will be able to see better to remove the speck of dust from your neighbor’s.”

    And I still see in the Bible, a command to avoid sin, NOT “avoid sin – unless society is really really encouraging you to.”

    (and yes I find it ironic that the super christians who complain most about JBP can’t even recognize the biblical teachings he’s repackaging)

  232. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS says:
    June 3, 2018 at 9:25 pm

    “Are you compelled to dig out Dalrock’s real name and use it when talking about him? Why not just call Vox Day that, since it is what he writes under?”

    1. Ted Beale’s name is right on his Wikipedia page. I didn’t “dig” anything “up”. All I did was type pseudonym in google.
    2. Vox Day is a deliberate play on Vox Dei, which means “the Voice of God” in Latin. I won’t use that pseudonym.

    Dr. Peterson is right on some subjects, wrong on others, and falls short on yet others. Like I said, pointing out where he’s wrong (as Dalrock did) is fine. It’s even helpful. But Beale’s hysteria is way over the top.

  233. feministhater says:

    Peterson’s “clean your room” is the exact same admonishment as another man once said… “But I say to you, first remove the plank from thine own eye, then you will be able to see better to remove the speck of dust from your neighbor’s.”

    Fine, you guys sort it out.

  234. feministhater says:

    Wow, way to run really far on the wrong metaphor interpretation.

    Put it this way. If someone cuts off your hands, now try and get that plank out your eye, see how that works.

  235. feministhater says:

    (and yes I find it ironic that the super christians who complain most about JBP can’t even recognize the biblical teachings he’s repackaging)

    So? Why are you here telling us what you think? If you have the answers, go and fix society, don’t come here and complain that we don’t understand the real problems but you and Peterson do.

    Then just fix the problems. SHeesh!

  236. Mad_Kalak says:

    feministhater, Peterson readily acknowledges the disincentives that society places in front of men, not the least of which is female hypergamy, the latter of which was complained about in a recent LA Times piece on him. Link here: http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fop-ed%2Fla-oe-young-peterson-20180601-story.html

    Your ignorance is showing again. You are as bad as the SJWs who attack the man, taking one line here or there out of context, or worse, just assuming what they heard from other sources. The difference between you and someone who has just a little more wisdom, is that the wise are not willing to express anything more than a passing opinion on a topic that they don’t know much about, whilst you are always willing to judge from on high like you have all the answer.

  237. feministhater says:

    Well then Madman, I’ve gone MGTOW, you guys can fix society. I don’t have all the answers. I have read on Jordan Peterson, I have seen some but not all of his videos. You are free to show where he directly calls on women to stop their pursuit of divorce and destruction of family, to stop their slutty and demeaning ways. I’ll be waiting. At this time, Peterson is a deflection, we can wait another 10 years if you want. If society isn’t fixed by then, Jordan Peterson was a sham.. I’ll be waiting.

    Remember, all that matters is results.

  238. dragnet says:

    I quite like Jordan Peterson. I’m currently about halfway thru his book (12 Rules for Life) and am going to see him speak in Toronto in July.

    As much as I like the guy, the fact of the matter is that Dalrock is right on this: Peterson is largely blue-pill when it comes to women. I think Peterson does realize that the incentives around marriage have changed, but he definitely still clings to the notion that chivalry is sexy.

    But whatever–nobody’s perfect. As long as you know where he’s flawed, then you can tune him out when he’s out of his depth.

    On balance, he does more harm than good. That’s good enough for me even if it doesn’t make him the messiah.

  239. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    You’ll have to forgive me for not showing enough respect to “The Dark Lord of Evil,” or whatever else his satanic majesty likes to be called.

    Vox Day is what he writes under, just as you use Boxer. The other stuff is just misdirection and petty on your part. This does not mean he is perfect, just that refusing to use his pen name is petty.

    Beale’s odd obsession with Peterson is motivated by envy.

    When did you learn to mind read? VD certainly has obsessions, but I see absolutely nothing that would indicate a cause for him to be envious of Peterson. Too many people are knee-jerk in their support of Peterson and I find that more repulsive than someone exposing Peterson’s flawed foundation.

    Deal with the false information if needed rather than just focusing on character assassination and petty actions.

    Why do you like him, if I might ask? You don’t seem like the type of sucker who gets drawn in by goony “Legion of Evil” invitations.

    I have been reading his columns on and off for quite some time and agree with him as much more more than anyone else I read. I don’t agree with everything and have even spoken against some things (earning at least one disparaging post from him in the past).

    I generally like your replies as an example, but not what seems to be teen girls slapping each other here. I learn to look past what I find foolish and read what is interesting. Why should Vox be any different?

  240. BillyS says:

    Hmm,

    As to what makes a 10 a 10, great physical beauty plus a genuine smile and laugh. At least those will do until you know her better.

    Thus no 10s exist. The standard really is purely physical beauty and that changes over time, as the discussion of the 1920s shows.

    I would want to return to the 1920s level of society either, but elements of it are more appealing. Putting women down from then based on modern standards with very few attractive women today seems false.

    I would also wonder if it is not the same problem women fall prey to when judging men by the hawt guys in the media. Many fewer of either kind of physical beauty would have such wide exposure even in the 1920s. It was much smaller than today.

  241. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    2. Vox Day is a deliberate play on Vox Dei, which means “the Voice of God” in Latin. I won’t use that pseudonym.

    Petty as I said to Boxer.

    Is Oscar your real name? Would you stop using Dalrock if it contained some meaning. (I assume it does, but I don’t know.)

    Do as you wish, but the pettiness hides any points.

  242. Boxer says:

    Feminist Hater, who has been ranting about Jordan Peterson for 24h, without ever making any definable points, finally tells the crowd why he doesn’t like him. Here’s what he says…

    Peterson is not owning up to the fact that boy’s rooms are messy because society keeps them so. You cannot fix that mess by expecting boys to clean it up.

    In other words, if I don’t clean my house, it’s because “societah” is oppressing my poor old self. Never mind the fact that the city’s code enforcement people will be over to give me a ticket if I’m piggish enough, and then my neighbors will sue me and make me clean it, and etc.

    You’ll forgive me, my brother, but your “society” sounds a lot like Colorado Mountain Man’s notion of “The Jews.” As far as boogeymen go, neither is very credible or very frightening. Such phantoms are best explained as excuses, given by the lazy and shiftless, as to why the world isn’t bending over backwards to furnish them welfare checks and an easy life.

    If your room is dirty, it’s on you to clean it. If your daughter is a whore, you have to disown her. Neither “society” nor “bolsheviks” nor “Jews” are ultimately responsible for your families and your property. It’s true that managing your own stuff isn’t easy at times, but that’s adulthood.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  243. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS says:
    June 4, 2018 at 8:50 am

    “Is Oscar your real name?”

    Yes.

    “Would you stop using Dalrock if it contained some meaning.”

    It’s not just “some meaning”. If Dalrock referred to himself as “the voice of God”, I wouldn’t refer to him by that name. Why doesn’t it bother you that Ted Beale refers to himself by a pseudonym that sounds like “the voice of God”? What does it tell you about a man when he chooses a pseudonym for himself that sounds like “the voice of God”?

    “Do as you wish, but the pettiness hides any points.”

    You might want to give Ted Beale that advice, especially concerning Jordan Peterson. Not that he’d listen. I mean, he is “the voice of God”, after all.

  244. Boxer says:

    Why doesn’t it bother you that Ted Beale refers to himself by a pseudonym that sounds like “the voice of God”? What does it tell you about a man when he chooses a pseudonym for himself that sounds like “the voice of God”?

    Beale is currently filing SJW style “hate speech” lawsuits, in an attempt to censor free men on the internet. He’s doing this under the name “Theodore Beale.”

    https://deconstructingleftism.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/vox-day-shows-everybody-whos-boss/

    Why men here would worship this man as their “Dark Lord” and “Voice of God” is beyond me. He’s certainly not earned any undue praise or respect. He’s a failed e-book merchant, of middling intelligence, who has an axe to grind against anyone demonstrably stronger and more successful.

  245. feministhater says:

    If your room is dirty, it’s on you to clean it. If your daughter is a whore, you have to disown her. Neither “society” nor “bolsheviks” nor “Jews” are ultimately responsible for your families and your property. It’s true that managing your own stuff isn’t easy at times, but that’s adulthood.

    No disagreement. I think men should do what they can to survive and thrive. I was merely pointing out that society, or in this case, Peterson cannot fault them when they choose to do those things that bring them the benefits they want and not what society wants.

    Kind of hateful there though Boxer. Someone got you miffed or something?

  246. ingracious says:

    @Anonymous Reader (June 3, 2018 at 5:23 pm)

    ingracious
    “”The second would seem to be summed up as ‘truthfully/genuinely’ – using language and communication as a way to sincerely express how you feel, what you believe, what you want for the future, and so on”

    Question: how does Jordan Peterson define “truth”? Do not assume his definition is the same as yours.”

    In the clear, unambiguous context of the topic and video clip from which that definition was directly derived the meaning of “truth” is this:

    Person A: “I want to go to the movies this weekend.”

    Peterson: “Person A made that statement using words, but does he actually want to go to the movies this weekend? Yes? Then he’s telling the truth; he is not using language instrumentally.”

    Am I blowing your mind?

    Here’s an idea, Anonymous: Why don’t YOU define “truth”? Why don’t you actually come out and say what you think Jordan Peterson’s definition of “truth” is in this context (the original video – the only context that applies)? Why the hell would you even ask such a question? What, does Jordan Peterson secretly subscribe to “the Jewish version of The Truth”? Is that what you’re murkily implying here in all of that nebulousness? What does that even have to do with the video or my comment?

    You are obviously so biased in your opinions of Peterson that you cannot even accept that his usage of a basic word like “truth” is truthful or sincere, you have to seek to foster doubt over whether or not he actually means “anti-truth” instead. Because after all, maybe in the video he had his fingers crossed, or it was Opposite Day, or April Fools, or he’s devil-possessed. You never know – best just to ignore everything he says because making clear, substantive and unambiguous arguments is for pussies.

    (P.S. I’ll also note for the record that – similar to Swanny River the last time around – you’ve chosen to not make mention of ANY of the actual unique statements or arguments I put forward in my comment and have instead stopped at the very first paragraph to make strange, unusual note of a single word I just happened to write at one point. It makes me chuckle. Thanks for the chuckle.)

    This bias of yours is also clear in your previous comment up-thread:

    @Anonymous Reader (June 2, 2018 at 10:22 pm)

    TimFinnegan (previously halt94) says:
    “”On the Psychopathic comment, I think it’s important to note that he isn’t calling it psychopathic because it involves picking up a woman, h’s calling it psychopathic because the goal is independent of the woman the pick-up artist is talking to. He’s trying to go home with a woman, it doesn’t have to be a particular woman.”

    If this is correct, then Peterson should also refer to the women that are picked by PUA’s as psychopathic, and for the same reason. They want to go home with a man, it doesn’t have to be a particular man. Does he do that?
    Somehow I doubt it. Because he’s a blue-pill pedestallizer.”

    This argument you make is absolutely flawed, and your conclusion is thus left unsubstantiated (your bias is showing).

    If a woman leaves a bar to go home with a man, is she doing so for her own sexual gratification? Let’s assume yes.

    Does she care which individual man she goes home with? Let’s assume no.

    Those two things are equally true for the PUA man as well. Both want sex for their own pleasure, and they don’t care who it’s with.

    But that doesn’t matter at all here, because what distinguishes whether one is psychopathic or not is how the person perceives the other within their head.

    The woman may be giving in to sexual temptation for her own selfish pleasure, but does she care about the man she’s sleeping with? Is it only sex she’s after, or does she also enjoy his company in the lead-up to sex? Would she perhaps be willing to cook him breakfast the morning after if she really liked him? Would she feel a teensy bit bad if that made him late for work? She doesn’t really know him at all and perhaps it’s only a one-night stand, but does she have a modicum of concern for his well-being as a human and as a person?

    Now take an exaggerated example of a PUA man: Someone who has learned all about the Dark Triad and absorbed it into his psyche, who has studied all the tricks of the trade when it comes to manipulating women’s emotions and maintaining a harsh, uncaring artificial mental frame in order to best attract the women he wishes to target as his particular prey. Someone who loves to ‘push and pull’ women, to toy with them for his own pleasure, to trick them, to speak words and send texts that are not true but which have the desired outcome of allowing him to get more sex from a given woman whenever he wants. He’s so good at it, he has more pussy than he knows what to do with!

    Which leads to the important question: How does such a man view a woman whom he brings home with him?

    How humanised is she within his mind? Is she a person, or is she a female member of the human species of animal, a possessor of a vagina, anus and mouth, a hollow vessel which can be used and manipulated to achieve orgasm and then quickly disposed of when he becomes bored or she becomes uppity? After all, he has numerous other ‘plates’ to pitch hit in the case that a particular bitch doesn’t know her place in his ‘harem’. When he interacts with her, does he consider her as having individual thoughts or emotions at any point? Or does he say and do things in a systematic way, treating her like some generic combination lock on a locker – input the right combination of PUA tactics and hey presto, you’re in! I mean, seeing as sex is the primary goal, anything that gets it quicker is automatically the best option…

    That’s the distinction you are failing to make. When Peterson asserts that the PUA community has psychopathic goals and methods, it’s not just about how ‘they want to have sex, and they don’t care who with’ – casual sex, to put it in plain English. It’s about the primacy of that goal within their mind*, and the extent to which they are willing to shamelessly manipulate women (perhaps to the level of cruelty) to achieve that goal.

    To put it partly in an analogy:

    Imagine two young boys, each with a stray cat which they are happily and enjoyably petting.

    The first boy, after finishing petting his cat, goes and gets a bowl of cat food and feeds the cat.

    The second boy, after finishing petting his cat, goes and gets a knife and stabs the cat to death.

    This is because the first boy perceives the cat as being a valuable, living creature, and so he feeds the cat even though it provides him no direct benefit to do so because he wants the cat to be happy and healthy.
    The second boy, on the other hand, perceives the cat only as an object for the satisfaction of his own emotional wants, and since he felt that killing the cat would be what would make him happy that was what he did.

    Both boys petted their cats because they derived personal pleasure and enjoyment from doing so, but only one boy is psychopathic – the enjoyment they each felt from petting the cat was very different in its mental role and level of importance.

