It's true, JP is a fucking lunatic for redpilled copers. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. He is not the only one historically to discuss the societal benefits of enforced monogamy.
This is the most important book I've ever read, if you have some time to kill.
Enforced monogamy will not help mentalcels and deformed people, but it will surely kill female hypergamy.
this. I actually felt very depressed and listened to his lwctured („lectures“, they are just random stuoid talks, if that is the rigor required in a psych degree than fuck me dead) adn most of his advice is just so generic over generalised and not actually helpful. like others have said he is really more like a father figure than an actual helpful source of live advice
I think governments are gonna start chemically castrating every virgin that's over 20 years old until they can find a GF or sex robots, and then they'll stop giving us the medicine.
Leftists are going nuts over what he said, but you ignore this at your peril. There is a threshold of male frustration that, once passed, renders things like police forces and a professional military irrelevant. Modern society will be razed to the ground and built anew with one single maxim above all others: women are property.
Even moderate countries don't want too many. A Swedish town ,I believed, agreed to pay a fine to not let any in. Only ao many will be Let in before it makes qhites uncomfortable. So his dream of a European caliphate is a cope
I'm from Poland, and I don't agree. Poland is not "almost there", we are still 99,5% white and 95% polish. You are forgetting that not all societies/countries are the same and while countries like France or Germany have "white guilt" and are inexperienced in all this multicultural thing, Poland is different. No guilt, because we fell like victims of German and Russian imperialism and in comparison to western Europe we have hundreds of years of experience in dealing with multicultural country. Western countries are treating immigrants like they have superior culture, while in Poland everybody could become polish citizen, but he/she had to prove he/she is worthy. Nowadays after all those experiences we know that monoethnic country is very good thing(even if you force different ethnicies to share common values), western countries lack this experience. They also lack experience of communism. I'm not 100% sure how it is in Hungary and other central european countries but I think it's not that different. Maybe just Poles are more patriotic/nationalistic than most central European countries. And more religious, especially in comparison to Czechs.
You realize that’s literally most of human history; birthright was the only way to delineate who owned what, nothing’s going to get razed to the ground lol half of the population is female
Peterson’s not perfect but he understands psychology and history. Sexual socialism via monogamy is what built civilization. Take monogamy away and the entire house of cards collapses. If you don’t get this yet, you’re a fool.
I choose not to look at it as them being "property" so much as men and women would just have different privileges, according to our own biological gender makeup. Women can be good and loyal when they are raised in patriarchal societies, with boundaries, and get married young. Problem is in most (if not all) modern societies, even in many failed 3rd world societies, we've been racked with so much gynocentrism everywhere. There haven't been any legit patriarchies since at least the 1800's.
Who do you think all these "numales" are? Who do you think comes here spewing out platitudes and logical fallacies? Who do you think posts on /r/inceltears calling to ban/kill/lock up all incels?
THOSE ARE ALL THE BETAS THAT YOU THINK WILL ONE DAY "RISE UP" AGAINST WOMEN.
It won't be done by redditors for sure. They are just a tiny subgroup of society as a whole and insignificant. The black pill is spreading and once we reach peak Roman society everything will start from the scratch. Science progresses over time but the very foundations of society and culture behaves circular.
JFC, incles are worse off having people like you among them. You get that 95% of people are having sex right? If you organized a march dozens would participate and millions would laugh. But you are going to "raze" society lol
The girls wont touch my peepee ergo society will collapse! YOU WILL REGRET THIS CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.
Lookie here homeslice, there aren't enough of you for anyone to give a shit. Peterson is a pop psychologist stirring up moral panic like the SRA wackos from the 1980s.
But it's not happening. Society isn't collapsing and, even if it were (which again, it's not), it certainly isn't collapsing because a few chronically untouched men continue to be untouched.
And that's still more people than have existed through our most of i Europe's. Now instead of plagues and high infant morality periodically culling populations, we are just having less children.
The most prosperous countries in the world are the ones without a billion people.
Doomsday cults have been declaring the end of the world since the neolithic revolution. Your chronically untouched dick doesn't mean the end is nigh for society.
What do you mean by dark age? There will still be internet.
It will become culturally and scientifically irrelevant. Societal norms will increasingly fail. Tensions between groups will rise. Economically it will fall behind. Increasingly authoritarian forms of government will be necessary to keep it under control. European cities will start to look more and more like American cities, with wealthy neighborhoods living next to slums.
Oh, well sure then. The world clearly cycles through hegemonic powers. That doesn't equate a collapse. And again, none of this is caused by women choosing who they want to fuck.
Oh, isn't that caused by women choosing who they want to fuck? When do you think birth rates started to decline, which set the whole chain of dominoes in motion?
Do you realize all of the social upheavals of the 20th century began over the treatment of workers in factories? From the dissatisfaction of that portion of society came Marxism and then Fascism and the second world war and the cold war. Not to mention the intelligence agency as an institution, propaganda as the primary means of forcing compliance, psychological warfare techniques, and from that the cultural and sexual revolution in the 60's and the advent of things like feminism and political correctness. Further, every major technological innovation of that century came about because of war and the need for investment in the military, including the internet itself.
When you think about it, it was such a small thing. Arguments over pay and hours worked and rights of workers vis a vis the landed and moneyed minority. Like I said, ignore the problem at your peril.
Lmao revolutions came about because people were either literally starving or legally owned. Not because "no one touched muh peepee owee mah bawls."
Ignore at my own peril? This is how I know you dont leave the house. No one beyond your echo chamber gives a flying shit. Maybe a few of you sperglords will get a hold of a gun and make your way outside to kill a few of those SHEEEVIL FEMOIDS before you eat a bullet yourself but ultimately no one cares. You're nothing but a Jezebel clickbait page.
Lmao revolutions came about because people were either literally starving or legally owned
This is factually untrue.
In fact, what actually happens is that whenever discontent is high for any reason, usually some level of relative inequality which passes a certain threshold, groups of men (bolsheviks in Russia/NSDAP in Germany for example) will capitalize on the opportunity by inflaming the discontent and using it for their own ends, namely to depose whichever group is currently at the top of the political hierarchy and put themselves at the top instead.
You are obviously low IQ so I will point out the obvious and say that I do not mean incels that post on forums are going to form militias or something ridiculous like that. Sexual inequality is a growing trend which is leaving swathes of men in discontent, this is indisputable. If nothing is done to remedy this trend, eventually the discontent will reach a level that a group will capitalize on it exactly in the same way as I just mentioned. And with that will come social upheaval such as we saw in the 20th century.
Actually much worse than in the 20th century. This thread that is being tugged on is far more fundamental to the functioning of society than things like wages and working conditions. Male sexual energy will one way or another be expended in some direction. And if there has ever been peace and prosperity in a society it has come about when a majority of men had a stake in the building of such a society through the prospect of becoming a head of household and having at least one woman to call his own. Once it becomes obvious to enough men that such a thing is no longer a possibility then we will have truly crossed the rubicon and the carnage and devastation that will follow will make the french revolution or the rape of nanking look like a stroll in the park.
Hail Kalki the destroyer who is to come
"At the end of Kali Yuga, when there exist no topics on the subject of God, even at the residences of so-called saints and respectable gentlemen, and when the power of government is transferred to the hands of ministers elected from the evil men, and when nothing is known of the techniques of sacrifice, even by word, at that time the Lord will appear as the supreme chastiser."
— Bhagavata Purana, 2.7.38
"The ascetic prince, Lord Kalki, the Lord of the Universe, will mount His swift white horse Devadatta and, sword in hand, travel over the earth exhibiting His eight mystic opulences and eight special qualities of Godhead. Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill the millions of those thieves who have dared dress as kings."
Right now I find myself forced to choose between liberty and the survival of civilization and I don't think I'm strong enough to renounce to people's freedom in order to avoid collapse.
Women are literally worse than men, they are less empathetic than men and are less productive than men. Men have created almost every important invention, language, art, science, and philosophy. Meanwhile feminism is destroying western civilization, civilization men created. Get the fuck out of here with "women are equal" bullshit
Women gave birth to every man who ever did anything sifnificant? Ying and yang, equally important parts. As for less empathetic and such, maybe to your jaded ass. Why be kind to someone who thinks so lowly of you?
I used to never think low of women, I was a blue pilled cuck all my life. But the constant humiliation, bullying, and cruelty I got from women made me hate them. It's not even the rejection that was the worst part, they hated me for something i can't control. My genetics.
Yeah that's shit honestly and is basically just bullying; immature, childish, and evil. I can't blame you for feeling that way, I definitley have at points in my life. But there are probably at least 4 or 5 who won't feel that way. Go find them, they'll probably change your mind again.
So your saying that for the hundreds of women I've encountered I'm supposed to look for like 5 of them that aren't bitchy? I'm not going to play with those odds
what a joke, so after we list every accomplishment that man has done the only thing that you have to offer is "oh but women perform their basic bodily functions!!! so take that!!"
wow, yeah. Women are clearly equal lol.
An individual can only accomplish anything if they exist first, and existence is predicated on your mom choosing to being your dutt ass into the world, so there's something to that. I was too lazy to mention other things. Felt like I should come back and mention that in an edit but stopped caring. It was a 5 sec response (i.e. not highly thought provoking) some other commenter but the dick deleted his comments and ran off.
Performing your basic biological function is not an accomplishment, you can go write as many paragraphs trying to confuse this issue as you want. Men literally created civilization from the dirt on the ground and you compare this to women giving birth, which they cant even stop. It's not even like they are doing anything, it's an involuntary process for them. You are beyond ridiculous to act like women who are passive creatures have an equal value who men who actually have to provide and do everything.
I can already tell we value people in different ways. I tend to see people as equals regardless of group identity, and make my judgements based on the content of their character. You don't do that, and I don't feel like trying to convince you to see things my way rn.
I agree biological function isn't a great argument but what you're saying is pretty ass too. Men built society from the ground up, like shut up. All that was ever built was only to impress women anyways. Hmmm maybe we aren't equals, maybe they're superior for inducing such effort in others.
ok so I'm mean and that's why I'm wrong and accomplishing real physical things is equal in value to having a nice "content of their character". I guess if a woman is nice to you, it's the same as a man building a plane and inventing space flight. Cuck.
What are you even saying. You take the accomplisments of others and let those speak for the group as if that's even possible. Can you build a plane and invent space flight? No way you can. It was only a couple of special bois. Their accomplisments aren't yours just because you both have cocks.
ok cool, so I guess women dont get to have their accomplishment of giving birth as a group either. Not every woman has given birth after all and not as many times as others. Look you're a stupid kid with stupid kid logic, I'm gonna stop responding now because I can see that you aren't improving.
come on dummy, most women could if they wanted to. more than the amount of men that know how to build planes, surely. I don't think that's as noteworthy as you seem to think I do though, I already conceded it wasn't a great point. and you're just saying that ya poop. my logic is fine, you just can't combat it.
These claims wildly inaccurate and imho reek of willful ignorance. I'm attempting to be empathetic to the mindset of this sub but more and more it just seems like a competition to have the most repulsive opinion that can be thought up for the sake of receiving an emotional response and hell I guess if that's true I took the bait but this level of bitterness can not be healthy. Based on the terms I've seen here I can safely say I'm no Chad so maybe my opinions makes me a cuck but Jesus christ reading the comment chain this comment started was depressing. If you read this far thank you, if it sounded confrontational that wasn't the intention just what was on my mind.
My advice is don't dwell here too much. I enjoy the memes but the ideology shared in most comments are toxic and only fueled by blind hatred. It's quite vile and depresses you even if you are not an incel.
Please tell me how they aren't of a lesser class. Which gender contributed 90% of civilization today and the great ones of the past? Read your history book. Then after that read your science book which will show you 2 huge difference. Our huge differences in physical capabilities for one. And then our differences in IQ. On average men do indeed have a bit more higher IQ. But as you go further in deviations past 100 IQ, the gap starts to widen quite BLATANTLY. Which is why men are more prone to being geniuses, innovative, and all around running the world we live in today. This all leads to an achievement gap between men and women that is so large that it's of galactical proportions. Even you know this when you quickly ask yourself the gender of inventors you've heard throughout your life time. In the end though, I'm not blaming women, they had little to no control over their biological makeup and evolution. They've been breeded as a slave subspecies for centuries since the beginning of time. So while it would be all fun and rainbows that we are all equal it simply isn't the case nor has it ever been. Why? Because human and evolution doesn't understand the social construct of a concept known as "we are equal". Science doesn't know what social constructs are, just raw natural facts. Men have always been superior.
Men have also prevented women from doing much of anything till the last century. Was it because men are stronger and held more "ancestral power" because of that simple fact? Yeah, it probably was. Men held privileged positions for most of human history. Mind you, the world has changed now. Women are capable of a lot. There are plenty of female scientists nowadays who contribute plenty to our sum knowledge. Sheila Singh. Look up that name, she's a freak of nature. Game changing scientist.
My question for you though, is why do you take any pride in a superiority contest such as this? What do you contribute to this world? Why do you feel entitled to the accomplisments of other men? If it's simply because you're one yourself, you're pretty pathetic.
Men have also prevented women from doing much of anything till the last century. Was it because men are stronger and held more "ancestral power" because of that simple fact?
Strength alone was nit the reason male dominate women throughout human history. Stop coping.
Men held privileged positions for most of human history.
The superior do.
There are plenty of female scientists nowadays who contribute plenty to our sum knowledge. Sheila Singh. Look up that name, she's a freak of nature. Game changing scientist.
And there's 10 more males for every singular female science. For every Sheila Singh there's 10 more scientist who've done more, like yuou know, the men that work with Sheila on Stem Cell and Cancer Research? She hasn't done anything on her own.
Women are capable of a lot.
Yes, and men are capable of a lot more. See average, CEOs, millionaires / billionaires, Political powers.
My question for you though, is why do you take any pride in a superiority contest such as this?
Pointing out males are superior to females doesn't mean I'm taking pride in anything, it means I'm pointing out raw facts.
What do you contribute to this world? Why do you feel entitled to the accomplisments of other men?
I'm under the average age of a female and earn nearly 3.5 times more than the average female. So not only have contributed more to society than the average women but I'm accomplished and earned more.
you're pretty pathetic.
Not as pathetic as resort to an ad ad hominem, are you an inferior women or? (not inferior isn't an ad hominem, is me using a statistical/educated guess on what's factual inferior gender)
You conflate your earnings with your contribution, but that isn't how things work. Your personality and attitude detracts from the world quite thoroughly, assuming you spout these negative ideas regularly.