    (* P.S. I’ve injected a lot of my own views into what I’ve written here, and one I’ve noticed that stands out to me is “the primacy of that goal [sex] within their mind” on the topic of PUAs – this is one reason I personally negatively judge PUAs, but it’s not something that Jordan Peterson himself has expressed as far as I know. The reason he uses in the video is more accurately encapsulated by the latter idea I express: “the extent to which they are willing to shamelessly manipulate women (perhaps to the level of cruelty) to achieve that goal [sex].”)

    (P.P.S Just a side idea I thought of: Women can of course engage in psychopathic behaviour as well, and I’m sure the argument could be made that regularly having casual sex warps a woman’s mental state in that direction, but the thing is, is there an equivalent PUA community for women? Do large numbers of women write innumerable blog posts and forum comments about the exact methodological approaches which most best allow a woman to sexually predate men and pick them up at bars?

    No, of course not! You know why? Because women don’t need to. Men are the approachers, women are the approached – that’s the human sexual dynamic. For a woman to acquire basic, casual sex with a man, she only has to show up and make herself modestly sexually alluring.

    Jordan Peterson using the PUA community as an example of an intellectual space where psychopathic ideas are shared is a case where you can’t say ‘But what about women?’ – there simply does not exist an equivalent example on women’s side of things. Certainly not in the realm of sexual pick-up, at least as far as I’m aware.

    Psychopathy exists in both men and women, but in the original video the PUA community is what sprung to mind for Peterson as an example of “instrumental language usage” because it’s a community that’s relatively firmly defined and easily observable – it has a name, after all, and the instrumental usage of language and behaviour is very much an intrinsic part of its culture like he says.)

  247. feministhater says:

    You’ll forgive me, my brother, but your “society” sounds a lot like Colorado Mountain Man’s notion of “The Jews.” As far as boogeymen go, neither is very credible or very frightening. Such phantoms are best explained as excuses, given by the lazy and shiftless, as to why the world isn’t bending over backwards to furnish them welfare checks and an easy life.

    Oh, I’ll forgive you for the nonsensical crap that you sprout. You’re so full of hatred for others looking out for themselves. White nationalists this and white nationalists this, you’re so scared of them or something. Get over it.

    I didn’t ask for anything from society, I don’t expect anything from them other than them leaving me alone to take care of myself, respecting my ability to enter and make my own contracts and to respect my authority in my own house. Without those basic necessities, I will simply do the most basic to survive and I will not sacrifice for society. It wouldn’t be in my best interest to do so because society wouldn’t respect those boundaries and merely confiscate any wealth I had accumulated.

    Peterson expecting from men to do things when there is no benefit to doing so and that when these men give to society, it treats them like crap and spits them out and Peterson thinks men should go back and ask for more.

    They changed the social contract. Not PUAs. It’s the Wild West now and its everyone out for their own. That should suit Jordan Peterson to a ‘T’. Individuality to the point of absurdity.

  248. feministhater says:

    Slight edit to the above..

    Peterson expects men to do those things when there is no benefit to doing so and that when these men do give to society, it treats them like crap and spits them out and Peterson thinks men should go back and ask for more. Why?

  249. Boxer says:

    Dear ingracious:

    Anonymous Reader occasionally opens up an aperture to something interesting. It’s always inadvertent, but we should take what we can get.

    Here’s an idea, Anonymous: Why don’t YOU define “truth”? Why don’t you actually come out and say what you think Jordan Peterson’s definition of “truth” is in this context (the original video – the only context that applies)? Why the hell would you even ask such a question? What, does Jordan Peterson secretly subscribe to “the Jewish version of The Truth”? Is that what you’re murkily implying here in all of that nebulousness? What does that even have to do with the video or my comment?

    Anonymous Reader can’t talk about Gettier problems with you. In the early days I mistakenly assumed he knew about that sort of thing. Attempting a serious discussion with him only made him get all upset at me.

    In any case, you seem to know more about Peterson’s linguistic claims than I do. Have I been generally correct in assuming that “instrumental language” is bidirectional with Austin’s “perlocutionary speech acts”? They seem to mean the same thing, 100% of the time; but, I’m listening to Peterson as a dude who has used what he calls “instrumental language,” and may be limiting what he’s talking about to my own communicative praxis.

    If you want to segue from Anonymous Reader to a general explanation, I’d be grateful. If not, it’s cool.

    Best,

    Boxer

  250. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Snipped the random personal attacks and general bee-yatching…

    Peterson expecting from men to do things when there is no benefit to doing so and that when these men give to society, it treats them like crap and spits them out and Peterson thinks men should go back and ask for more.

    I’ve listened to Peterson carefully, and I have never heard him demand that people clean anyone else’s room (using your analogy).

    There are benefits to taking control of one’s own life, and putting it in order. There is also a difference between assuming control of the things you can control, in your own life, and being someone else’s servant. Do you disagree? If so, how?

    Best,

    Boxer

  251. feministhater says:

    How humanised is she within his mind? Is she a person, or is she a female member of the human species of animal, a possessor of a vagina, anus and mouth, a hollow vessel which can be used and manipulated to achieve orgasm and then quickly disposed of when he becomes bored or she becomes uppity? After all, he has numerous other ‘plates’ to pitch hit in the case that a particular bitch doesn’t know her place in his ‘harem’. When he interacts with her, does he consider her as having individual thoughts or emotions at any point? Or does he say and do things in a systematic way, treating her like some generic combination lock on a locker – input the right combination of PUA tactics and hey presto, you’re in! I mean, seeing as sex is the primary goal, anything that gets it quicker is automatically the best option…

    How humanised is he within her mind? Is he a person, or is he a male member of the human species of animal, a possessor of a penis and wallet, a hollow tool which can be used and manipulated to achieve wealth and then quickly divorced of when she becomes bored or he becomes uppity? After all, she has numerous other ‘betas’ to pitch hit in the case that a particular tool doesn’t know his place in her ’toolbox’. When she interacts with him, does she consider him as having individual thoughts or emotions at any point? Or does she say and do things in a systematic way, treating him like some generic utility tool on a tool-belt – say the right words, get married and hey presto, you’re in! I mean, seeing as wealth extraction is the primary goal, anything that gets it quicker is automatically the best option…

  252. feministhater says:

    Snipped the random personal attacks and general bee-yatching…

    Just returning the favour. No threats were made so I really don’t get your point.

  253. seventiesjason says:

    Since I am dumber than just about all of you, I’ll just say: JBP can break down very complex topics for a guy like me to understand. Like ol’ Carl Sagan did when explaining properties of the universe and the like on that PBS series “Cosmos” back in the early 1980’s.

    There is a ton of intelligence on this forum, but I am not as smart as most of you. It’s cool. We all have limitations…….JBP has done something that no pastor, pundit, or college professor has done in awhile. He knows how to talk to people in a way to make them think, but doesn’t belittle them for not being as “amazing” as he is.

  254. Anon says:

    Dear Boxer,

    Note my comment at 12:13 AM. It is too funny to be missed.

  255. feministhater says:

    There are benefits to taking control of one’s own life, and putting it in order. There is also a difference between assuming control of the things you can control, in your own life, and being someone else’s servant. Do you disagree? If so, how?

    Sure and when men do that and go MGTOW, something they can control and mold to benefit them, what did Peterson do?

  256. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If your room is dirty, it’s on you to clean it. If your daughter is a whore, you have to disown her. Neither “society” nor “bolsheviks” nor “Jews” are ultimately responsible for your families and your property. It’s true that managing your own stuff isn’t easy at times, but that’s adulthood.

    Part of “managing your own stuff” is identifying and opposing anyone who messes up your stuff in the first place.

  257. bdash 77 says:

    meh say what you want to say
    SECULAR jordan Peterson is at least highlighting the issues plaguing men in mass media, that hates him…

    doing a much better job than the Christians who worship feminism

  258. Gary Eden says:

    JBP is a pied piper working to keep men from finding the truth. He’s not pulling in the right direction, he’s trying to keep people from moving right; by his own admission! The crazy left attacks him,but that doesn’t make him on our side.

    If he really cared about men you’d see him crying about the divorce complex. You’d hear him criticizing women for their MASSIVE role in creating the present problems.

    But he doesn’t. He’s just another tradCON women worshiping feminist who think’s he’s anti-feminist. He’s not against feminism, just it’s worst abuses. I’ve listened to A LOT of JBP and I’m not sure I’ve even once heard him talk about the massive harm done to society, men, children, and families at the hands of women. Which means like the tradCONS he blames men for women’s bad behavior.

    Just like this video. Men are TRICKING! women into sex. As if they weren’t going out to bars looking for sex to! But to admit that would be to tarnish the pedestal he has his goddess on.

    JBP is a really good speaker and synthesisor. He can spin a useful and entertaining lesson from a lot of different sources of info. But very little of it is his own information. Heartiste, from whom he borrows, is a much more original thinker.

    Just slicker variation of ‘man up and marry the sluts’.

  259. feministhater says:

    If your room is dirty, it’s on you to clean it. If your daughter is a whore, you have to disown her. Neither “society” nor “bolsheviks” nor “Jews” are ultimately responsible for your families and your property. It’s true that managing your own stuff isn’t easy at times, but that’s adulthood.

    This gets right to the crux of it. Why you bring Jews and Bolsheviks into it, I don’t know. However, the interesting point is if you believe that men are the authority is their own house or not. Do you? Are their children theirs, are they free to raise them as they think is just? Do men in fact have authority in their own homes once married? Is there a ‘divorce’ problem or not, is it simply men not being in proper control of their lives? I’d like to know, Boxer? Do you believe in any of the problems brought up on this blog or do you really think it’s just a game of blame shifting.

  260. feministhater says:

    I’ve listened to Peterson carefully, and I have never heard him demand that people clean anyone else’s room (using your analogy).

    Peterson has acknowledged that men get divorced and treated poorly and then stated that he thinks men should continue to get married, do you contest this?

  261. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Note my comment at 12:13 AM. It is too funny to be missed.

    I got it.

    Long ago I came to the conclusion that some participants here simply weren’t worth the honor of responding to, and “Anonymous Reader” is one of those. I like this comment section, and don’t want to clutter it up needlessly. Why he brings me into his fat-fetish article is beyond me. In any case, he appears to be wrong (again); though he brought up a bit of interesting social/historical trivia.

    Best,

    Boxer

  262. This is why Christianity will die:
    https://www.makers.com/faith

  263. feministhater says:

    This is why Christianity will die:

    In truth, only God can save it now.

  264. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    This gets right to the crux of it. Why you bring Jews and Bolsheviks into it, I don’t know.

    Because you and your friends spend an insane amount of time spreading defeatist propaganda, in an attempt to keep men from acting in their own interests.

    Doesn’t really matter if you want to crush men’s spirits with wild tales about “The Jews” or “Society”. The effect is the same.

    However, the interesting point is if you believe that men are the authority is their own house or not. Do you? Are their children theirs, are they free to raise them as they think is just?

    If answered this question, countless times, here and on my own blog. The fact that a man can’t do everything doesn’t mean he should throw up his hands, and refuse to do anything.

    Men need to use whatever means are expedient to control as much of their own lives as they can. That’s Peterson’s message to men, and he’s right.

    When I watched this video, I saw Peterson telling young men that screwing random women was a dangerous and reckless thing to do. It damages a brother psychologically and wastes his time and resources. It also tends to throw him into a false state of consciousness. He’s right there too. Bear in mind that he’s criticizing me, not you; but he’s still throwing out true propositions to do it. Should my feelz be hurt by this? Or should I just accept responsibility for my own behavior? What say you?

    Regards,

    Boxer

  265. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Why he brings me into his fat-fetish article is beyond me.

    Because he desperately wants more men to be like him, so that he isn’t an aberration. This, of course, is futile, as there is a reason that normal men naturally find female obesity to be repulsive.

  266. feministhater says:

    Or should I just accept responsibility for my own behavior? What say you?

    I think you should.

    I have no problem with telling people to take responsibility for their lives. This is not my quibble. However, people respond to incentives and disincentives. They will mold their lives around those; and if they can’t make use of the incentives, like myself, will merely limit their exposure to the disincentives.

    At the end of the day, incentives and punishment matter. Until the perverse incentives for hook-up culture and the damaging disincentives for marriage are removed, this situation will not correct.

  267. Pingback: Why I Am Not A Christian, Part 52818 – v5k2c2.com

  268. Oscar says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi says:
    June 4, 2018 at 10:24 am

    “This is why Christianity will die:
    https://www.makers.com/faith

    This is why it won’t.
    Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

  269. anon says:

    This is why Christianity will die:
    https://www.makers.com/faith

    You should move out of Las Vegas.

  270. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    From https://www.makers.com/faith

    Nadia Bolz-Weber is the tattooed, foul-mouthed Evangelical Lutheran pastor who will blow you away with her honesty, hilarity, and plenty of “holy sh*t” enlightenment.

    Foul-mouthed? Like that’s something to celebrate?

    This Strong, Independent, Foul-Mouthed Female Pastor seems unfamiliar with Matthew 15:17-18.

    “Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.

  271. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    If you haven’t read his book, I recommend getting a copy of “Tortured for Christ” by Richard Wurmbrand, a Jewish Romanian who converted to Christianity and spent a total of 14 years in a communist prison during the Cold War.

    During the communist reign there were still “official” churches run by state-approved Marxists who preached the communist gospel to attendees in the pews. In that sense, Christianity was “dead,” with biblical doctrine replaced with Marxism.

    However, underneath the surface was the underground church – even members of the state secret police were members.

    The label “Christianity” has been applied throughout the centuries to all sorts of false manifestations that ultimately failed to eradicate the genuine spiritual church. What we’re witnessing right now is not the first time. And it likely will not be the last.

    I’m not sure what is meant by “Christianity will die.” If that is referring to the “official” organizations in the West that once promoted the actual Bible, I might agree.

    However, if the true faith disappears in the West, it will rise up somewhere else where outright persecution has ensured that only genuine believers claim the label. That process is already underway.

  272. Gary Eden says:

    Why would that mean the end of our faith anymore than when said same Lutheran’s were murdering anabaptists some 500 years ago?

    There will always be apostates, posers, frauds, and anti-Christs. This much was prophecied. God’s kingdom advances ever more.