As to the Sheila Singh point, every scientist has assistants and collaborators. It's been only a century since things started equalizing, so give things more time to even out on the sex ratio amongst scientists.
You haven't answered my question though. What do you do? What do you contribute? Your earnings aren't an answer to that question.
People who complain about ad hominem are lil bitches who can't take heat. Coping with ad hominem is a holistic measure of your argumentative prowess, don't forget that.
Even a McDonald's peasant contributes to society, especially if he pays his taxes. So yes, earnings in general do tend to coincide with contributes to thy society.
As to the Sheila Singh point, every scientist has assistants and collaborators.
Yes, and she isn't the leader of stem cell research on cancer if that's what you're implying.
It's been only a century since things started equalizing, so give things more time to even out on the sex ratio amongst scientists.
Unfortunate the bell curve has stopped for female IQ. So you shouldn't expect more scientist, millionaires/billionaires, and ect, in fact just the opposite.
You haven't answered my question though. What do you do? What do you contribute? Your earnings aren't an answer to that question.
I'm not going to dox myself like a mongoloid if you actually expect me to answer that questions in specifics. My earnings clearly should give you an idea. All I'll say is I went and graduated from medical school but I'm not you're typical doctor since that's what tends to co,e to mind to most people when such a thing. I already know I contribute to society and far more than the average women and that's why I do work which the average person (IQ) can't do and I get compensated appropriately. You don't have to be the average innovate male inventor to contribute to society. Even if you work in the pathetic field of social science like the average female graduate, you are still contributing to society.
People who complain about ad hominem are lil bitches who can't take heat.
This was hilarious to read, are you in highschool, at least this sheds more light on the low intellectual individual that I'm talking too. I mean seriously? "Taking heat"? LMAO, how much power do you think words on reddit have! For your sake I hope you're just a mentally ill trans "guy".
Coping with ad hominem is a holistic measure of your argumentative prowess, don't forget that.
You must have forgotten a word on here, it made no sense. No coping here!
Fuck freedom. It doesn't even mean anything in the context of a naturalist world. Humans are nothing more than organic chemistry labs. Are molecules free not to react with each other? Are we free not to feel miserable because we're incels? At the end of the day, we are all tied by the chains of our human nature.
logic like that leads to a cold, uncaring, violent world ran under an iron fist.... Free autonomy has every need to exist, however, women do need to be put back in their place. I don't look at it from a perspective so much of being angry at women (though, I am pretty angry sometimes, but I won't let my anger cloud my thinking), I look at it more from a point again, of men and women being different, and having different privileges. And maybe to an extent certain things are encoded into our DNA, that doesn't mean that a degree of personal autonomy doesn't exist. In life we make choices, sometimes we make good choices, sometimes we make bad choices. But making those choices, picking one option over another, shows a degree of freedom or autonomy.
What choice is there? Obviously it's freedom. People seem to forget that it is the State that enforces the fucked up divorce laws, forces these "diversity" hiring practices, gives women the benefits and subsidizes irresponsible behaviors. As a libertaria, nothing pisses me off more than seeing the concept of liberty being associated with degeneracy. Fucking Rawlsian liberals ruined the reputation of classical liberalism by giving all the rights, none of the responsibility and shat on the freedom of association
I think we all have. I remember going through high school wondering if I was the only one who hated the degeneracy which surrounds me. I'm pleased to find that I am not, even if total societal breakdown was the price we had to pay to actually get people to notice.
I'm worried about the collapse of society because as a manlet currycel we'll be the first that they'll purge. I don't know about you guys, but I don't need a bunch of huge ogres beating the shit out of me when the government breaks down.
Those incels that want the end times are dumb as fuck. You'll still be the lowest on the social hierarchy but now all your copes will be gone. Fuck that.
Those incels that want the end times are dumb as fuck. You'll still be the lowest on the social hierarchy but now all your copes will be gone. Fuck that.
I'm praying I get lucky and my death comes swiftly.
No, anyone that marries or procreates is a cuck. Because both are completely stacked in favour of the woman and you're surrendering power by participating in either.
Sexually frustrated young men, especially when cast aside and ostracized by the rest of society, are, simply put, extremely prone to violent/lashing out behaviour due to the fact that they are not having their needs met. It's not that I condone such behaviour per se, but it's simply an inevitable social reality. Indeed, some scholars have argued that this is why Islamic terrorism is so common. 72 virgins in paradise is a wonderful allure for Muslim men not having their sexual needs met on earth.
I imagine most feminists are going to interpret these comments by Peterson as somehow "forcing women" to behave in a certain way. Not at all. "Enforced monogamy" doesn't necessarily require laws mandating that women behave in a certain way. It just requires a certain honour/shame dynamic. Women are never shamed anymore, and as such they can pursue their hypergamous imperatives without societal reprimand. This is the root of much the sociosexual problems we're observing in modern society.
Perfectly stated, couldn't have said it better. This is also why it's imperative for women to not work outside of the house, once they start earning their own money they are free to begin persuing ever higher degrees of hypergamy. If she's making $500,000 a year, she's usually going to expect a chad who makes $700,000 a year.
monogamous society's are more stable
Islamic terrorism is so common
There isn't really a contradiction here. Who do terrorists typically attempt to recruit? They don't recruit married men. They recruit men who, for whatever reason, are unable to get married. And there's a sizeable chunk of young Muslim men who are unmarried.
it's not guns stupid
US only place with school shootings
We had guns in the 70s and 80s as well. No school shootings. What changed since then? The culture.
If Islamic countries are not monogamous there are no monogamous countries. Your delusional man, our culture is no different than the U.K. and Australia and they don't have school shootings.
If Islamic countries are not monogamous there are no monogamous countries
By "monogamy", I mean a culture wherein most young men are able to get married relatively easily, and where that marriage is generally permanent and monogamous. Many young men in Muslim countries are simply not able to get married, for any number of sociopolitical reasons. These are precisely the sort of men who terrorists go after. Sexually satisfied men with wives (and possibly children) are not very recruitable.
Your delusional man, our culture is no different than the U.K. and Australia and they don't have school shootings.
Look at what happened in Canada, namely Toronto. Strong gun control laws, but that's irrelevant when you have an incel beta-male wanting revenge.
The United States has more guns than any other country, so naturally, if school shootings in particular were going to be a common occurrence in any country, they'd become common here. But this doesn't really address the underlying cause. We've always had guns. Guns were prevalent and readily obtainable in the US since its founding, yet school shootings became common just in the 90s. So this is ultimately a non-explanation.
The fundamental cause of school shootings in the US is disaffected and sexually frustrated young men.
Every country had higher marriage rates in the 50's, the modern economy has changed that. But let's not pretend there were not incels back then, they just were never heard from bc they did not have a forum like the internet.
And yeah if someone really wants to kill people they can, but if are not in the US they won't be able to kill
as many bc they do not have access to killing tools.
There are sexually frustrated men all over the world, the fundamental reason why only the US has school shootings is because of the easy access to guns.
The mental gymnastics required to disagree with this is outstanding.
But let's not pretend there were not incels back then, they just were never heard from bc they did not have a forum like the internet.
There weren't nearly as many, since hypergamy wasn't as openly tolerated as it is today. It's ultimately a numbers thing. You can never truly ensure that there are zero incels. Some men, for instance, are mentally retarded or physically disfigured, and we can agree that most such men would be unable to find a partner in nearly every human society. However, when normal, reasonable men are having substantial difficulty finding a partner because of extreme hypergamy, then there is a problem.
There are sexually frustrated men all over the world, the fundamental reason why only the US has school shootings is because of the easy access to guns.
There's different ways young men respond to sexual frustration in different cultures. Some run over people with vans. Some rape. Some become terrorists. Some start rebellions against the existing regime. Others might engage in petty crime. In nearly every society, however, massive male sexual frustration has typically resulted in some form of "lashing out" behaviour and social instability. There is substantial anthropological evidence for this, and, as Peterson points out, this is why monogamy has considered a social good.
And you still haven't addressed my earlier point: if it's about guns, then why weren't there school shootings in America in the 70s and 80s? And if it's about guns, why is it that the shooters are predominately typically awkward, bullied and often virgin young men? Why aren't the shooters just a random sample of gun-wielding young American men?
Why were there not school shootings in the 70's and 80's? Why were there not suicide bombings until the 80'? Probably because no one thinks to do it until one nut job does it and other nut jobs idolize it.
If you don't think there are young men all over the world wishing they could shoot up schools you are wrong. If you think the American culture is different in a substantial way from the U.K. Canada and Ireland you are just wrong.
The access to guns is be primary reason for shootings in the US. JFC,
Why were there not suicide bombings until the 80'?
It's because suicide bombings were adopted as a tactic by Islamist organizations during that particular period in time. The analogy doesn't really hold water because there isn't a cohesive, hierarchically structured movement of socially awkward men plotting against society. School shootings are invariably individual acts.
In any case, it's not about the method of violence per se (be it school shootings, suicide bombings, what have you). It's the fact that there is some sort of clear-cut
If you don't think there are young men all over the world wishing they could shoot up schools you are wrong
The ones who are committed to doing it can easily find ways without guns. Alek Minassian. All you need is a van.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought "Monogamy is just an ancient global government conspiracy to keep beta males in check" was so fucking self-evidently reatarded that it needn't further explanation.
Um, how is that self-evidently retarded if it's exactly what happened? Successful military leaders often recruited armies by promising land and a wife.
Wtf this isn't an argument against my point. What I'm saying is that there is a reason why "society" (actually just the few men who tried to socially reengineer through religion) chose to add monogamy as part of the religion: it was because in those times they understood that there was a crisis of the few privileged men getting all the women, and the social problems that caused. Also I think in Judaism (where monotheistic religion started) they were deeply concerned with preserving their culture and ethnicity and they used monogamy to do so.
it was because in those times they understood that there was a crisis of the few privileged men getting all the women, and the social problems that caused.
Right. Ancient fucking Babylonians realized the "crisis of beta males" and engaged in nation-wide social engineering project to fix it, thousands of years before the concept of sociology was even invented.
If you think you need an undertanding of "sociology" to get that if the peasant underclass don't get laid or have kids that they will rebel, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You tell me your alternate hypothesis on why monogamy has been a socially enforced thing for centuries
Perfectly stated, couldn't have said it better. This is also why it's imperative for women to not work outside of the house, once they start earning their own money they are free to begin persuing ever higher degrees of hypergamy. If she's making $500,000 a year, she's usually going to expect a chad who makes $700,000 a year.
133 comments
1 Beta_Bux_Alpha_Fucks 2018-05-18
Only retards listen to a Charlatan like Jordan Peterson.
https://i.imgur.com/tgXYghP.png
1 T-Earl-Grey-Hot 2018-05-18
He's like a cam whore, but for guys who need a dad figure. Nothing wrong with that.
1 bcat124 2018-05-18
It's true, JP is a fucking lunatic for redpilled copers. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. He is not the only one historically to discuss the societal benefits of enforced monogamy.
This is the most important book I've ever read, if you have some time to kill.
Enforced monogamy will not help mentalcels and deformed people, but it will surely kill female hypergamy.
1 bigantennaemay1 2018-05-18
...Not like I needed hope back, anyway.
1 CtrlAltVictory 2018-05-18
Catnip for manchildren
1 xxxrivenmainxxx 2018-05-18
101 feminist insult. next one is "virgins", right?
1 CtrlAltVictory 2018-05-18
Whut?
1 help_throwaway96 2018-05-18
this. I actually felt very depressed and listened to his lwctured („lectures“, they are just random stuoid talks, if that is the rigor required in a psych degree than fuck me dead) adn most of his advice is just so generic over generalised and not actually helpful. like others have said he is really more like a father figure than an actual helpful source of live advice
1 13139 2018-05-18
You probably lack the smarts to understand what he is going on.
1 Hal_Inceldenza 2018-05-18
He's basically just parroting what greater minds (Carl Gustav Jung, Joseph Campbell) have already said.
1 13139 2018-05-18
Nah.
Jung, Campbell had nothing to say about evolution at all. Peterson is putting their ideas in the context of human evolution.
1 IWillRopeAnyDayNow 2018-05-18
I hate everything that Kermit the frog impersonater Jordan Peterson says.
But he's right about this. Enforced monogamy is the only solution. Sexbots are still going to take decades and euthanasia is just cruel
1 Beta_Bux_Alpha_Fucks 2018-05-18
I think governments are gonna start chemically castrating every virgin that's over 20 years old until they can find a GF or sex robots, and then they'll stop giving us the medicine.
1 verygoodgoy 2018-05-18
Leftists are going nuts over what he said, but you ignore this at your peril. There is a threshold of male frustration that, once passed, renders things like police forces and a professional military irrelevant. Modern society will be razed to the ground and built anew with one single maxim above all others: women are property.
1 yuyuyuyuu 2018-05-18
It's already happening in the Middle East, Afghanistan and India.
1 KhalilYousuf3 2018-05-18
10,000 since the introduction of farming and hence the notion of property.
Even tyrannical Kings or heads of states realized enforced monogamy was a necessity to have productive labour force.
If you had too many single men there would be crime and and uprisings.
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
Rofl, forcing women to be property sounds untenable.
1 KhalilYousuf3 2018-05-18
Its actually really easy. You just have to make adultery punishable by death.
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
That's the untenable part. No one's gonna vote for that.
I don't think the west will ever allow Tha many muslims in .
1 JohnnyDildonics 2018-05-18
Germany, france, and sweden all beg to differ. Italy, however, is about to go full fash again. Poland and Hungary are almost already there.
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
Even moderate countries don't want too many. A Swedish town ,I believed, agreed to pay a fine to not let any in. Only ao many will be Let in before it makes qhites uncomfortable. So his dream of a European caliphate is a cope
1 Umas15 2018-05-18
I'm from Poland, and I don't agree. Poland is not "almost there", we are still 99,5% white and 95% polish. You are forgetting that not all societies/countries are the same and while countries like France or Germany have "white guilt" and are inexperienced in all this multicultural thing, Poland is different. No guilt, because we fell like victims of German and Russian imperialism and in comparison to western Europe we have hundreds of years of experience in dealing with multicultural country. Western countries are treating immigrants like they have superior culture, while in Poland everybody could become polish citizen, but he/she had to prove he/she is worthy. Nowadays after all those experiences we know that monoethnic country is very good thing(even if you force different ethnicies to share common values), western countries lack this experience. They also lack experience of communism. I'm not 100% sure how it is in Hungary and other central european countries but I think it's not that different. Maybe just Poles are more patriotic/nationalistic than most central European countries. And more religious, especially in comparison to Czechs.