  273. freebird says:

    13. No woman is ever recorded as acting against Jesus.
    Also probably half the crowd at Pontius Pilate’s trial,where the crowd got to vote who would be crucified,Barrabas or Christ.
    Most of the women in that crowd loudly wanted Christ dead,in the Most Brutal Manner.
    So innocent?
    The lie of the proposition is sickening.
    Lies at the Pulpit.
    Judgment Begins at the pulpit
    (that’s in the bible somewhere,because false teachers cause so many more to sin further on down the line)

  274. Damn Crackers says:

    Listen to Peterson when he discusses things he knows about, such as clinical psychology and Jungian thought.

    Ignore him when he delves into metaphysics and trying to be a “leader of men.”

  275. freebird says:

    It is to also note:
    The Romans had no problem with crucifying women.
    That’s right: Your precious vag up on the cross in the desert wind with no water and broken bones taking three days to die horribly.
    Because that’s how innocent and precious they were….
    “God is no respector of persons”

  276. Lexet Blog says:

    It all comes down to agency and responsibility. If you condemn PUAs, you don’t have to see the world for what it really is- people are evil. Both male and female.

    Many want to live in this fictional universe where women can’t do anything wrong, are victims, are attracted only to stability and “respond.” These are the people who fear of the rare PUA.

    Both male and female are visually stimulated (see eve in the garden). Stability and security are not a primary consideration either (on average), especially in an era where women are praised for independence and are in the work force.

    Both men and women are visually stimulated and emotionally stimulated (see all poetry written by men for all of human history).

  277. Lexet Blog says:

    Also, are PUA redpill, or just undisciplined men with impulse control issues who idolize women?

  278. Cane Caldo says:

    To be fair to JBP: He has formed his opinion that promiscuous men are bad and promiscuous women are merely deceived in close alignment with several hundred years of Christian teachings. 999 out of 1000 pastors geographically closest to each of us, respectively, would agree and amplify JBP’s condemnation of cads and excuse of sluts.

  279. Gary Eden says:

    To be fair to JBP: He has formed his opinion that promiscuous men are bad and promiscuous women are merely deceived in close alignment with several hundred years of Christian teachings. 999 out of 1000 pastors geographically closest to each of us, respectively, would agree and amplify JBP’s condemnation of cads and excuse of sluts.

    And we think they are snakes leading men astray as well.

  280. ray says:

    Ah! The inevitable Game post, to re-assure The Group that it’s religion is still intact.

    Jordan Peterson and his recycled 70s Jungianism? lol He’s not exactly controlled opposition. More like maneuvered opposition. No threat whatsoever to the Powers. Merely an off-gas valve.

    I will admit Jordan’s a step up from Teddie the Dark Lord and Mr. BangthePlanet, Roosh the Doosh. Hm I wonder what ‘Beale’ actually means? Go look it up, bravehearts. You are known by the company you keep.

    Game is lame. Little personality-cults derived from the larger personality cults of half-clever demagogues. Patently anti-Christian. Western men are alienated and desperate enough to drink its cool-aid, though. Why not just fake something, rather than do the work of becoming it? They want to belong to something, and they want the emotional security that The Group offers. Easy pickings.

  281. SirHamster says:

    This is why Christianity will die:

    Fake Christianity can’t kill the real thing.

  282. SirHamster says:

    2. Vox Day is a deliberate play on Vox Dei, which means “the Voice of God” in Latin. I won’t use that pseudonym.

    What does “day” mean?

    You missed the pun. The voice of the day is not the voice of God.

    JBP has done something that no pastor, pundit, or college professor has done in awhile. He knows how to talk to people in a way to make them think, but doesn’t belittle them for not being as “amazing” as he is.

    I’ve liked watching JBP vids and he is a wise man, but he is not a Christian. He could not give a straight answer on whether God exists and if Jesus rose from the dead.

    So beware the philosophy driving his work and movement.

  283. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    June 4, 2018 at 2:02 pm

    “You missed the pun.”

    I got the pun. That’s the problem.

  284. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Rollo Tomassi
    This is why Christianity will die:

    Already seen that one. But the striking thing about her isn’t the act itself. Go read that opening blurb describing her again: “Nadia Bolz-Weber is the tattooed, foul-mouthed Evangelical Lutheran pastor who will blow you away with her honesty, hilarity, and plenty of ‘holy sh*t’ enlightenment.” She’s basically Mark Driscoll in drag — except that all of his pastoral quirks that both the libs and the “conservatives” screamed were an offense against the gospel are now a cause celebré when an aging harridan in Colorado starts using them.

    The church loves to yell at its male population to “Man Up!” but they’re only going to celebrate that role when a woman plays it.

  285. ys says:

    Jordan Peterson has his issues…obviously not a Christian, and may well be controlled opposition.
    Vox Day/Ted Beale has issues…says that quoting a movie is a gamma move a few days ago. Today, he has a headline “no cake for you.” Sorry to say, quoting Seinfeld…also gamma.

  286. earl says:

    ‘This is why Christianity will die:’

    Any denomination who lets a woman be the preacher will die.

  287. earl says:

    ‘Vox Day/Ted Beale has issues…says that quoting a movie is a gamma move a few days ago. Today, he has a headline “no cake for you.” Sorry to say, quoting Seinfeld…also gamma.’

    I think he created the gamma male to describe himself. Because he very often acts like it.

  288. Opus says:

    Never take a womnan’s tears for truth and the same goes for Jordan Peterson. From what I have heard it is girls including mature women not boys who have messy rooms. Peterson needs to get himself a proper job; this Patreon thing will sooner or later evaporate as he is either taken down by the MSM or a newer prophet or guru emerges.

    The videos that I have seen of him teaching give me the impression that his students are not exactly the sharpest knives in the tool box. Every one likes psychology but is it a real subject and capable of falsification? or is it just some pablum word-salad?

    I see Peterson as a nine-day wonder.

  289. Lexet Blog says:

    For like a week until you adjusted to the “standards.” It’s like camping vision. After a few weeks back in the real world your standards go back to normal

  290. James K says:

    In related news, a report from a woman who lived the SATC lifestyle:

    https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/dating-columnist-reveals-how-sex-and-the-city-ruined-her-life/

  291. ys says:

    Earl-
    Right. His discussions of history are fascinating, and I have learned a couple things. I also like reading VD for current events, even if I don’t always agree with his assessment.
    But the gamma thing, yeah, I think you’re right. There was one time where he said, “boasting about your intelligence is gamma.” A less self-aware statement would not be possible.

  292. Gunner Q says:

    Darwinian Arminian @ June 3, 2018 at 9:11 pm:
    Thanks for the article! Did my own fisking for the interested:

    http://gunnerq.com/2018/06/04/lies-of-the-gospel-coalitions-eric-schumacher/

    Lexet Blog @ 12:28 pm:
    “Also, are PUA redpill, or just undisciplined men with impulse control issues who idolize women?”

    They’re redpill. They just don’t have a reason to live sexless. It should be no surprise when non-Christians don’t act like Christians. They want sex, this is a reliable & affordable path to it, they understand the risks, why not?

    Were it not for Christ and my fear of STDs, I’d probably be right there with ’em.

  293. Boxer says:

    Cane Caldo says:

    To be fair to JBP: He has formed his opinion that promiscuous men are bad and promiscuous women are merely deceived…

    Where does he express this opinion? Cite him.

    Then SirHamster says:

    I’ve liked watching JBP vids and he is a wise man, but he is not a Christian.

    Says who? The fake Christians who libel their opponents when they lose meaningless arguments on the internet? Cite a source.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  294. Boxer says:

    GunnerQ says:

    Were it not for Christ and my fear of STDs, I’d probably be right there with ’em.

    There are other reasons that celibacy is superior to slumming with skanks. Heartiste and similar playaz will deny this. They are liars.

    If you have the self-discipline to sublimate your libido into positive things, then you’re way ahead.

    Boxer

  295. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    If you have the self-discipline to sublimate your libido into positive things, then you’re way ahead.

    I have come to a variant of this conclusion over time. But I think it requires two conditions.

    1) Having had sex with at least 15 attractive women, and/or makeouts with over 40.
    2) Being over 40 years of age.

    Condition 1) is a must, since incels are still extremely vulnerable to manipulation by women, as they just haven’t had the depth of experience and saturation yet.

    Plus, Game still matters after this point, as it is importance for a) having a frame of abundance, and b) being resistant to the manipulation that incels fall prey to.

    Remember, incel MGTOW is not MGTOW.

  296. SirHamster says:

    I’ve liked watching JBP vids and he is a wise man, but he is not a Christian.

    Says who? The fake Christians who libel their opponents when they lose meaningless arguments on the internet? Cite a source.

    I don’t need a source for my opinion. Are you stuffing innocent rodents up your posterior again? Please stop, it’s not good for you or them.

  297. feeriker says:

    https://www.makers.com/faith

    No, Christianity will never die. The foul, satanic disease of churchianity may become more popular than the Real Thing, but that will never “destroy” true Christianity. It just means that Hell will have a bigger population of deceived people than most would have imagined.

  298. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    I have come to a variant of this conclusion over time. But I think it requires two conditions.

    1) Having had sex with at least 15 attractive women, and/or makeouts with over 40.
    2) Being over 40 years of age.

    There is an argument to be made for the sort of “crazy wisdom” which game provides. Even so, I think authentic patriarchal religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam, Buddhism/Hinduism) can provide a similar layer of worldly cunning to a sincere believer.

    Condition 1) is a must, since incels are still extremely vulnerable to manipulation by women, as they just haven’t had the depth of experience and saturation yet.

    Plus, Game still matters after this point, as it is importance for a) having a frame of abundance, and b) being resistant to the manipulation that incels fall prey to.

    Remember, incel MGTOW is not MGTOW.

    I don’t know how old Earl and Gunner are. I get the feeling they’re both under 40. I also get the impression that both of them are relatively sexually inexperienced. Despite this, they both regularly redpill others on the baser nature of wimminz, and they often catch things I miss. I assume this is due to religious discipline, but I might be wrong.

    Best,

    Boxer

  299. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    I don’t need a source for my opinion. Are you stuffing innocent rodents up your posterior again? Please stop, it’s not good for you or them.

    In other words, you’re bearing false witness against another man — again. You’re also reverting to posting about your weird sexual preferences, which no normal man cares about. None of this is new…

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    Thank you for this demonstration of your “issues.” I’m certain the people who have arrived since your last outburst appreciate the warning.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  300. SirHamster says:

    In other words, you’re bearing false witness against another man — again.

    I would have to say something false about JBP for that to be the case. Point out the falsehood.

    You can’t, you’re posturing.

    You’re also reverting to posting about your weird sexual preferences, which no normal man cares about. None of this is new…

    You have a bee in your bonnet.

  301. earl says:

    I don’t know how old Earl and Gunner are. I get the feeling they’re both under 40. I also get the impression that both of them are relatively sexually inexperienced. Despite this, they both regularly redpill others on the baser nature of wimminz, and they often catch things I miss. I assume this is due to religious discipline, but I might be wrong.

    I am under 40 and sexually inexperienced. God himself revealed the base nature of humanity especially in His Son’s passion. You can also read it over and over again in the Old Testament. Women betraying you, women bearing false witness, women taking you away from God, women emasculating men, women giving you bad ideas….Eve, Sarai, Delialah, Jezebel, the Pharoah’s wife, Solomon and his 700 wives, etc. Some people have pointed out my lack of experience means my points are moot…I’ve dealt with women before in work, in family, in relationships, you don’t need to have sex with them to have full knowledge of their base nature.

    God however did provide them the solution to their base natures…namely submitting to Him and their husband.

  302. earl says:

    In fact for those men betrayed by their wives…I could make the arguement Christ went through the same thing with humanity.

    Frivorced by one of His closest confidants for cash and prizes so He could be thrown into the meat grinder, Judas.

    All his close friends who said they would be there for Him…ran away and one denied Him.

    Betrayed by His religious leaders who thought they were the AMOG. The chief priests.

    Betrayed by the state who was swayed by the herd public opinion even though they knew he was innocent…Pontius Pilate.

    We can never say we don’t have a God who never went through our sufferings.

  303. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 6:35 pm:
    “I don’t know how old Earl and Gunner are. I get the feeling they’re both under 40. I also get the impression that both of them are relatively sexually inexperienced. Despite this, they both regularly redpill others on the baser nature of wimminz, and they often catch things I miss. I assume this is due to religious discipline, but I might be wrong.”

    For the record, I’m a little over 40 with zero sexual experience. All the redpill insight I have came from either Scripture or you guys.

  304. seventiesjason says:

    Here too. I want and desire to be married but pretty much wishful thinking at this point. I still have accept that “it’s over” in those matters. Some days are better than others. The church reminds me of my statuts directly and indirectley in these matters way more than the world does I might add.

    I am 48. I also fully understand that even IF I was a devout and pious Christian in my twenties, I still would have batted zero. Looks only matter in this modern world.

    I deal. I cannot stand advice from pastors, women, PUA’s and other fellow travelers who just assume its a math formula when it comes to this. It isn’t. Born with it, or you’re gonna be singing commercial jingles for the rest of your life. Mind you, I don’t make it a pastors problem. They always bring it up “Why are you single???? Have you asked God for a wife????”

    Men who have zero problem dating or generating interest had it to begin with, or learned it at a more formitive age (I had to care for a very sick older sibling while everyone else, Christian or not was having a make-out session, heavy petting or awkward first-time sex)

  305. earl says:

    The Bible shows how women are more easily deceived than men. That’s probably why over the long run PUA works more with them than men.

    I just got through reading an article where some broad thought Sex and the City was an actual representation of life. I never thought MASH was an accurate representation of a war hospital. If a woman can believe a scripted tv show is reality…what else could they believe?

    Of note she isn’t the first one I’ve seen who thought this life exists. It seems quite a few of them want that life to exist. It’s no wonder they are disappointed.

  306. Pingback: Speech Acts and Psychopathy – v5k2c2.com

  307. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Thanks for these responses. I am grateful Gunner has a blog, and I look forward to the day when Earl gets one (you can both write your own articles, and comment on Dalrock, ya know… Just saying.) I think the value in your input is punctuated by the fact that the world has no more monasteries. Most of the incel types would be a lot happier if they realized just how much trouble they were avoiding, by being blessed with sexual invisibility.

    Jason says:

    I cannot stand advice from pastors, women, PUA’s and other fellow travelers who just assume its a math formula when it comes to this. It isn’t. Born with it, or you’re gonna be singing commercial jingles for the rest of your life. Mind you, I don’t make it a pastors problem. They always bring it up “Why are you single???? Have you asked God for a wife????”