1 sizuha 2018-05-18
He meant that we're getting closer and closer to fascism. The only thing we're getting closer to is a social state and economical crisis though.
1 Toolman890 2018-05-18
there won't be a vote you daft cunt
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
Mean8ng?
1 minoxidilcel 2018-05-18
theres already enough Muslims in Europe to outbreed the locals in a generation or two
1 Mr-5-5 2018-05-18
no the saudis prince made it legal for femoids to drive cars.
1 eliechallita 2018-05-18
Niet, arranged or forced marriages are in decline in all three.
1 eliechallita 2018-05-18
So, the only way to avoid a system where women are property is to... treat women like property?
1 Bigupface 2018-05-18
You realize that’s literally most of human history; birthright was the only way to delineate who owned what, nothing’s going to get razed to the ground lol half of the population is female
1 AyeThatsAGoodNagger 2018-05-18
Peterson’s not perfect but he understands psychology and history. Sexual socialism via monogamy is what built civilization. Take monogamy away and the entire house of cards collapses. If you don’t get this yet, you’re a fool.
1 Ji6S4W 2018-05-18
I choose not to look at it as them being "property" so much as men and women would just have different privileges, according to our own biological gender makeup. Women can be good and loyal when they are raised in patriarchal societies, with boundaries, and get married young. Problem is in most (if not all) modern societies, even in many failed 3rd world societies, we've been racked with so much gynocentrism everywhere. There haven't been any legit patriarchies since at least the 1800's.
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
LOL imagine coping this hard.
Who do you think all these "numales" are? Who do you think comes here spewing out platitudes and logical fallacies? Who do you think posts on /r/inceltears calling to ban/kill/lock up all incels?
THOSE ARE ALL THE BETAS THAT YOU THINK WILL ONE DAY "RISE UP" AGAINST WOMEN.
1 Hal_Inceldenza 2018-05-18
It won't be done by redditors for sure. They are just a tiny subgroup of society as a whole and insignificant. The black pill is spreading and once we reach peak Roman society everything will start from the scratch. Science progresses over time but the very foundations of society and culture behaves circular.
1 13139 2018-05-18
The only political movement with that in mind at the present are nazis.
1 Mr-5-5 2018-05-18
feminism is everywhere: UK, India, Australia,
1 13139 2018-05-18
Not in: eastern Europe, Russia.
1 Mr-5-5 2018-05-18
Aaahhh... good.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
JFC, incles are worse off having people like you among them. You get that 95% of people are having sex right? If you organized a march dozens would participate and millions would laugh. But you are going to "raze" society lol
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
The girls wont touch my peepee ergo society will collapse! YOU WILL REGRET THIS CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.
Lookie here homeslice, there aren't enough of you for anyone to give a shit. Peterson is a pop psychologist stirring up moral panic like the SRA wackos from the 1980s.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
80-90% of men would do better under enforced monogamy, so that's more than enough.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
But it's not happening. Society isn't collapsing and, even if it were (which again, it's not), it certainly isn't collapsing because a few chronically untouched men continue to be untouched.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
Society is quite literally collapsing albeit in slow motion. Birth rates in Europe are such that the population is cut in half every 1-2 generations.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
And that's still more people than have existed through our most of i Europe's. Now instead of plagues and high infant morality periodically culling populations, we are just having less children.
The most prosperous countries in the world are the ones without a billion people.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
There will be too many old people and immigration will cause ethnic tensions to rise. Society will collapse this century.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
Doomsday cults have been declaring the end of the world since the neolithic revolution. Your chronically untouched dick doesn't mean the end is nigh for society.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
Low IQ response. I'm not predicting the end of the world, and societies did regularly collapse.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
So you think the continent of Europe is going to, what? Enter another dark age?
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
What do you mean by dark age? There will still be internet.
It will become culturally and scientifically irrelevant. Societal norms will increasingly fail. Tensions between groups will rise. Economically it will fall behind. Increasingly authoritarian forms of government will be necessary to keep it under control. European cities will start to look more and more like American cities, with wealthy neighborhoods living next to slums.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
Oh, well sure then. The world clearly cycles through hegemonic powers. That doesn't equate a collapse. And again, none of this is caused by women choosing who they want to fuck.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
Oh, isn't that caused by women choosing who they want to fuck? When do you think birth rates started to decline, which set the whole chain of dominoes in motion?
1 verygoodgoy 2018-05-18
Do you realize all of the social upheavals of the 20th century began over the treatment of workers in factories? From the dissatisfaction of that portion of society came Marxism and then Fascism and the second world war and the cold war. Not to mention the intelligence agency as an institution, propaganda as the primary means of forcing compliance, psychological warfare techniques, and from that the cultural and sexual revolution in the 60's and the advent of things like feminism and political correctness. Further, every major technological innovation of that century came about because of war and the need for investment in the military, including the internet itself.
When you think about it, it was such a small thing. Arguments over pay and hours worked and rights of workers vis a vis the landed and moneyed minority. Like I said, ignore the problem at your peril.
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
Lmao revolutions came about because people were either literally starving or legally owned. Not because "no one touched muh peepee owee mah bawls."
Ignore at my own peril? This is how I know you dont leave the house. No one beyond your echo chamber gives a flying shit. Maybe a few of you sperglords will get a hold of a gun and make your way outside to kill a few of those SHEEEVIL FEMOIDS before you eat a bullet yourself but ultimately no one cares. You're nothing but a Jezebel clickbait page.
1 verygoodgoy 2018-05-18
This is factually untrue.
In fact, what actually happens is that whenever discontent is high for any reason, usually some level of relative inequality which passes a certain threshold, groups of men (bolsheviks in Russia/NSDAP in Germany for example) will capitalize on the opportunity by inflaming the discontent and using it for their own ends, namely to depose whichever group is currently at the top of the political hierarchy and put themselves at the top instead.
You are obviously low IQ so I will point out the obvious and say that I do not mean incels that post on forums are going to form militias or something ridiculous like that. Sexual inequality is a growing trend which is leaving swathes of men in discontent, this is indisputable. If nothing is done to remedy this trend, eventually the discontent will reach a level that a group will capitalize on it exactly in the same way as I just mentioned. And with that will come social upheaval such as we saw in the 20th century.
Actually much worse than in the 20th century. This thread that is being tugged on is far more fundamental to the functioning of society than things like wages and working conditions. Male sexual energy will one way or another be expended in some direction. And if there has ever been peace and prosperity in a society it has come about when a majority of men had a stake in the building of such a society through the prospect of becoming a head of household and having at least one woman to call his own. Once it becomes obvious to enough men that such a thing is no longer a possibility then we will have truly crossed the rubicon and the carnage and devastation that will follow will make the french revolution or the rape of nanking look like a stroll in the park.
Hail Kalki the destroyer who is to come
"At the end of Kali Yuga, when there exist no topics on the subject of God, even at the residences of so-called saints and respectable gentlemen, and when the power of government is transferred to the hands of ministers elected from the evil men, and when nothing is known of the techniques of sacrifice, even by word, at that time the Lord will appear as the supreme chastiser."
— Bhagavata Purana, 2.7.38
"The ascetic prince, Lord Kalki, the Lord of the Universe, will mount His swift white horse Devadatta and, sword in hand, travel over the earth exhibiting His eight mystic opulences and eight special qualities of Godhead. Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill the millions of those thieves who have dared dress as kings."
— Bhagavata Purana, 12.2.19-20
1 Voomsplan 2018-05-18
Yeah doomsday cultists have existed since forever too.
1 FlipierFat 2018-05-18
yall are weird
1 YallBot1000 2018-05-18
Y'all
(I am a bot beep boop. PM me Suggestions!)
1 sneeringpython 2018-05-18
weird<The fucking worst
FTFY
1 EvilBananaManRD 2018-05-18
Right now I find myself forced to choose between liberty and the survival of civilization and I don't think I'm strong enough to renounce to people's freedom in order to avoid collapse.
1 MarinoMyCheese 2018-05-18
Women are lesser people.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
That's not true, you just don't like them.
1 Hoeasss 2018-05-18
Women are literally worse than men, they are less empathetic than men and are less productive than men. Men have created almost every important invention, language, art, science, and philosophy. Meanwhile feminism is destroying western civilization, civilization men created. Get the fuck out of here with "women are equal" bullshit
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
Women gave birth to every man who ever did anything sifnificant? Ying and yang, equally important parts. As for less empathetic and such, maybe to your jaded ass. Why be kind to someone who thinks so lowly of you?
1 Hoeasss 2018-05-18
I used to never think low of women, I was a blue pilled cuck all my life. But the constant humiliation, bullying, and cruelty I got from women made me hate them. It's not even the rejection that was the worst part, they hated me for something i can't control. My genetics.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
Yeah that's shit honestly and is basically just bullying; immature, childish, and evil. I can't blame you for feeling that way, I definitley have at points in my life. But there are probably at least 4 or 5 who won't feel that way. Go find them, they'll probably change your mind again.
1 Hoeasss 2018-05-18
So your saying that for the hundreds of women I've encountered I'm supposed to look for like 5 of them that aren't bitchy? I'm not going to play with those odds
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
4 or 5 was facetious, but my point is still valid. I know plenty of girls who are cool. They exist.
1 CoolLikeAFoolinaPool 2018-05-18
If you don't play you don't win. Also you only have to win once. So play and fail until you win.
1 ibtem 2018-05-18
what a joke, so after we list every accomplishment that man has done the only thing that you have to offer is "oh but women perform their basic bodily functions!!! so take that!!" wow, yeah. Women are clearly equal lol.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
An individual can only accomplish anything if they exist first, and existence is predicated on your mom choosing to being your dutt ass into the world, so there's something to that. I was too lazy to mention other things. Felt like I should come back and mention that in an edit but stopped caring. It was a 5 sec response (i.e. not highly thought provoking) some other commenter but the dick deleted his comments and ran off.
1 ibtem 2018-05-18
Performing your basic biological function is not an accomplishment, you can go write as many paragraphs trying to confuse this issue as you want. Men literally created civilization from the dirt on the ground and you compare this to women giving birth, which they cant even stop. It's not even like they are doing anything, it's an involuntary process for them. You are beyond ridiculous to act like women who are passive creatures have an equal value who men who actually have to provide and do everything.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
I can already tell we value people in different ways. I tend to see people as equals regardless of group identity, and make my judgements based on the content of their character. You don't do that, and I don't feel like trying to convince you to see things my way rn.
I agree biological function isn't a great argument but what you're saying is pretty ass too. Men built society from the ground up, like shut up. All that was ever built was only to impress women anyways. Hmmm maybe we aren't equals, maybe they're superior for inducing such effort in others.
1 ibtem 2018-05-18
ok so I'm mean and that's why I'm wrong and accomplishing real physical things is equal in value to having a nice "content of their character". I guess if a woman is nice to you, it's the same as a man building a plane and inventing space flight. Cuck.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
What are you even saying. You take the accomplisments of others and let those speak for the group as if that's even possible. Can you build a plane and invent space flight? No way you can. It was only a couple of special bois. Their accomplisments aren't yours just because you both have cocks.
1 ibtem 2018-05-18
ok cool, so I guess women dont get to have their accomplishment of giving birth as a group either. Not every woman has given birth after all and not as many times as others. Look you're a stupid kid with stupid kid logic, I'm gonna stop responding now because I can see that you aren't improving.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
come on dummy, most women could if they wanted to. more than the amount of men that know how to build planes, surely. I don't think that's as noteworthy as you seem to think I do though, I already conceded it wasn't a great point. and you're just saying that ya poop. my logic is fine, you just can't combat it.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
Oh tell me grand one, what feats have you accomplished to advance civilization?
1 BlueLaptop 2018-05-18
Cry on the Internet about how much women suck. His work is done for the day.
1 Baconbitz126 2018-05-18
These claims wildly inaccurate and imho reek of willful ignorance. I'm attempting to be empathetic to the mindset of this sub but more and more it just seems like a competition to have the most repulsive opinion that can be thought up for the sake of receiving an emotional response and hell I guess if that's true I took the bait but this level of bitterness can not be healthy. Based on the terms I've seen here I can safely say I'm no Chad so maybe my opinions makes me a cuck but Jesus christ reading the comment chain this comment started was depressing. If you read this far thank you, if it sounded confrontational that wasn't the intention just what was on my mind.
1 wirralriddler 2018-05-18
My advice is don't dwell here too much. I enjoy the memes but the ideology shared in most comments are toxic and only fueled by blind hatred. It's quite vile and depresses you even if you are not an incel.
1 MarinoMyCheese 2018-05-18
Please tell me how they aren't of a lesser class. Which gender contributed 90% of civilization today and the great ones of the past? Read your history book. Then after that read your science book which will show you 2 huge difference. Our huge differences in physical capabilities for one. And then our differences in IQ. On average men do indeed have a bit more higher IQ. But as you go further in deviations past 100 IQ, the gap starts to widen quite BLATANTLY. Which is why men are more prone to being geniuses, innovative, and all around running the world we live in today. This all leads to an achievement gap between men and women that is so large that it's of galactical proportions. Even you know this when you quickly ask yourself the gender of inventors you've heard throughout your life time. In the end though, I'm not blaming women, they had little to no control over their biological makeup and evolution. They've been breeded as a slave subspecies for centuries since the beginning of time. So while it would be all fun and rainbows that we are all equal it simply isn't the case nor has it ever been. Why? Because human and evolution doesn't understand the social construct of a concept known as "we are equal". Science doesn't know what social constructs are, just raw natural facts. Men have always been superior.
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
Men have also prevented women from doing much of anything till the last century. Was it because men are stronger and held more "ancestral power" because of that simple fact? Yeah, it probably was. Men held privileged positions for most of human history. Mind you, the world has changed now. Women are capable of a lot. There are plenty of female scientists nowadays who contribute plenty to our sum knowledge. Sheila Singh. Look up that name, she's a freak of nature. Game changing scientist.
My question for you though, is why do you take any pride in a superiority contest such as this? What do you contribute to this world? Why do you feel entitled to the accomplisments of other men? If it's simply because you're one yourself, you're pretty pathetic.
1 MarinoMyCheese 2018-05-18
Strength alone was nit the reason male dominate women throughout human history. Stop coping.