    I know you don’t want advice, and I respect that. I do hope that you become a little less sensitive. When I’m asked “Why are you single???” my pat answer is both true and not particularly meaningful: “I haven’t met a nice, marriageable girl yet.” Of course, what they hear is

    “I’m looking for a nice girl!”

    but, what I mean is:

    “My commitment is a very valuable commodity, and I don’t believe any of the whores on offer are worthy of it, including your daughter, sir.”

    Sorta passive aggressive, but it works for me.

    Best,

    Boxer

  308. earl says:

    Well I’m not sexually invisible…LOL. I do see the looks from women.

    I’m just more discerning about which women I choose. The trouble I stay away from is getting involved with any old woman who makes googly eyes. Women today give out red flags like candy…you just have to listen.

    Some men think they are an easy score and they are probably right…I think they are easy trouble ahead and I’m often right.

    Also a good potato up the tailpipe on the ‘why are you single’ question…I just flat out state women don’t want to get married anymore. I have plenty of evidence from their mouths when it comes to that. So you could use both…I haven’t found a marriageable girl and a lot of them don’t want to get married.’ They go hand in hand.

  309. ingracious says:

    (For fun, I’d like to include a song I enjoy as a theme for this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYflT3h6lCQ)

    @Sharkly (June 3, 2018 at 8:08 pm)

    ” “Ingracious says: If we put in effort, seek to live rightly, and treat ourselves well, then we can give our lives purpose, make ourselves strong, and create a world around us that we actually want to live in.”

    Your long post was another great one! I agreed with everything except the quote above, and that you didn’t wrap up your great exposition with some great take home line, but instead seemed to not know how to conclude your thoughts and oddly ended all that with a name calling insult towards your elders. Don’t worry, I was young too, and I still often offend needlessly.”

    You’re the first person I’ve seen to say you’ve liked what I’ve written, and you even gave it a ‘great, great, great!’ – I really appreciate the encouragement and feedback.

    Regarding the conclusion: It ended up being 2:30am when I finished writing and I’d been sat in one spot for many hours at that point, so I’d say it was a matter of wanting to finish the damn thing that lead to what I wrote being less crafted or serious as it approached the end. I also swore an awful lot more than I usually do, which came from frustration over what I felt people weren’t seeing – that was also a factor in the quality of the finished product. My writing style alone is also very taxing, as you can imagine.

    I would say though that I did not offend needlessly, as it’s very much an intentional part of my writing style. I am here online in large part to spar intellectually, so I conceptualise my usage of insults (and particularly mockery) as being like that of a viking horde slamming their axes against their shields and cursing your mother: Not meant personally, but rather to rile the feathers of potential advisories with the hope of drawing them into combat.
    I want the content of what I write to be tackled and argued back against as fiercely (but not necessarily as verbosely) as I argue in favour of it, but there don’t really seem to be any takers – although I do apparently have appreciators, which is a consolation. I know of course that not everyone here sees Dalrock’s blog as some gladiatorial arena where heroes seek to prove their mettle – even I have spent more time learning in silence than speaking – but as I explained in my previous post/s that you say you read, I consider what’s discussed here very important to my future and thus feel compelled to jump into the fray if I feel that it will be constructive to the debate.

    I don’t appreciate the seeming chastisement of my insulting of ‘my elders’. I am extremely respectful of my elders in real life. This forum, on the other hand, is explicitly a place of discussion which I voluntarily choose to read and now participate in the same as everyone else, and absolutely none of its members are my elders. If you mean to say that they are old and feeble, then that’s no excuse on the internet. If you mean to say that they are wise and worthy of respect, then they must demonstrate it to me – I have no animosity for those like yourself, GunnerQ or BJ who’ve been sincere and charitable in your responses to me, and who’ve decided to do more than just dismiss me out of hand with no given explanation. That’s really all it takes. Taking the time to offer your own reasoned critique like you did is even better, and I thank you for it.

    I am a strange creature, so perhaps that helps to muddle things and cause people uneasiness when reading my posts: I would self-identify as an INTJ personality type if that helps to clear anything up. Obviously these sorts of things must be taken with a grain of salt and the ever-present tacky veneer of self-aggrandisement must also be hacked away, but I do find the description to be extremely accurate for myself personally: https://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

    Anyway, to your points:

    The talk about how “you don’t make yourself strong!” and “it’s all time and chance!” and “you can’t fix the world!” would seem to be you taking what I said, ignoring the worldly, limited scope of what I was talking about, and then applying a universal, infinite scope to it – under which of course it doesn’t make sense.

    Yes, in a universal sense you don’t make yourself “strong” without God, but you’re a weight-lifter: Factually, temporally, of course you can make yourself strong. Yes, in a universal sense you can’t redeem an entire fallen world through your own sweat, but factually, temporally, of course you can make the world around you better than it is by cleaning up trash or donating blood for example. Yes, in a universal sense how well we each do in our individual lives is in large part determined before we’re even born by factors outside of our control, but factually, temporally, it is quite possible for a human being to improve themselves (to a certain extent, yes), to become competent in various skills, and to influence the course and outcomes of their day-to-day life.

    I have a lot more to say about this part, so buckle up I guess:

    @Sharkly: “You can’t give purpose to your own life. God did. You chose your goals and causes, and how hard you’ll fight for them, but that still doesn’t change your purpose. You don’t make yourself strong.”

    While I appreciate and commend the sentiment you express, I feel this is very much a muddying of terms on your part.

    What you have chosen to use ‘purpose’ to mean is man’s ultimate purpose in the eyes and in the service of the Lord. This could be called ‘extrinsic purpose’ (given from outside yourself by God).

    What I am talking about, and what Jorden Peterson is both talking about and helping to combat with his lectures and now his international appearances, is the issue of humdrum, day-to-day purpose – practically, mechanically – of why you even get out of bed in the morning. This could be called ‘intrinsic purpose’ (given from within yourself by you).

    You talk about “goals”, “causes” and the willingness to fight for them – the basic aim and direction that a person has in their life, a sort of starting point for their journey in service of the Lord. What is not acknowledged in this use of language is that there are large numbers of young men who have NONE of these things in their lives at all. Aim? They are aimless. Direction? They are directionless. They have no goals, they have no causes, and they are horrifyingly depressed as a result.

    You speak of how you lift (right on, bro) and that you are strong – why?
    You likely eat extremely healthily as well – why?
    You sound like you do a lot of research into exercise and health – why?

    You can say that ultimately these things are to please the Lord, but at a fundamental level these habits have basic, mundane purposes: I lift because I want to be strong, because being strong makes me more capable. I eat well because my body functions better, and I am able to better develop my physique. I do research because it makes me more knowledgeable, and I am able to make better choices when eating or exercising.

    When you get out of bed, that has a basic purpose: You want to exist in and engage with the world. When you take a shower, it’s because you care about your hygiene. When you clean your room, it’s because you care about the state your immediate environment is in.
    You eat breakfast, lunch and dinner because you want the energy it provides to allow you do the things that are important to you. You go to sleep on time because you care about your health, and you care about waking up early tomorrow so that you can work to live your life purposefully.

    Many young men fall at the first hurdle: They don’t want to get out of bed. They hate the world, they hate themselves, and they have zero purpose – intrinsic or extrinsic – for why they should do anything at all.

    As a result, they live their lives without principle or concern: They lie and steal. They do drugs and eat unhealthily. They fail to do anything that would improve their lives because they do not care about tomorrow. Caring about tomorrow requires a purpose – something for you to actually want to be alive for tomorrow – even if that purpose is something as basic as “I want to clean up my room tomorrow so that it’s not as messy anymore. That would make me feel better about my empty, miserable life”.

    If God is the last stop on the train track of ultimate life purpose, then many young men are failing to even board the train that takes them there – they need to be handed the very basics, they need to be told why they should even care to get out of bed in the morning. That is what Peterson is doing (and something which he began doing unintentionally – he likely had no clue that his words alone would end up having such an impact on the lives of so many young men).

    You also must acknowledge that God is only a sufficient purpose for someone who believes in Him. Many of the members of Jordan Peterson’s audience are atheists or non-religious, so just saying to such a young person “God is your purpose, dawg” would do nothing for them – at least not in the immediate present. When Jordan Peterson says in one of his Youtube lectures “Clean up your room – it’s a good thing to do, and you should also work to introduce more good behaviours like it into your life” that inspires young men to work on their lives NOW, which benefits them immensely over the long term (it’s compound interest, baby). If you watched the video I linked, this is what Peterson says (paraphrasing/editorialising): “Young men come up to me at my lectures, one after another, and they all shake my hand and say ‘I’ve been listening to you for 6 months – I started cleaning my room and telling the truth, and my life is so much better now than it was. I cannot thank you enough’ and it just makes me so sad. So sad. Why are their lives so fundamentally empty and devoid of purpose that the simple positive ideas I express are what’s saving them from depression and suicide?”

    (And yes, as @feministhater quite angrily and discontentedly points out, Jordan Peterson is obviously very blue-pill when it comes to actually answering the question of WHY young men’s lives are so often devoid of purpose in the modern world, but like you say @Sharkly in this same post, this just means he should be openly and honestly red-pilled further. He should not be cast aside as if his blue-pill blind spots are somehow signs of secret, irredeemable evilness on his part.)

    As has been spoken of up-thread, many of the ideas that Jordan Peterson expresses are also just simple repackagings/secular restatements of religious concepts – for some Christians to be so vehemently opposed to his overall message is actually quite bizarre. Was Jesus Christ a devil-possessed charlatan? The Prophet Muhammed almost certainly was, but’s that another issue all together.

    I will also make clear note here of something:

    There were many ideas I brought up in my original post that I have not seen people wanting to address at all (my point about Peterson being rightfully and importantly anti-Communist being one), but the one that stands out the most to me is my point about how Jordan Peterson is saving many young men from suicide and other negative behaviours (which could be described as sin). No one has wanted to even touch that topic with a barge pole, likely because to acknowledge it would make it impossible to dismiss Jordan Peterson as a Mean, Mad, White Man!– I mean, a devil-possessed, controlled-resistance Jewish agent of evil and maliciousness! After all, directly saving numerous young men from suicide by giving them a positive grounding of purpose in life is an UNDENIABLY good and righteous deed. That would make Jordan Peterson at least partly good, as a simple matter of fact, which utterly destroys the close-minded, prejudiced viewpoints of those who would declare him things like “the Demon-eyed Peterson” (heh).

  310. Random Angeleno says:

    Ingracious could use an editor. Please.

    JBP is a globalist, that really is his name in a globalist oriented UN doc that he helped to author. Also he has been anointed as part of the “approved” opposition.

    I don’t think telling young men to clean their rooms is necessarily a bad thing by itself, but have to look at the context and milieu in which JBP is saying it. Which appears to be “building a better beta”.

  311. fourfourseven says:

    @ Boxer:
    —————-
    If you are banging married wimminz, as you claim, then you aren’t doing due diligence. Aside from the fact that you shouldn’t give these sluts the dick and attention that they’re after, you’re also courting a subpoena. That aside, this is always a funny game wimminz play, and I’ve encountered attempts at it. (Suddenly the “roommate” becomes an “ex,” and then later the “ex” turns out to be the “ex-husband,” and then a short time later, it’s revealed that “we just haven’t filed the papers yet,” and “we still have sex but it doesn’t mean anything…”)
    ——————–
    I never banged married women by choice. Was tricked into it two times, perhaps three (third case I never found out).
    —–
    Another funny lie that a huge number of wimminz tell is “I’ve never fucked on the first date before!” (Yeah, I guess I’m just that special, huh?)
    —————-
    It’s like they have a girl club where they brew up all those vapid sentences they all say in that regard.

    @subpoena: EU laws don’t care. 🤔

    What standart issue female humans say is completely devoid of substance to me, after I wittnesed how they gave away the best they got in the highest intesity for literally nothing (stupid word plays, being sligthly anti-social/ provocative to them).

    A supposedly intelligent human giving the most intimate thing away for nothing or even negative behaviour – sorry, I can’t see them as fully grown adult humans anymore. As such, they should be controlled by patriarchy for the good of society. Most responsible teenager in the house or something like that…

    Meanwhile good men (like I was several years ago) literally kill themselves for affection & human connection and that is just plain evil. Their pussy is worth more than a HUMAN LIFE…pretty weird, huh?

    And it is intentional, fully planned evil, doesn’t happen by chance.
    Even the most vapid thot turns into a logistical and planning genius ***if*** it’s about who they want to squander their most intimate affections on.

  312. fourfourseven says:

    I deal. I cannot stand advice from pastors, women, PUA’s and other fellow travelers who just assume its a math formula when it comes to this. It isn’t. Born with it, or you’re gonna be singing commercial jingles for the rest of your life.
    ———–

    Conquer the abyss by facing it, not by staring in it too long: It basically IS a 9messy, inprecise) formula.

    That is super sad (truly, no irony!) … but so is the death of hundreds of starving innocents around the globe every day.

    I chose to conquer the female selection problem because I think I’m entitled (yes, I said it and I mean it) to great women and a great love life.

    Your choice (however you choose) is up to you.

  313. earl says:

    ‘Telling a woman that “No, I’m not looking for something serious” really means “I want to do you right now and I promise you nothing, this means I’m in control and be both know that turns you on!” only sounds surprising to MEN WITHOUT GAME – the chicks know fully well what it means.’

    Women being responsive to an assertive man is not the surprising part. What is surprising is after the 20th time the woman goes through this no strings sexual dance and has the predictable regret/scorn/sadness of another man leaving her…she doesn’t figure out that perhaps this is not the best response to that.

  314. CSI says:

    “What is surprising is after the 20th time the woman goes through this no strings sexual dance and has the predictable regret/scorn/sadness of another man leaving her…she doesn’t figure out that perhaps this is not the best response to that.”

    I think many of them secretly enjoy the angst and drama when the latest bad boy ghosts them after sex.

  315. earl says:

    They probably enjoy the victim merit badge they get. Especially if they file a false rape charge or drag their mattress across the school grounds.

    Problem is you’re not a victim if you willingly have casual sex with men who you know aren’t going to stick around.

  316. earl says:

    And here’s hoping justice is served for this false rape charge. Lying about this serious crime should have consequences.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/31403/college-student-who-accused-two-football-players-hank-berrien

  317. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,

    The reason I spoke of you insulting your elders was that you used “Fuddy-Duddy” as a noun again.
    Definition: informal a person, especially an elderly one, who is extremely conservative or dull.
    Some of the noun definitions for “fuddy-duddy” do not contain the part about elderly, but it always has that connotation to me.
    As mentioned before, you’re brilliant, and I know you could have come up with a better conclusion than:
    – a fuddy-duddy. A goddamn fuddy-duddily-duddly.
    The GD also borders on what some(not all) might consider taking God’s name in vain.
    I also swore an awful lot more than I usually do, which came from frustration over what I felt people weren’t seeing
    Again, you’re brilliant, and due to your young age your IQ must be quite high right now. However, you’ll be frustrated for the rest of your life that others don’t see what your “mastermind(INTJ)” mind sees. I’m INTJ also. Expressing your frustration does not help you communicate anything but frustration. And some people may even provoke you and troll you because they enjoy the sport of frustrating others. Find some acceptable means to let off your frustration and then share your knowledge from a calm and cool perspective. It works best if you can do that.
    Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances. ~Thomas Jefferson

    My writing style alone is also very taxing, as you can imagine.
    Then write in a simpler style. Yet again, you’re brilliant, but most folks reading your incredibly long posts are not as brilliant as you, so write in a way that doesn’t show off your complexity, vocabulary, and abstraction, but use your intellect to simplify and hone your message down to where any fool could easily understand it.
    Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. ~Antoine de Saint Exupery
    The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple. ~Albert Einstein
    I also have had to learn to dial back my vocabulary. A former girlfriend used to refer to me as a walking dictionary. At work, in my area of expertise, I have to be especially mindful not to go flying off with technical jargon.

    I also think you would be far better off writing shorter posts, and more of them, people will respond more to a greater quantity of shorter posts than one huge one. It seemed to take a while before people responded to my posts too initially.

    You seem to have a great knowledge of Jordan Peterson, and many here don’t. I’m one of them. It would be better to use your knowledge to kindly educate us as to what you know to be true about him, than to get frustrated and scold us for not seeing what you see, or battle those who have made foolish and ignorant remarks.

    I know of course that not everyone here sees Dalrock’s blog as some gladiatorial arena where heroes seek to prove their mettle
    You are correct. Keyboard warriors are a meme in themselves. You’ll be much more helpful to others if you if you put some of your Christian humility into your writing style and instead of looking to be combative, you look to share and gently influence others towards the truth. I can see that I have backed some people down a ways off of opinions I find heretical. You don’t have to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women! . Just by moving them a bit towards God’s truth I have accomplished my purpose. People can be stubborn, and a little change of heart is as much as you can expect from most. Few will ever admit they were wrong, nor should you need that.
    My father used to say: A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still!
    The trick is to lead men willingly and give them the opportunity to change their mind without them feeling like they’re losing and you’re winning. We don’t need to fight Jordan Peterson we need to share in what he knows, and share with him what we know, so we’ll both be better off, not just pissed off. The same goes for everybody here. With the possible exception of some women who show up. Although it isn’t my style, I’m glad Feministhater tells them to F*** Off. It is nice to have a male space.

    If you like reading Anti-Communist writings try reading William Bradford’s diary. It is available online free. Most folks don’t know that Communism was tried, by Christians, here in America,(Mayflower Compact) and failed, long before Karl Marx was even Born.

    Being an (INTJ Mastermind) I usually am a big picture person. So I naturally start with my extrinsic purpose. The suicidal young men you want to help, who struggle to find a reason to get out of bed, and to go on living, they need a Godly foundation to build an upright and honorable life on, not just a task to clean their room up today. While Jordan gives them some glimmer of hope, which is great, they also need to know that they were created in the image and glory of God, and not an evolved monkey, that they are to subdue the earth and give glory to God through fearing God and fleeing evil, and by accepting and honoring Jesus sacrifice on their behalf. They need to know that there is, at this very moment, so great a cloud of witnesses to their daily struggles. They don’t need social media approval, or to be seen as battling well on this blog, they need to realize that:
    Luke 15:10 Likewise I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
    You could be the one that repents today and causes joy in heaven over your life! You could be the one to put a smile on God your Creator’s face. Just kneel beside your bed and get right with God. Then go tell the world! You can clean your shit up later! Let your heart be cleansed with Christ’s pure blood first.

  318. seventiesjason says:

    fourfourseven

    “I’m entitled to great women and a great love life”

    Proud of you.

    It hurt more as a younger man. Now too……but not as much……I have found other things to do. Conquering an “abyss” as you said shows that you really don’t want “great women” you want great sex. I am sure you have had plenty.

    I turned my life around and conqured and abyss of a crippling cocaine addiction and alcohol problem…..without the help of a “great woman” or a “great love life” and when everyone (including family) rightfully I might add………wrote me off. It has taken almost fourteen years to get myself back to where I was “financially” in 2002 / 2003.

    I am grateful for that. It was hard, and there were setbacks and smacks to my pride of taking work and jobs that were way beneath my skill level or potential. I did it because I wanted to eat. I was better than welfare. I had to re-learn humilty, hard work, drop my personal entitlement of “just because” I had an advanced degree I should be in or have a better job.

    Well, that better job has finally come.

    I start it in less than a week, and there is no fear, or worry that I am in over my head. I got this. Integrity over the years was restored, my father and I are on good terms, and he forgave me. I look okay for my age, and despite the cocaine and alcohol abuse…..I came out of it with a decent portion of my brain still operating. At least I didn’t end up a father with one of these “great women” because from what I have seen…..most are not that great……maybe great looking…….maybe a great potential…but I was never given a chance to see that in a woman……they were too busy laugjing at your jokes or were in awe of your good looks. Who knows. Unanswerable “what if’s” at this point.

    Future plans? Visiting the UK in 2019 for three weeks. Climbning Mt. Whitney in 2020, and plan to find and join a ska-raggae band once I get settled in Santa Rosa. The condition of my lip needs work in order to play a ska-styled trumpet.

    In a real Christian sense……we only deserve death. We only deserve the destructive results of our base desires. I’m not knocking your success with women. I’m not. But saying “it’s a choice” really isn’t true. Women choose. You don’t.

  319. Gary Eden says:

    JBP is pretty clearly not a Christian. When given the chance on video not only did he NOT confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God; he wouldn’t even admit to believing that God exists.

    No surprise from someone who tells stories about dreaming of being a messianic figure and stories about his pen of light that does automatic writing.

  320. Boxer says:

    Dear Gary Eden:

    Let’s not be like Kooky SirHamster. Let’s make a fair attempt to try and understand what Peterson means…

    JBP is pretty clearly not a Christian. When given the chance on video not only did he NOT confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God; he wouldn’t even admit to believing that God exists.

    I’ve seen Peterson, more than once, profess allegiance to Christianity. For example:

    If you’re calling him a liar, you need some evidence. Can you post some?

    Best,

    Boxer

  321. Boxer says:

    Dear Random Angeleno:

    JBP is a globalist, that really is his name in a globalist oriented UN doc that he helped to author.

    Peterson gets paid to write articles, and he probably makes more on Patreon than he does at his job at U of T. I’ve spent my entire life working for people who I disagree with. Blaming him for writing one article is a little silly, in the context of academia. The only people who tend to this extreme are hardcore SJW types (who, not coincidentally, have never done a day’s work in their lives).

    I don’t think telling young men to clean their rooms is necessarily a bad thing by itself, but have to look at the context and milieu in which JBP is saying it. Which appears to be “building a better beta”.

    Most of the people who are all upset about his “clean your room” message strike me as exactly the types who never clean their goddamned room.

    Incidentally, I have criticized Peterson far more pointedly than manlet Vox Day, or Dalrock either.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/06/04/speech-acts-and-psychopathy/

    I think he’s objectively wrong about many things, but if you’re going to attack his arguments, you have to make an effort to understand them.

    Best,

    Boxer

  322. Gary Eden says:

    Boxer, your own video proves my statement.

    “I suppose the most straightforward answer to that is yes.” and “there are truths other than the literal that perhaps are more truthful than even literal truths” is not the same as saying “Jesus Christ is the son of God”

    In your own video he refuses to answer the question “do you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead?”. saying only that he is agnostic about it.

    NOT A CHRISTIAN

    He’s not even a ‘bad christian’ but not a Christian at all.

    talks about his refusal to answer the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0

    There’s yet another video in a live q&a but I haven’t found the short clip yet. (it is somewhere in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V32WHDuy-Do)

    Not only is this technically the approach a Christian WILL NOT take; it’s also the WRONG ATTITUDE for a Christian; who should jump at the opportunity to share the Good News.

    1 John 4:1-3

    Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    Jordan Peterson is an antichrist.

  323. Wizard Prang says:

    To be sure, it is an older video, as can be seen from the low resolution and the ancient laptop (Dell 1100 I believe). It would be interesting to see if JBP has modified his stance since then. Also, he is speaking to a college students, who are presumably shagging like rabbits, and a “fornication is bad because…” message probably would not have been well received. I’m not sure if he had tenure at that point, so I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Pickup artists pursue commitment-free sex. This is not, in and of itself, evil, nor is it any great surprise. The dirty little secret is that PUAs do WHAT WORKS! It is neither “trickery” nor “deceit”; more like pragmatism. If a girl makes it clear that she is not interested, the PUA will move on, if he has any sense.

    Ladies have the perfect weapon to wipe out PUAs; all they have to do is to stop sleeping with “assholes”. Choose “good” men and the problem goes away.

    Of course we know that will never happen.

  324. Boxer says:

    Boxer, your own video proves my statement.

    “I suppose the most straightforward answer to that is yes.” and “there are truths other than the literal that perhaps are more truthful than even literal truths” is not the same as saying “Jesus Christ is the son of God”

    “Let’s leave it at yes” is an affirmative response. He says nothing in this video that I haven’t heard from most of my Christian friends, and in fact, that I haven’t read in St. Paul.

    Luke 17:6 – Faith the size of a mustard seed, and all that. (And ‘faith’ is a meaningful word, distinct from ‘knowledge’)

    In your own video he refuses to answer the question “do you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead?”. saying only that he is agnostic about it.

    NOT A CHRISTIAN

    Sorry, you don’t get to unilaterally excommunicate other Christians. In doing so, you’re behaving like the pharisees.

    Peterson is the only person in the world who can identify himself accurately. He has said that he is a Christian, and you have lied about him, in print, here in this thread. That seems to be a big problem if you pretend to have any sort of fidelity to the New Testament, but I’ll leave these contradictions between you and your god.

    Best,

    Boxer

  325. Gary Eden says:

    Boxer you speak with the same forked tongue that JBP does. JBP may try and hold himself out as some sort of Christian; but he’s quibbling over the definition.

    What kind of Christian won’t confess Christ rose from the dead? Not a Christian at all. If you don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ whatever faith you might have is void.

    “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

  326. Gary Eden says:

    I hope JBP comes to believe the Gospel and follow Christ. But so far, by his own admission, he has not. He won’t even confess the barest essentials of the faith.

    It speaks to the power of his skill with language that so many people (Christian’s, right wingers, anti-feminists, etc) all think he is one of them; and vehemently so in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    But such has long been the way of devil’s; always trying to pass themselves off as angel’s of light.

  327. Boxer says:

    Dear Gary Eden:

    Boxer you speak with the same forked tongue that JBP does. JBP may try and hold himself out as some sort of Christian; but he’s quibbling over the definition.

    Please. Nearly every Christian I know has a hard time explaining the mystery of faith, when they witness to me. Peterson is no different. He’s trying to be careful with his language out of respect for his faith and his community. Legalists like you condemn yourselves.

    As for me, a large part of the reason I’m not a Christian is due to people like you. From my perspective, Christianity appears to be a big bundle of poisonous snakes, bound together tightly, eternally hissing and striking each other. You, SirHamster, and the rest can continue trying to defame and libel other Christians all you want. I won’t be joining you.

    What kind of Christian won’t confess Christ rose from the dead? Not a Christian at all. If you don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ whatever faith you might have is void.

    Where does it say that such confessions must be made on youtube, without any nuance or accuracy? I’m sure you’ll cite that verse in the New Testament, really soon now.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  328. Gary Eden says:

    Nuance, another word for struggling to find a way to not confess Christ while making you think I believe in him. When you are being asked “Do you believe in God”, that isn’t the time to quibble about the meaning of God…

    1 Peter 3:15:
    But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    Matthew 10:32-33:
    Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

    Why do you, not a Christian, feel the need to tell us, Christians, who is one of us contrary to what our holy scriptures teach? There is no argument ‘by scripture’ or ‘by church tradition’ that could make this man a follower of Christ. He won’t confess even the most basic of statements about Christ. To be less Christian he’d have to deny Christ literally existed (though he comes close to that).

  329. SirHamster says:

    Why do you, not a Christian, feel the need to tell us, Christians, who is one of us contrary to what our holy scriptures teach? There is no argument ‘by scripture’ or ‘by church tradition’ that could make this man a follower of Christ. He won’t confess even the most basic of statements about Christ. To be less Christian he’d have to deny Christ literally existed (though he comes close to that).

    Boxer is a non-Christian subversive, and he uses lies, shame, and false witness to suppress Christians from identifying non-Christians.

    In doing so, he is serving the same master that JBP is, “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.”

    JBP is trying to get the usefulness of Christianity without belief in it. He is trying to adopt a form of godliness while denying its power (God). The Bible has this to say about such men:

    “They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

    Speaking of evil desires, do you know JBP dreamed of cannibalizing his beautiful cousin?
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-reluctant-messiah.html

    Sorry, you don’t get to unilaterally excommunicate other Christians. In doing so, you’re behaving like the pharisees.

    Boxer is behaving as the pharisees. They denied the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and attempted to lord over others on how to practice religion. As Boxer does right now to the Christians here, even as he disobeys the call to accept and follow Christ.

    No one needs to excommunicate Peterson, because he does not follow the resurrected Lord Jesus and is not in the church. The only excommunication here is done by him through his own testimony when he describes how he does not believe in the resurrection of Christ.

    Here is a damning quote from JBP found by Vox Day:

    After all, many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.
    – Maps of Meaning

    But since JBP claims to be Christian, he should be clearly identified as a heretic and a Fake Christian for the sake of all.

  330. SirHamster says:

    Correction: Boxer tries to suppress Christians from identifying Fake Christians. A non-Christian honestly not being a Christian is one thing.

    Wolves in sheep’s clothing are to be identified as such, for they desire to devour the flock.