The superior do.
And there's 10 more males for every singular female science. For every Sheila Singh there's 10 more scientist who've done more, like yuou know, the men that work with Sheila on Stem Cell and Cancer Research? She hasn't done anything on her own.
Yes, and men are capable of a lot more. See average, CEOs, millionaires / billionaires, Political powers.
Pointing out males are superior to females doesn't mean I'm taking pride in anything, it means I'm pointing out raw facts.
I'm under the average age of a female and earn nearly 3.5 times more than the average female. So not only have contributed more to society than the average women but I'm accomplished and earned more.
Not as pathetic as resort to an ad ad hominem, are you an inferior women or? (not inferior isn't an ad hominem, is me using a statistical/educated guess on what's factual inferior gender)
1 chickenrooster 2018-05-18
I am a guy.
You conflate your earnings with your contribution, but that isn't how things work. Your personality and attitude detracts from the world quite thoroughly, assuming you spout these negative ideas regularly.
As to the Sheila Singh point, every scientist has assistants and collaborators. It's been only a century since things started equalizing, so give things more time to even out on the sex ratio amongst scientists.
You haven't answered my question though. What do you do? What do you contribute? Your earnings aren't an answer to that question.
People who complain about ad hominem are lil bitches who can't take heat. Coping with ad hominem is a holistic measure of your argumentative prowess, don't forget that.
1 MarinoMyCheese 2018-05-18
Even a McDonald's peasant contributes to society, especially if he pays his taxes. So yes, earnings in general do tend to coincide with contributes to thy society.
Yes, and she isn't the leader of stem cell research on cancer if that's what you're implying.
Unfortunate the bell curve has stopped for female IQ. So you shouldn't expect more scientist, millionaires/billionaires, and ect, in fact just the opposite.
I'm not going to dox myself like a mongoloid if you actually expect me to answer that questions in specifics. My earnings clearly should give you an idea. All I'll say is I went and graduated from medical school but I'm not you're typical doctor since that's what tends to co,e to mind to most people when such a thing. I already know I contribute to society and far more than the average women and that's why I do work which the average person (IQ) can't do and I get compensated appropriately. You don't have to be the average innovate male inventor to contribute to society. Even if you work in the pathetic field of social science like the average female graduate, you are still contributing to society.
This was hilarious to read, are you in highschool, at least this sheds more light on the low intellectual individual that I'm talking too. I mean seriously? "Taking heat"? LMAO, how much power do you think words on reddit have! For your sake I hope you're just a mentally ill trans "guy".
You must have forgotten a word on here, it made no sense. No coping here!
1 Hal_Inceldenza 2018-05-18
Now they have equal access to academic institutions. I'm really curious to see all the Nobel Prizes they are about to win soon. Time will tell.
1 bcat124 2018-05-18
Fuck freedom. It doesn't even mean anything in the context of a naturalist world. Humans are nothing more than organic chemistry labs. Are molecules free not to react with each other? Are we free not to feel miserable because we're incels? At the end of the day, we are all tied by the chains of our human nature.
1 Ji6S4W 2018-05-18
logic like that leads to a cold, uncaring, violent world ran under an iron fist.... Free autonomy has every need to exist, however, women do need to be put back in their place. I don't look at it from a perspective so much of being angry at women (though, I am pretty angry sometimes, but I won't let my anger cloud my thinking), I look at it more from a point again, of men and women being different, and having different privileges. And maybe to an extent certain things are encoded into our DNA, that doesn't mean that a degree of personal autonomy doesn't exist. In life we make choices, sometimes we make good choices, sometimes we make bad choices. But making those choices, picking one option over another, shows a degree of freedom or autonomy.
1 harmlessdjango 2018-05-18
When you're a serf at the mercy of some dickhead because his dad is the land's lord, freedom means a lot
1 CommieCel 2018-05-18
lmao literally (LITERALLY (L I T E R A L L Y)) cucked by an abstract idea. Not even a GOOD analysis of freedom. Just lol at being a libcel
1 bigantennaemay1 2018-05-18
Maybe it would help not to think of women as people.
1 harmlessdjango 2018-05-18
What choice is there? Obviously it's freedom. People seem to forget that it is the State that enforces the fucked up divorce laws, forces these "diversity" hiring practices, gives women the benefits and subsidizes irresponsible behaviors. As a libertaria, nothing pisses me off more than seeing the concept of liberty being associated with degeneracy. Fucking Rawlsian liberals ruined the reputation of classical liberalism by giving all the rights, none of the responsibility and shat on the freedom of association
1 Ub2w 2018-05-18
Well i will prefer socialized plastic surgery for the ugly first, but monogamy seems pretty nice tbh.
1 WonderfulLikeNas 2018-05-18
no, plastic surgery should be a distant privledge only certain people can get - no point in looking good if everyone looks good
1 Ub2w 2018-05-18
low iq
1 dullsite 2018-05-18
Been saying this for years tbh
1 100PERCENTREASONTORE 2018-05-18
I think we all have. I remember going through high school wondering if I was the only one who hated the degeneracy which surrounds me. I'm pleased to find that I am not, even if total societal breakdown was the price we had to pay to actually get people to notice.
1 KhalilYousuf3 2018-05-18
lmao at all the triggered IT fags. Go check out that sub
1 keyandfeels 2018-05-18
I'm worried about the collapse of society because as a manlet currycel we'll be the first that they'll purge. I don't know about you guys, but I don't need a bunch of huge ogres beating the shit out of me when the government breaks down.
Those incels that want the end times are dumb as fuck. You'll still be the lowest on the social hierarchy but now all your copes will be gone. Fuck that.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
Watching the world burn is, for many, the best cope of all.
1 bigantennaemay1 2018-05-18
I'm praying I get lucky and my death comes swiftly.
1 13139 2018-05-18
So start getting athletic, get some bros, get weapons, join a militia. If you are not a joke they'll be glad to have you.
1 frankwashere44 2018-05-18
He's a coping Incel. His wife rode the cock carousel through her teens and early 20s while he sat in his room fapping and reading Nietschze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKOGEt5YiXQ
He also used to be fat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJzBIoR624s
1 13139 2018-05-18
[citation required]
You're projecting.
1 frankwashere44 2018-05-18
Listen to his story. He oneitis'd her from childhood. They got together post-25. He's married with kids. He's a cuck.
1 13139 2018-05-18
So cuck, anyone but people who marry a virgin?
1 frankwashere44 2018-05-18
No, anyone that marries or procreates is a cuck. Because both are completely stacked in favour of the woman and you're surrendering power by participating in either.
1 13139 2018-05-18
The future is cucked then.
1 frankwashere44 2018-05-18
Yep.
Unless you do a Ronaldo and get a surrogate.
1 13139 2018-05-18
I'll show myself out.
Also, do note, entirety of the world ~ West.
1 everythingshewants7 2018-05-18
Society is about to collapse. Too many single men. This will destroy society. Protect yourself, you're on your own now.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
He's right. It's well known in social science and anthropology that monogamous societies are much more stable and healthy than non-monogamous ones.
Sexually frustrated young men, especially when cast aside and ostracized by the rest of society, are, simply put, extremely prone to violent/lashing out behaviour due to the fact that they are not having their needs met. It's not that I condone such behaviour per se, but it's simply an inevitable social reality. Indeed, some scholars have argued that this is why Islamic terrorism is so common. 72 virgins in paradise is a wonderful allure for Muslim men not having their sexual needs met on earth.