  331. Boxer says:

    Dear Gary:

    Please see inside text…

    Why do you, not a Christian, feel the need to tell us, Christians, who is one of us contrary to what our holy scriptures teach?

    I’ve read your texts. I have a duty to be faithful to the meaning therein. That’s enough for me.

    There is no argument ‘by scripture’ or ‘by church tradition’ that could make this man a follower of Christ. He won’t confess even the most basic of statements about Christ.

    You clearly didn’t watch that video. His answers to the questions posed were careful and thoughtful, and mirror the sorts of things that the old people I go to mass with say, when they talk to me.

    To be less Christian he’d have to deny Christ literally existed (though he comes close to that).

    In saying this, you seem to have a vision of Christianity as a sort of partial order, with people being more christian than others. That may be why we’re talking past one another. I see Christians as the set of all people who answer “yes,” the way Jordan Peterson did, when asked. My way of seeing Christians makes more sense than yours, I’d argue, because accepting your definition entails putting oneself up as an arbitrary judge in regards to whether someone is sufficiently Christian or not. St. Paul seems to be on my side in this argument (Romans 2 is a good place to start.)

    Basically, if someone says “I’m a Christian,” then I take them at their word. That someone knows more about his own spiritual life than I do, after all. If you’re calling him a liar, then you ought to trot out some evidence. You haven’t done so, any more than kooky SirHamster has (though his hysterical public outbursts continue to amuse and entertain.) This is a problem, if you claim to be a Christian yourself; though, it’s your problem, and not mine.

    As an aside, note that SirHamster’s main source is his prophet: Ted Beale, a guy who self identifies as “Dark Lord” and other pseudosatanic faggotry. I hope you don’t take that fool seriously.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  332. Gary Eden says:

    Someone who refuses to testify that Christ is the son of God and raised from the dead is objectively not a follower of Christ. There is no way around that; by the words of Christ himself.

    “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

  333. Boxer says:

    Dear Gary:

    “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

    The easiest way for you to make your argument is to give me the time, in the video, where Peterson denies Christ.

    I don’t see him doing that at all.

    Best,

    Boxer

  334. SirHamster says:

    Blind man demands to be shown what he refuses to see.

  335. Gunner Q says:

    “In your own video he refuses to answer the question “do you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead?”. saying only that he is agnostic about it.”

    Boxer, Gary is right on this. Every Christian from every denomination of every branch of Christianity, when asked if Jesus rose from the dead, will say “yes” without qualifiers of any kind. This is not something Christians can be uncertain about. The reason we are able to trust Christ for salvation is because He first saved Himself. A dead Savior isn’t going to rescue any dead followers.

    1 Cor. 15:13-14 “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

  336. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    Boxer, Gary is right on this. Every Christian from every denomination of every branch of Christianity, when asked if Jesus rose from the dead, will say “yes” without qualifiers of any kind.

    If you rewrote this claim, it would be defensible. For example, if you said:

    Every Christian from every denomination of every branch of Christianity, when asked if Jesus rose from the dead, will not say “no”.

    I’d agree with you. I imagine Peterson would, too. It’d also be in line with the text of the Bible.

    As is, all I have to do is to find one sincere Christian (and I imagine at least 20% of sincere Christians in the USA would answer like Peterson does) who disagrees with you, and your proposition collapses. Plenty of people have faith in things without believing in them. That’s the difference between faith and belief.

    Another way Gary could win this argument is to trot out some evidence that Peterson has ever actually denied Christ. Has Peterson ever renounced faith in Jesus? That ought to be pretty simple to find, but no one here seems to be able to find it.

    We could go even further. I’d accept a much weaker standard. For example: Has Peterson ever converted to another religion? Muslims, for example, don’t deny Christ. They just don’t worship him. I’d accept evidence of Peterson’s conversion to Islam.

    For that matter, if Peterson self-described as “The Dark Lord of The Evil Legion,” I’d question his devotion to Christianity. I’d also suspect he was a goon and a charlatan, and I’d probably not take anything else he said seriously.

    This is not something Christians can be uncertain about. The reason we are able to trust Christ for salvation is because He first saved Himself. A dead Savior isn’t going to rescue any dead followers.

    One thing I am not uncertain about, the New Testament condemns people for throwing around accusations like these. You can disagree with Peterson without impugning his faith, so I don’t know why you guys are so hot to do this. (Hint: No one really cares if Peterson is a Christian or not. His presentations stand and fall on their own merits. He doesn’t make any extra money for being a Christian, so there’s really no reason for him to lie about it.)

    Best,

    Boxer

  337. Mountain Man says:

    Dear Boxer,

    “As for me, a large part of the reason I’m not a Christian is due to people like you. From my perspective, Christianity appears to be a big bundle of poisonous snakes, bound together tightly, eternally hissing and striking each other. You, SirHamster, and the rest can continue trying to defame and libel other Christians all you want. I won’t be joining you.”

    I strongly agree with you on this. Christians very often treat each other horribly, and are quick to excommunicate people, or deny the faith of others, all over points of theology which are arcane and few people care about. Many Christians behave as if Jesus said, “By this shall all men know you are my disciples, if you have correct theology.” This attitude damages their witness to the world and causes many, such as yourself, to want nothing to do with Christianity. It’s a disgrace.

    I have no desire to debate theology with you, so I’ll attack the question from a linguistic angle. Words are used as shorthand for concepts and objects so we can communicate more efficiently. I’m sure you know this. When the definition of a word is expanded too much, it ceases to be useful as a word, and therefore becomes less useful for communication. Modern examples include “abuse” and “love”. They can mean so many different things that you constantly need to ask the speaker (or writer) to define what THEY mean by the word.

    I agree with you that when someone say they are a Christian, we should be gracious and respectful enough to take them at their word …. but we can’t just leave it at that. There are obviously people who claim to be Christian, but their actions or beliefs don’t back up that claim. Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Charles Taylor, the murderous Liberian dictator, claimed to be a Christian. Ronnie Raygun and both Bushes claimed to be Christian, as did Obama. When evidence to the contrary comes out, isn’t it appropriate to call bullshit on people’s self-identification claims? And Jesus himself said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

    For example, imagine someone comes up to me and asks whether I’m a vegetarian, and I answer “yes”. If we go to lunch together and they see me eating a cheeseburger, they have every right to doubt my self-identification. They can appropriately conclude that either I’m using a very different definition of the word “vegetarian”, or that I lied when I said I was one.

    Putting lettuce on my cheeseburger doesn’t make me a vegetarian. Likewise, Jordan Peterson appreciating the Jungian archetypes in the bible doesn’t necessarily legitimize his claim to be a Christian. Now I”m not saying he isn’t a Christian. I have no idea whether JBP is a Christian or not. I don’t know enough about his views to be able to weigh in intelligently on that question, and frankly I’m not interested enough to do that research. I’m willing to take him at his word. But we need to have some sort of commonly accepted idea of what falls inside, and what falls outside the definition of the word “Christian”, just as we do for vegetarian, or Marxist, or Canadian, or athlete, or any number of other words which designate a set of beliefs or characteristics.

    Not trying to start a fight, just trying to add to the discussion.

  338. SirHamster says:

    As is, all I have to do is to find one sincere Christian (and I imagine at least 20% of sincere Christians in the USA would answer like Peterson does) who disagrees with you, and your proposition collapses. Plenty of people have faith in things without believing in them. That’s the difference between faith and belief.

    Boxer is promoting a fake standard of Christian measured by sincere self-label; faith without belief is sufficient to be a Christian in his books, and that is how he calls JBP a Christian.

    Faith without belief, like faith without works, is dead. It isn’t faith at all, but snake oil. Boxer testifies that JBP is a faith-less charlatan.

    He doesn’t make any extra money for being a Christian, so there’s really no reason for him to lie about it.

    JBP claiming to be a Christian increases his credibility to his audience, which includes churched young adults shaken by modern culture and questioning their parent’s faith. Building rapport with that audience and gaining their trust is a reason for him to lie about it. It also makes him money when it increases his audience and his Patreon support.

    Knowing that JBP has no belief in the resurrection (I cannot answer that question), his claim to follow Christ is deceptive. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    That was Boxer’s cue to defend him with bald lies and attack the truth.

  339. SJB says:

    @Sir Hamster,

    Interestingly, JBP wrote a book called Maps of Meaning: The architecture of belief. An sloggish read but quite informative. I’d recommend it but doubt you’ll find the creedal statement you seek.

    Cheers!

  340. SirHamster says:

    I’d recommend it but doubt you’ll find the creedal statement you seek.

    What creedal statement do you think I seek?

    Thanks for bringing up the book, it’s available free as PDF here. Some citations for what I referenced earlier, for anyone who cares:

    JBP’s statement on disbelieving Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection (p. 7)

    After all, many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.

    JBP dreams of cannibalizing his cousin (p. 13)

    I took a plate. In the center of it was a circular slab of flesh four inches in diameter and one inch thick, foully cooked, oily, with a marrow bone in the center of it. Where did it come from?

    I had a terrible thought. I rushed downstairs to my cousin. The dogs had butchered her, and were offering the meat to the survivors of the disaster. I woke up with my heart pounding.

    I dreamed apocalyptic dreams of this intensity two or three times a week for a year or more, while I attended university classes and worked – as if nothing out of the ordinary was going on in my mind.

  341. SJB says:

    @Sir Hamster,

    It will be interesting to read what you quote when you get to “The Divine Son: Images of the Knower, the Exploratory Process”, again not that it is an unambiguous creedal assertion.

    Cheers!

  342. MKT says:

    Not Peterson, but I thought Jimmy Kimmel’s hypocritical 180 from the “Man Show” to #metoofeministman is worth sharing.
    https://clashamerica.com/jimmy-kimmel-hates-cartoon-show-spread-everywhere/

    Unlike Kimmel, Peterson definitely has some redeeming qualities.

  343. Here is a damning quote from JBP found by Vox Day:

    After all, many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.
    – Maps of Meaning

    But since JBP claims to be Christian, he should be clearly identified as a heretic and a Fake Christian for the sake of all.

    Hmm… doesn’t that sounds familiar…

    “It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord.” -CS Lewis

    Of course there’s this thing called… CONTEXT. I’ll leave you to go find CS Lewis’ – I’ll be interested to see what Vox left out this time (as he likes to do).

    Anyway, I do like to keep in mind Luke 9:50: “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

  344. JBP’s statement on disbelieving Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection (p. 7)

    You mean when he was still a teen and had left home? (as seen in context).

    JBP dreams of cannibalizing his cousin (p. 13)

    Also during this time period and hardly a surprise to any believer. Still, after decades (in this case – pages) we arrive at:

    “It has in fact been the study of “comparative mythological material” that made my horrible dreams disappear. The “cure” wrought by this study, however, was purchased at the price of complete and often painful transformation: what I believe about the world, now – and how I act, in consequence – is so much at variance with what I believed when I was younger that I might as well be a completely different person.”

    Hmm… I wonder if we were to judge you solely by the person you were in your youth how the result would be… would we find sinner? Or saint? (Unless you’re still young now – in which case, prepare for the shame your adult self will experience.)

  345. SirHamster says:

    @ SBT

    What creedal statement do you think I seek?

    @ natewinchester

    I quoted less than what Vox did. On review, I cut poorly.

    This is the full Vox quote, and he transcribes the interview exchange.

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

    Lott: Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?”

    Peterson: I cannot answer that question. And the reason is because… okay… let me think about that for a minute… see if I can come up with a reasonable answer for that. Well, the first answer would be: It depends on what you mean by Jesus…. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story, I would say it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me, and perhaps I’m not alone in that, it’s the central drama in the Christian corpus let’s say. But I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like “do you believe that or do you not believe it”, you know, it’s not… I don’t know what the limits… I don’t know the limits of human possibility.
    – Am I Christian? Interview with Tim Lott.

    He left Christianity behind, and still doesn’t believe that Jesus resurrected. He dissembles rather than say yes or no.

    But he falsely claims the label anyways.

    Anyway, I do like to keep in mind Luke 9:50: “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

    Are there not enough dead churches filled with cultural Christianity to see where this goes? Are you that comfortable with the spirit of antichrist?

  346. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky SirHamster:

    He left Christianity behind, and still doesn’t believe that Jesus resurrected. He dissembles rather than say yes or no.

    Cite the source where Peterson says “I don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus.”

    But he falsely claims the label anyways.

    Says the oft-spanked liar.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    It’s truly hilarious to see you pretend that you have the authority to excommunicate actual Christians. You don’t pack the mental gear to understand Peterson’s points, and you know this yourself.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  347. earl says:

    ‘After all, many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.’

    So he thinks a virgin birth and resurrection from the dead are incomprehensible, absurd, and impossible. I’m sure he’d think things like turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, walking on water, and opening the eyes of a man born blind are the same.

    All of these are impossible and incomprehensible for man…but it is not for God.

  348. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    All of these are impossible and incomprehensible for man…but it is not for God.

    Pardon me for stating the obvious, but a great bit of the value in the New Testament is the impossibilities and absurdities therein. Kierkegaard pointed that out.

    Therefore there is no vague talk that being a Christian means to accept and accept, and accept altogether differently, to appropriate, to have faith, to appropriate in faith altogether differently (nothing but rhetorical and sham definitions); but to have faith is specifically qualified differently from all other appropriation and inwardness. Faith is the objective uncertainty with the repulsion of the absurd, held fast in the passion of inwardness, which is the relation of inwardness intensified to its highest. This formula fits only the one who has faith, no one else, not even a lover, or an enthusiast, or a thinker, but solely and only the one who has faith, who relates himself to the absolute paradox.

    I’ll leave it to the kooks and their “Dark Lord of Evil” to excommunicate him next.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  349. earl says:

    Pardon me for stating the obvious, but a great bit of the value in the New Testament is the impossibilities and absurdities therein.

    If you ever notice the reason why these ‘impossibilities’ and ‘absurditites’ came about…it was Jesus proving the works of the Father. It was never about Him alone. One such example was telling an ill man of 38 years to walk. You can find the common theme in all the miracles He performed.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5&version=NABRE

  350. SirHamster says:

    Cite the source where Peterson says “I don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus.”

    Lott: Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead?”

    Peterson: I cannot answer that question. And the reason is because… okay… let me think about that for a minute… see if I can come up with a reasonable answer for that. Well, the first answer would be: It depends on what you mean by Jesus…. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story, I would say it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me, and perhaps I’m not alone in that, it’s the central drama in the Christian corpus let’s say. But I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like “do you believe that or do you not believe it”, you know, it’s not… I don’t know what the limits… I don’t know the limits of human possibility.
    – Am I Christian? Interview with Tim Lott.