I imagine most feminists are going to interpret these comments by Peterson as somehow "forcing women" to behave in a certain way. Not at all. "Enforced monogamy" doesn't necessarily require laws mandating that women behave in a certain way. It just requires a certain honour/shame dynamic. Women are never shamed anymore, and as such they can pursue their hypergamous imperatives without societal reprimand. This is the root of much the sociosexual problems we're observing in modern society.
1 Ji6S4W 2018-05-18
Perfectly stated, couldn't have said it better. This is also why it's imperative for women to not work outside of the house, once they start earning their own money they are free to begin persuing ever higher degrees of hypergamy. If she's making $500,000 a year, she's usually going to expect a chad who makes $700,000 a year.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
lol
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
There isn't really a contradiction here. Who do terrorists typically attempt to recruit? They don't recruit married men. They recruit men who, for whatever reason, are unable to get married. And there's a sizeable chunk of young Muslim men who are unmarried.
We had guns in the 70s and 80s as well. No school shootings. What changed since then? The culture.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
If Islamic countries are not monogamous there are no monogamous countries. Your delusional man, our culture is no different than the U.K. and Australia and they don't have school shootings.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
By "monogamy", I mean a culture wherein most young men are able to get married relatively easily, and where that marriage is generally permanent and monogamous. Many young men in Muslim countries are simply not able to get married, for any number of sociopolitical reasons. These are precisely the sort of men who terrorists go after. Sexually satisfied men with wives (and possibly children) are not very recruitable.
Look at what happened in Canada, namely Toronto. Strong gun control laws, but that's irrelevant when you have an incel beta-male wanting revenge.
The United States has more guns than any other country, so naturally, if school shootings in particular were going to be a common occurrence in any country, they'd become common here. But this doesn't really address the underlying cause. We've always had guns. Guns were prevalent and readily obtainable in the US since its founding, yet school shootings became common just in the 90s. So this is ultimately a non-explanation.
The fundamental cause of school shootings in the US is disaffected and sexually frustrated young men.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
Every country had higher marriage rates in the 50's, the modern economy has changed that. But let's not pretend there were not incels back then, they just were never heard from bc they did not have a forum like the internet.
And yeah if someone really wants to kill people they can, but if are not in the US they won't be able to kill as many bc they do not have access to killing tools.
There are sexually frustrated men all over the world, the fundamental reason why only the US has school shootings is because of the easy access to guns.
The mental gymnastics required to disagree with this is outstanding.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
There weren't nearly as many, since hypergamy wasn't as openly tolerated as it is today. It's ultimately a numbers thing. You can never truly ensure that there are zero incels. Some men, for instance, are mentally retarded or physically disfigured, and we can agree that most such men would be unable to find a partner in nearly every human society. However, when normal, reasonable men are having substantial difficulty finding a partner because of extreme hypergamy, then there is a problem.
There's different ways young men respond to sexual frustration in different cultures. Some run over people with vans. Some rape. Some become terrorists. Some start rebellions against the existing regime. Others might engage in petty crime. In nearly every society, however, massive male sexual frustration has typically resulted in some form of "lashing out" behaviour and social instability. There is substantial anthropological evidence for this, and, as Peterson points out, this is why monogamy has considered a social good.
And you still haven't addressed my earlier point: if it's about guns, then why weren't there school shootings in America in the 70s and 80s? And if it's about guns, why is it that the shooters are predominately typically awkward, bullied and often virgin young men? Why aren't the shooters just a random sample of gun-wielding young American men?
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
Why were there not school shootings in the 70's and 80's? Why were there not suicide bombings until the 80'? Probably because no one thinks to do it until one nut job does it and other nut jobs idolize it.
If you don't think there are young men all over the world wishing they could shoot up schools you are wrong. If you think the American culture is different in a substantial way from the U.K. Canada and Ireland you are just wrong.
The access to guns is be primary reason for shootings in the US. JFC,
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-18
It's because suicide bombings were adopted as a tactic by Islamist organizations during that particular period in time. The analogy doesn't really hold water because there isn't a cohesive, hierarchically structured movement of socially awkward men plotting against society. School shootings are invariably individual acts.
In any case, it's not about the method of violence per se (be it school shootings, suicide bombings, what have you). It's the fact that there is some sort of clear-cut
The ones who are committed to doing it can easily find ways without guns. Alek Minassian. All you need is a van.
1 meowstic_gx 2018-05-18
WTF? I LOVE PETERSON NOW!
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
No. It'd just be monogamy with chad. The anchor for female loyalty in the past was money, so most men had value and women needed them.
1 BBC_theory 2018-05-18
Jrodan Peterson is a balding white cuck
1 13139 2018-05-18
Yeah, he's standing up to the SJW nonsense because he is a cuck.
You are a moron, sir. Cucks like neocons never fight the left, they just appease.
1 bigantennaemay1 2018-05-18
He ain't wrong.
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
I only heard stories of this guy before, but now I can pretty safely say he's a certified moron.
1 NoNefariousness6 2018-05-18
https://i.imgur.com/4Biy4qB.jpg
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought "Monogamy is just an ancient global government conspiracy to keep beta males in check" was so fucking self-evidently reatarded that it needn't further explanation.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
Um, how is that self-evidently retarded if it's exactly what happened? Successful military leaders often recruited armies by promising land and a wife.
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
Conspiracy theories usually are self-evidently retarded, except to the retards who believe them.
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
People who claim that mundane historical facts are conspiracy theories are usually low IQ.
1 rareandraw 2018-05-18
Why the fuck do you think religions like Christianity enforced monogamy?
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
LOL this guy
1 rareandraw 2018-05-18
Wtf this isn't an argument against my point. What I'm saying is that there is a reason why "society" (actually just the few men who tried to socially reengineer through religion) chose to add monogamy as part of the religion: it was because in those times they understood that there was a crisis of the few privileged men getting all the women, and the social problems that caused. Also I think in Judaism (where monotheistic religion started) they were deeply concerned with preserving their culture and ethnicity and they used monogamy to do so.
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-05-18
Right. Ancient fucking Babylonians realized the "crisis of beta males" and engaged in nation-wide social engineering project to fix it, thousands of years before the concept of sociology was even invented.
You're fucking retarded.
1 rareandraw 2018-05-18
If you think you need an undertanding of "sociology" to get that if the peasant underclass don't get laid or have kids that they will rebel, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You tell me your alternate hypothesis on why monogamy has been a socially enforced thing for centuries
1 DankIncel 2018-05-18
true
1 retsamyob 2018-05-18
lol inceltears is freaking out over JP
1 ItsOkToBeBlack 2018-05-18
Mean8ng?
1 Ji6S4W 2018-05-18
Perfectly stated, couldn't have said it better. This is also why it's imperative for women to not work outside of the house, once they start earning their own money they are free to begin persuing ever higher degrees of hypergamy. If she's making $500,000 a year, she's usually going to expect a chad who makes $700,000 a year.
1 Hal_Inceldenza 2018-05-18
He's basically just parroting what greater minds (Carl Gustav Jung, Joseph Campbell) have already said.
1 goodboy12 2018-05-18
lol
1 Mr-5-5 2018-05-18
feminism is everywhere: UK, India, Australia,