    Christianity is a historical faith based on the real events surrounding the real person of Jesus. Turning him into a fake but useful myth can be a religion, but is not Christian faith.

    It’s truly hilarious to see you pretend that you have the authority to excommunicate actual Christians. You don’t pack the mental gear to understand Peterson’s points, and you know this yourself.

    I am not excommunicating any Christians, liar. That would require fellowship with the excommunicated, and is performed by a Christian community, not an individual.

    What’s hilarious is your white knighting for JBP and pretending you have the authority to thought police the Christian community, even as you attempt to preach that dead faith is a substitute for the real thing.

  351. earl says:

    To be honest he sounds like a lawyer when presented something he’s not completely sure about.

    Isn’t what Peterson’s saying just a long winded ‘I don’t know’ statement?

    And that’s fine if he doesn’t know…that doesn’t mean outright he’s an unbeliever. Perhaps if he keeps digging he’ll get the answer. Isn’t that what we are all doing?

  352. SirHamster says:

    @natewinchester

    Hmm… I wonder if we were to judge you solely by the person you were in your youth how the result would be… would we find sinner? Or saint? (Unless you’re still young now – in which case, prepare for the shame your adult self will experience.)

    The Christian faith is professed with word and deed. The thoughts of youth and of the mature man are given, and both do not profess faith in a resurrected Christ. He is very close, yet very far.

    You can judge sinner and saint of my youth as you wish. More sin than I ought, more saint than I deserve. My hope is not based on my life or my works, but in the object of my faith.

  353. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    If you ever notice the reason why these ‘impossibilities’ and ‘absurditites’ came about…it was Jesus proving the works of the Father. It was never about Him alone. One such example was telling an ill man of 38 years to walk. You can find the common theme in all the miracles He performed.

    I guess you’ve sorta lost me. Am I correct in assuming that Jesus and The Father are different senses of the same being?

    In any case, what do you tell people today, who don’t have sense data or historical evidence for such stuff? For Kierkegaard, it was all about a leap of faith. Same for Jordan Peterson, as I understand him. There are things that seem counterintuitive, but we adhere and choose to be faithful to them, simply out of conviction.

    Trigonometric identities, for example… or the idea of a resurrection… You can make the case that these things work, somehow, though the inner mechanisms are hidden, and passersby won’t believe you.

    Best,

    Boxer

  354. earl says:

    Am I correct in assuming that Jesus and The Father are different senses of the same being?

    Yes, hence why I provided the biblical context. If you noticed the Jews got flustered because Christ was making the statement he was equal to God.

    In any case, what do you tell people today, who don’t have sense data or historical evidence for such stuff? For Kierkegaard, it was all about a leap of faith. Same for Jordan Peterson, as I understand him. There are things that seem counterintuitive, but we adhere and choose to be faithful to them, simply out of conviction.

    A lot of it is faith.

    Trigonometric identities, for example… or the idea of a resurrection… You can make the case that these things work, somehow, though the inner mechanisms are hidden, and passersby won’t believe you.

    Yup…it’s based off a person’s own internal thought process to an idea presented. Heck we had a photographic evidence tornado close to our town that many people saw a week ago and some people in this town were still convinced during this event that tornadoes don’t exist.

  355. The Christian faith is professed with word and deed. The thoughts of youth and of the mature man are given, and both do not profess faith in a resurrected Christ. He is very close, yet very far.

    You can judge sinner and saint of my youth as you wish. More sin than I ought, more saint than I deserve. My hope is not based on my life or my works, but in the object of my faith.

    I wouldn’t dream of judging – because I know that people can change (which you seem to have forgotten) and someone once said…

    “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” -Romans 14:4

  356. I quoted less than what Vox did. On review, I cut poorly.
    . . .
    He left Christianity behind, and still doesn’t believe that Jesus resurrected. He dissembles rather than say yes or no.

    But he falsely claims the label anyways.

    No you didn’t, I looked and Vox was just as dishonest in his quoting, you cut very little. But I am curious how JBP can deny the resurrection but then claim to be a Christian which would refute that.

    Checking the interview, sounds to me like the man is just following Luke 14:28-30:
    “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’”

    So which is it? Should he do what Jesus says or not? Perhaps you should really make up your own mind first.

    Are there not enough dead churches filled with cultural Christianity to see where this goes? Are you that comfortable with the spirit of antichrist?

    So the words Jesus Himself spoke are now the spirit of the antichrist?

    Perhaps you should see to the plank in your own eye before seeking the speck of dust in Dr. Peterson’s – or speak ill of the words of the One you claim to be Lord.

  357. Gary Eden says:

    Anyway, I do like to keep in mind Luke 9:50: “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

    I used to take that approach to JBP; until I cam to fully appreciate how he was doing the devil’s work.

    While he says a lot of good and useful things, there is evil leaven in his message. It is a mix of truth and falsehood calculated to do us harm.

  358. SirHamster says:

    because I know that people can change (which you seem to have forgotten) and someone once said…

    The ability of people to change in the future does not exempt their current beliefs and positions from criticism. You may as well shut down Dalrock’s blog because the feminists and churchians he criticizes “can change”.

    … I looked and Vox was just as dishonest in his quoting

    The man left Christianity in his youth because he couldn’t believe in the supernatural events. The man does not believe in Jesus’s resurrection. What is dishonest about quoting JBP’s own words to confirm these facts?

    So which is it? Should he do what Jesus says or not? Perhaps you should really make up your own mind first.

    He should do as Jesus says. He hasn’t, because he isn’t even sure what anyone means by Jesus. (fudging the meaning of words is dishonest)

    In the meantime, as a professor teaching, a media figure proselytizing, a UN adviser writing policy documents, and a man with a large following, his words and beliefs are fair game for criticism.

  359. Boxer says:

    Dear Kooky SirHamster:

    In the meantime, as a professor teaching, a media figure proselytizing, a UN adviser writing policy documents, and a man with a large following,

    SirHamster is the perfect bolshevik, his narcissistic hatred driven by envy and ressentiment, against anyone stronger, smarter and more successful than he.

    his words and beliefs are fair game for criticism.

    Effective criticism of Peterson is done by those who understand the problems in his theories.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/06/04/speech-acts-and-psychopathy/

    The best you’ve been able to do is impugn his faith, without a single citation, nor any other bit of justification. Laughable and pathetic.

    Y’r Pal,

    Boxer

  360. fourfourseven says:

    @Boxer/paper on speech acts linked above:

    This link only further causes astute readers to intensify their criticism.
    Speech acts, yeah we know, pragmatics research, yadda yadda.

    But what does the paper openly and immediatly admit?

    1. The twisted word “psychopathic” is taken from Habermas, THE VERY INCARNATION OF A SPIRITUAL JEW, who did his very best to spread Marxism as part of the infamous Frankfurt school of jews, marxists and marxist jews.
    If it is from Habermas, it will be a twisted lie.

    These guys openly admitted they wanted to destroy white men and civilization – they are “literally Stalin” in reinventing class warfare as cultural warfare, because all those stupid masses would not kill the achievers in society and overthrow political systems just by being convinced…exercise in marxist jew logic: So you have to destabilize culture and lie to the masses for their own good, so they finally start revolting according to marxist dogma, because society does not work anymore if you sabotage it by lies and cultural poison…

    2. The author even openly admits to and names that agenda as “cultural marxist” a few lines into the text.

    3. So there only remains one thing: Instrumental use of language.
    Ok, guilty of the charge😂
    Which is about as (((evil))) and (((psychopathic))) as saying: “Yes, and please add some extra ketchup to my meal” –> purely instrumental use of language towards the poor oppressed waiter, from the lumpenproletariat who is completely interchangeable and all you want out of this interaction is ketchup…how (((dehumanizing))), lets all start to shoot up society and found some sowjets to crush this (((bourgeois evil))) clearly caused by (((white heteronormative capitalism)))

  361. SJB says:

    @Sir Hamster,

    My mistake – I’d assumed you’d read the book and understood Peterson-qua-Peterson and critically adopted another blogger’s view. As you will.

    Cheers!

  362. The man left Christianity in his youth because he couldn’t believe in the supernatural events. The man does not believe in Jesus’s resurrection. What is dishonest about quoting JBP’s own words to confirm these facts?

    Oh only leaving out the later words which I quoted previously but here it is again:

    what I believe about the world, now – and how I act, in consequence – is so much at variance with what I believed when I was younger that I might as well be a completely different person.

    So what’s dishonest is that you leave out his very admission that he doesn’t believe what he believed in his youth. Or are you really going to try and act like repeatedly quoting what a man confesses he believed when he was younger WITHOUT quoting a later confession that he has since changed his mind is not dishonest?

    He should do as Jesus says. He hasn’t, because he isn’t even sure what anyone means by Jesus. (fudging the meaning of words is dishonest)

    Yes because it’s not like if one was to go out and ask the Orthodox, the Catholics, and a half dozen Protestants to explain who Jesus was one wouldn’t get multiple answers. Now you’re just feigning niavete to disparage the man. Again, start with your own dishonesty before you complain about someone else’s.

    In the meantime, as a professor teaching, a media figure proselytizing, a UN adviser writing policy documents, and a man with a large following, his words and beliefs are fair game for criticism.

    Sure. Now try criticizing what he’s actually said rather than twisting things to fit your preferred conclusion. Or you can keep being Cathy Newman and just make up strawmans.

  363. Lost Patrol says:

    And that’s fine if he doesn’t know…that doesn’t mean outright he’s an unbeliever. Perhaps if he keeps digging he’ll get the answer. Isn’t that what we are all doing?

    Earl sums up where I am since following along with the dialogue.

    The great thing about this place is that you have to think. During the course of the Peterson chronicles I’ve had to examine the old me yet again. I did not arrive at “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (to borrow from St. Peter) all at once. It was a quest, a pilgrimage. It took quite a while. One might say that I resisted it while pursuing it.

    Everyone doesn’t arrive overnight, or in the same amount of travel time at all. Maybe Peterson’s quest isn’t over. It seems like it isn’t, and I have to give him that. It’s like his brain is overclocked, and he can’t talk through as many thoughts as he’s having in a given moment, and his position on some things may not yet be clear to him either; so it comes across like a smoke screen even if that’s not what he’s going for. I can relate to that, or maybe I’m just projecting again.

    For now I’ll just give Peterson some maneuver room and see how it goes. One has to acknowledge his initial bravery, when he was still a nobody, in publicly making assertions about men and women that flew in the face of two powerful bastions of feminism; namely academia, and Canada.

  364. Boxer says:

    Dear 447:

    The author even openly admits to and names that agenda as “cultural marxist” a few lines into the text.

    I suspect the author to be Jewish as Habermas.

    (the illocutionary force being: you should totes go over to that blog and lampoon him.)

    So there only remains one thing: Instrumental use of language.
    Ok, guilty of the charge😂

    All humor aside, it’s nice to see someone else appreciates Peterson’s shallow toying with linguistics to make his psychoanalysis points, on his Patreon-funded youtube channel.

    Best,

    Boxer

  365. SirHamster says:

    @natewinchester

    Missed part of your last comment:

    So the words Jesus Himself spoke are now the spirit of the antichrist?

    Perhaps you should see to the plank in your own eye before seeking the speck of dust in Dr. Peterson’s – or speak ill of the words of the One you claim to be Lord.

    No, JBP’s confession of not knowing what Jesus means, and that he cannot answer if Jesus resurrected, is the spirit of antichrist.

    Is the spirit of antichrist for you or against you?

    I speak these things not against the person of JBP, but the movement and philosophy he promotes.

    So what’s dishonest is that you leave out his very admission that he doesn’t believe what he believed in his youth. Or are you really going to try and act like repeatedly quoting what a man confesses he believed when he was younger WITHOUT quoting a later confession that he has since changed his mind is not dishonest?

    I didn’t requote that for space. It’s a vague statement. Is he talking about the Christian belief in his youth? Or is he talking about the skepticism of his youth? He’s said he’s changed from what he was, but that doesn’t tell you what he’s changed into.

    Right now, he is claiming to be a Christian while fudging the question on Jesus and his resurrection. (in a different interview: he also cannot answer if God exists or not) That he in his youth thought that Christian was intellectually unacceptable provides context for these answers.

    Gnostics talk about Jesus but are a heresy because they believe flesh is evil and that he came as a spirit; the Christian believes Jesus came in the flesh. Mormons talk about Jesus, but are a heresy because they believe God and Jesus are ascended men. The identity of Jesus matters, and Peterson “cannot answer that question”.

    Right now, he doesn’t show belief in the supernatural, which makes any Christian religion he practices spiritually dead. It is Cultural Christianity.

    “This stuff isn’t true-true, but it’s a useful lie that we should pretend to believe in so we can reap the benefits.”

    Yes because it’s not like if one was to go out and ask the Orthodox, the Catholics, and a half dozen Protestants to explain who Jesus was one wouldn’t get multiple answers.

    Every Christian’s answer on Jesus’s identity can be mapped to the Apostle’s creed. They don’t have to have identical wording, but they would have that same meaning.

    Those who don’t, are not Christian.

    A man who doesn’t even know what Jesus means, and cannot answer if Jesus resurrected or not, is not Christian. May every such questioner become one, but objectively such a person is not, yet.

    Sure. Now try criticizing what he’s actually said rather than twisting things to fit your preferred conclusion. Or you can keep being Cathy Newman and just make up strawmans.

    I have literally been criticizing JBP quotes this entire time.

    “I cannot answer the question [if Jesus rose from the dead]”

    This is fine coming from someone who has never heard of Jesus. This is not so fine coming from someone who is churched, but concluded “many of the basic tenets of Christian belief were incomprehensible, if not clearly absurd. The virgin birth was an impossibility; likewise, the notion that someone could rise from the dead.”

  366. ingracious says:

    I haven’t stopped to sit and read any comments since my last comment yet, but I’ve had some time to generate new thoughts and mull over existing ones – I didn’t realise before posting here how strongly I felt about PUAs, but there you go. I thought I’d transfer these thoughts I’ve had into words and then just put them out here in a general manner:

    When I’ve spoken about the PUA community and the people involved in it, I don’t mean ‘just some random dudes who like occasionally engaging in casual sex when the opportunity naturally presents itself’, I’m talking about the people in the PUA community who pursue sex like it’s their mission in life:

    The forefront leaders within the PUA community and their most regular and dedicated commenters/followers, the ones who might even travel around the world with the seemingly exclusive goal of finding new pussy to smash, of finding new prey to test their latest methods for luring and manipulating women – maybe not even for sex, but just for the perverse glee they derive from doing it – and then they come right on home so that they can write blog posts and comments about the 6s, 7s, 8s, and 9s* which they successfully manipulated into giving them everything they wanted sexually, everything they wanted non-sexually, even things which were embarrassing or degrading for the woman – getting her to cheat with them, getting her to break up with a partner for them and then ditching her, and so on. They get a kick from fucking these bitches, fucking these bitches around, and fucking these bitches over, and then telling you the mechanical steps you can take to allow you to engage in and mimic the exact same depravity – all while they gloat to you about their sexual conquests.

    Such people are base, feral creatures, ones which subsume their basic, God-given instincts in the service of pursuing meaningless pleasure – like mice saying ‘yes, yes, yes!’ to the cocaine drip – and while they’re not enough of a danger or threat to be worth the effort of putting down, you certainly wouldn’t want them to be allowed within the town walls. You also certainly wouldn’t then want to encourage anyone to go out into the wilderness and join them in what they’re doing**.

    Jordan Peterson, in the video this blog post was about, spoke very negatively about the PUA community after saying he had observed it for himself online, and he wasn’t wrong in doing so: They /are/ psychopathic, they /are/ despicable wretches, and it is not wrong for them to be called as such – it is perhaps even the case that they OUGHT to be called as such, by as many people as have the principle to say it. While it is observably often the case that particular people may use faulty, fundamentally misguided reasoning (i.e. ‘Weak men are screwing up feminism!’ etc.) to reach and/or justify such a viewpoint, that does not make it any less reasonable to want to gaze upon PUAs and their community with disgust.

    ‘But it’s just their lifestyle!’ – Yes, their worthless, debauched, hedonistic, inhumane lifestyle which offers no value to themselves, to those whom they interact with or to the society in which they live. Verily, they are but peaceable wretches.

    (* The whole numbering system which is so popular within the PUA community is obviously just a way to categorise and quantify and express judgement, things which allow people to better assess where they are and determine how they can improve – I have no problem with that. However, I would assert that you’d be hard-pressed to try and deny that some members of the PUA community use these various mechanical abstractions as a way in which to dehumanise and literally objectify women – treating them like baseball cards to collect, or inanimate rock formations (‘Oh, this beautiful rock formation looks like a tiger – that’s a 9! That one doesn’t look like anything, that’s an ugly 2.’). As would be admittedly obvious to most here, the term ‘objectification’ has been watered down a hell of a lot in recent times (just like ‘rape’) but it is a real, relevant concept when it comes to the perception of other humans which the PUA community encourages and fosters.)

    ** (This turned into an entirely new rant)

    I’ve talked about the plight of disaffected young men a lot here particularly since I am one, and on that topic I would say that there is a shockingly significant amount of ambivalence even among the commenters here on Dalrock – perhaps even for Dalrock himself – when it comes to young men falling into the pursuit of casual sex and perhaps becoming PUAs.
    Some argue that society has taken away all available alternatives for young men, so it’s excusable. Some argue that they are just taking honest advantage of a flawed system, so it’s excusable. Some argue that there’s no hope for young men to achieve anything more than that, so it’s excusable.

    Some even argue that young men pursuing PUA are undermining a corrupt system – this one is of particular interest, as the manner in which they are undermining the corrupt system is analogous to the way in which a termite chewing away at the foundation serves to undermine a dilapidated house: Such behaviour is inherently destructive, and while the termite might get his fill he will almost certainly be crushed alongside everyone else once the house falls in on itself. Then, there will no longer be a house, nor a termite.

    My current assessment of what plagues most modern societies when it comes to gender relations is that women have been artificially empowered by the law and blue pill male enforcers in such a way that allows women to become unnaturally squanderous parasites. Such women cannot create wealth and prosperity through their newfound power and status, they can only throw it away while attempting to look as if they aren’t – that is, while attempting to look like they’re men, rather than still women. The more we have “empowered” women, and the more we continue to seek to “empower” women today by allowing them the ability to syphon off men through one more avenue after another, the faster and more severely our societies will haemorrhage wealth and prosperity – our money/resources and fought-for social standards and values with which we raise/d our children – until eventually the well runs dry and the whole of society comes crumbling down into a state of violent anarchy as a simple matter-of-course. Or, another country invades the weakened, gynocentric societies we have and supplants our formerly-glorious values and wisdom with their own – which will likely be a trade down in the grand scheme of things, but will at least restore widespread peace and order.

    My point being that the overall problem we have today is that society is being more and more quickly syphoned off of by people (women in particular) who do not create positive net-value within society, and are in fact encouraged not to. They simply indulge themselves throughout their entire lives, whether sexually or otherwise, never having children or creating anything worthwhile that will last into the future, all while harming and destroying other’s physical, mental and financial well-beings – and PUAs are undeniably exemplary of all of this as well, even though they’re only a small sliver on the pie-chart of who’s responsible overall.

    In light of that fact, unless you believe that the destruction of the entirety of society is the most desirable end goal for us or that there is simply no hope at all and that we should give up on even thinking about whether society can be saved, then you ought to make no excuses for and offer no encouragement – implicit or explicit – to PUAs: They are parasites the same as any other, and their behaviour works to destroy the social fabric of society the same as any slutty woman’s does (it’s just that there are more slutty women, and their behaviour is publically endorsed in the mainstream). Just because under a ‘socially nihilistic’ worldview a young man giving up on his goals (if he had any) and pursuing casual sex out of a desire for false meaning and hedonistic pleasure somehow makes sad, pathetic, rationalistic sense in our depraved modern societies does not mean that it is in any way good, desirable behaviour.

    I’d personally like to see more outright condemnation of sinful behaviour and a desire to lead young men away from it, if only in the words we speak here, not hemming and hawing about whether it perhaps makes sense to ignore young men falling into such sin’s maw.

  367. Sharkly says:

    ingracious,

    I responded to your last post further up this thread.

    My current assessment of what plagues most modern societies when it comes to gender relations is that women have been artificially empowered by the law and blue pill male enforcers in such a way that allows women to become unnaturally squanderous parasites. Such women cannot create wealth and prosperity through their newfound power and status, they can only throw it away while attempting to look as if they aren’t – that is, while attempting to look like they’re men, rather than still women. The more we have “empowered” women, and the more we continue to seek to “empower” women today by allowing them the ability to syphon off men through one more avenue after another, the faster and more severely our societies will haemorrhage wealth and prosperity

    I agree with your assessment but question your use of “wealth and prosperity” as the goal or as what the main value is, that we are losing. Again,(the big picture) I first want to be seeing things from God’s design as it applies extrinsically to society and myself. Our benevolent God is all-wise and His ways are inscrutably higher than our comprehension. Thus, we would be wise to follow His system of patriarchy, because we as a society are unable to know just how foolish we are being by trying to improve on His design with an alternative, and how degraded our society will become as a result of our failure to obey the Bible; the wisest advice ever given on the topic. God’s benevolence is also counterbalanced by God’s chastisement in God’s working all things together for the good of those who love Him, and for the judgement of those who chose not to. I think what the women and their male enablers are directly squandering is, unity with God through righteous obedience. This squandering of unity with God is accomplished by withholding respect and subjection from men made in God’s image, and entrusted with God’s appointed headship in their families and general headship in civic life. This loss of respect for men, loss of power for men, and loss of unity with God’s direction, is the direct price for empowering women. The indirect cost is that we hemorrhage our own unity or “civilization”, God’s intended harmonious relation of the sexes and of society(peace is more valuable than prosperity). The problem, mentioned in the curse, is women’s constant desire to usurp men and wreck the God intended harmony. The answer is for all to Fear God and flee from evil; women, by reverencing and submitting to their current patriarchal head, and Men by loving all, and holding all to God’s high standard through appropriate use of their societal influence.(slut & PUA shaming, shaming the insolent, shunning the rebellious, enforcing reasonable laws for uncivil behavior, Etc.)

    This loss of respect for men, loss of power for men, and loss of unity with God’s will, is not only the direct price for empowering women, but it is also a huge source of the disaffection in the young men who’s plight you see is being ignored. This empowering of women especially the younger ones, is largely at young men’s expense. It isn’t money that is being squandered so much as it is the young males potentially great lives, their earthly future, as we set them down a road of humiliation, and from a worldly perspective, futility. God’s great institution of marriage has been turned over to you broken and fouled beyond redeeming merit. Leaving you with only the options of celibacy and mocking in a highly sexualized world, debauchery, or the pain, shame, further emasculation, and finally divorce-rape complete with criminalization, that we now know as, Marriage 2.0. I am truly sorry that you all have been dealt such a bad hand, when those who went before squandered such a Godly and civilized society. Pride came before the fall. Folks thought they were smarter than God.

    Anyhow, here is what to do now: Read Ecclesiastes, all 12 chapters in one long sitting. You’ll find most everything in life is vain, pointless, overrated. But figuring that out and internalizing it while you’re young, can save you a life of striving after that wind. It also points out what does have merit, kind of like Jordan Peterson also attempts to do. Only Solomon was wiser, and was also more experienced in the ways of the world than anyone else.
    Look to God’s word for purpose. Look to God for the joy of your salvation. Pray for God’s peace. Pray for pure and upright thoughts. Become an everlasting light. You can start shining today!
    Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
    Read God’s wisdom straight from the Bible, not rendered in a “Christian” book with the author’s personal foolishness added, and God’s whole word omitted. Pray that you would gain Gods insight during your study of the Bible, so that you will shine. Lead others to righteousness so that you will shine brightly for all eternity. Don’t beat them down in debate, gently persuade them and be a shining example.
    If you feel able to forego marriage and also debauchery, be encouraged in your eventual sure reward.
    Revelation 14:4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.
    And like Jordan Peterson says, telling the truth is better.

    “Defiled with women”(KJV) I feel there is a whole concept in that phrase that the churchians are blind to.

    Be encouraged, if you have greater battles to fight, you have greater opportunity to be heroic, greater opportunity to stand true to Christ, greater reward, you have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ, and if you do well, you will also reign with Him for all eternity. Don’t fail the test. This “life” is just a test, a sorting, a prescreening for life eternal. Shine!

  368. Boxer says:

    Kooky SirHamster says:

    Right now, he is claiming to be a Christian while fudging the question on Jesus and his resurrection. (in a different interview: he also cannot answer if God exists or not) That he in his youth thought that Christian was intellectually unacceptable provides context for these answers.

    No, he’s talking about taking a leap of faith, and embracing the absurd.

    Every Christian’s answer on Jesus’s identity can be mapped to the Apostle’s creed. They don’t have to have identical wording, but they would have that same meaning.

    Those who don’t, are not Christian.

    I’m sure Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, and millions of (better) Christians (than you) are ever so worried about your grandiose pronouncements, which exist nowhere in the New Testament.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/06/07/understanding-pascals-wager/

    I don’t expect our fave anonymous internet blowhard to understand Pascal or Kierkegaard, but there are plenty of reasons for agnostics and skeptics to embrace a life of faith, that don’t include dishonestly pretending to “know” counterintuitive stuff.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  369. SirHamster says:

    Right now, he is claiming to be a Christian while fudging the question on Jesus and his resurrection. (in a different interview: he also cannot answer if God exists or not) That he in his youth thought that Christian was intellectually unacceptable provides context for these answers.

    No, he’s talking about taking a leap of faith, and embracing the absurd.

    The leap of faith embracing the absurd is believing that God can raise a dead man to life.

    Starting with the belief there is no resurrection of the dead and trying to come up with some complex self-deception on how it’s a useful lie to believe in can be considered embracing the absurd also, but it doesn’t believe God or Jesus, the author and perfecter of the Christian’s faith.

    I’m sure Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, and millions of (better) Christians (than you) are ever so worried about your grandiose pronouncements, which exist nowhere in the New Testament.

    Hypocritically, Boxer doesn’t even bother citing sources for his nonsense. Blind Boxer continues to pretend to be an authority over Christian belief.

    I’m not afraid of your name-dropping and posturing. No Christian would be worried about what I say, because Jesus is their Lord.

    But the New Testament does instruct the Christian on our core belief.

    If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

    Blind Boxer: The one who declares “”I cannot answer if Jesus raised from the dead” is a Christian cuz he says so!

    If Blind Boxer were consistent, he would also accept that males who say they are women must be women. But he isn’t consistent, he just pretends to be on your side, so that he can earn your trust and subvert it.

  370. MKT says:

    Peterson has his pros and cons (and doesn’t seem like an orthodox Christian to me), but I have to admire the way he stands up to the SJWs. This is a pretty good article.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-jordan-peterson-on-a-suicide-mission/

    “If nothing else, Peterson has done us a service by showing us how truly dystopian our society has become. Fifteen short years ago, Barack Obama believed that marriage was between one man and one woman. Now such a statement reeks of unforgivable bigotry. The Overton Window is narrowing at a rate that can only be a bid for ultimate power, the authority to reprogram reality at will…In a few brisk strokes, these ideologies have reduced the whole of Western history, from the Nicene Creed to the U.S. Constitution to the transphobic society of five years ago, to one unbroken saga of oppression.”

  371. Pingback: Peterson supports shekels | Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

  372. Marquess of Great Rooks for Menbury says:

    Peterson: “I worked on the UN Secretary General’s High Panel for Sustainability report that was delivered, I believe, in 2013, and rewrote the underlying narrative.”

    I must apologize to Jordan Petersen for drawing an incorrect conclusion from the statement given above. It appears Peterson may have worked on a prior year’s report– probably the one issued by the 2012 panel, not the 2013 panel. That particular panel did not include the venerable Skippy.

  373. Pantages says:

    feministhater said:

    He cannot fathom that women are the ones who like the system as is, that they actually want to be deceived and then still be able to blame men.

    Quote of the century.

  374. Joe says:

    I find he’s hit and miss. I think he’s correct with his central message of self-assessment and the required self-improvement from that. He loses me on what he says about sexual dynamics.

    So what? I don’t believe everything anyone has to say.

  375. Billy says:

    Jordan ‘ Go make your Bed ‘ Peterson is still very Blue Pill when it comes to sexual dynamics. There is a cringy vid somewhere talking how he met his wife when he was 12 years old…

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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