He most definitely is.
R
This is absolutely brilliant. He is forcing mainstream writers and the public to confront the idea of monogamy and explain why feminism has destroyed it for their own chad-hungry desires.
Peterson is contrarian by nature too. He thrives on disagreement. So he won't let this go. The more feminists argue they have a right to only fuck Chads, the more he will highlight how damaging this is to society.
The tide is turning.
Peterson is contrarian by nature too. He thrives on disagreement. So he won't let this go. The more feminists argue they have a right to only fuck Chads, the more he will highlight how damaging this is to society.
The tide is turning.
Yeah boyo, popped my sticky cherry.
Not a terrible idea if it could be implemented, but how exactly would one 'enforce' a system like this?
I'm at a loss.
I'm at a loss.
Only one gender is offiicially recognized: MEN. Females are seen as property.
R
Historically monogamy was enforced through religion and cultural shaming of premarital sex.
In our post-religious world, it would have to be done through a combination of tax incentives/disincentives to promote marriage +/- reshaping divorce law to make it more fair should things fall apart.
Shaming could also still occur if the culture can come to recognize how inherently damaging hypergamy is.
What he is saying is exactly what I have always been saying.
Ah okay, for marriage it could work since we could stop people from ever remarrying if they've been caught cheating, etc.
But don't see how we can control whether or not people choose to sleep around while unmarried. You can loosely enforce it but you'd still need proof they slept around and getting that proof is difficult which means the cock carousel will still be happening behind closed doors.
I agree with what he's saying about the cock carousel...
...but JFL at self-improvement bluepilled shit
...but JFL at self-improvement bluepilled shit
R
Of course it's impossible to stop people from being sluts. That's always been true. All you can do is put in place social and financial disincentives.
Honest truth - I was the top pic and now I am an adult who lives in a messy house. I am trying to keep it in better order. If you don't want to live in squalor and chaos you will learn to clean your room one day or another.
Last edited:
He is BASED AF.
R
Also, just to elaborate on this point, I think it summarizes one of the major points he's trying to make in general, and people who use it to disparage him don't really understand what he's saying.
In short, most of Jordan Peterson's arguments can be summarized as "the new ways are not always the best ways" or inversely "the old ways are not always wrong".
In principle, this is classical conservatism, but unlike most conservatives who base their arguments in superstition (God) or feelings of morality, Peterson tries to argue more from a point of science (ie. innate biology and psychology) and with an aim of the most effective society possible. For an atheist like myself, his arguments are thus far more compelling than any traditional conservative could muster.
In terms of gender, he therefore argues that men have traditionally worked more and achieved higher levels of employment because we have a broader IQ distribution than women, achievement is fundamental to the male drive, and we aren't burned by the needs of child rearing.
In terms of parenting, our generation has moved away from the strict "do as I say" mentality that governed prior generations. Parents in the past few decades have been told to "respect their child's wishes" and if the child doesn't want to clean his/her room that's okay. This is part of what has created the participation trophy mentality. Every child is always right and every child is always a winner. The child's feelings are #1. What he's saying with "clean your room" is NO, the child is not right and the child's feelings do not come first. It is the duty of a parent to impart a sense of order into the child, and if your parents did not, it is your job to then do that for yourself.
These are the truths he says we cannot escape. Even though I have always had liberal sensibilities, I have come to believe he is correct.
Science is not a matter of conservativism vs. liberalism. It's a matter of trying to understand why things are the way they are. I don't personally care if he is "alt right" or what "SJWs" think. I only care about what is actually correct, and as far as these points go, he is correct.
Lastly, that brings us to the subject of "enforced monogamy" and harems that result in its absence. Again, there is no scientific argument that can be made that he is wrong. Religion and patriarchy were the primary drivers of enforced monogamy for the past millennia. Prior to that only a small percent of men had sexual success. Now we are returning to that scenario as male incel rates go up exponentially year by year.
In the past, that manifested in violent tribalism, rape, and pillaging. Now it is manifesting in greater degrees of male apathy as men drop out of society altogether and alternatively, rage, as men take up guns and fire on anyone in range.
He says a reversal of monogamy and return to harems will represent a destabilizing force in society if left unchecked and neither gender will truly be happy. Again, I believe he is correct.
Last edited:
I usually have little use for Peterson or his philosophy, but I can't help but admire anyone capable of provocation of this magnitude. It's almost as if the good doctor was led to the story of Loki by his fascination in comparative mythology and decided to try and outstrip the trickster god when it came to the fine art of causing offense. If Peterson's previous ideas could be considered analogous to Loki's brazen insult of the gods when they reluctantly allowed him into their court, promoting the idea of enforced monogamy is tantamount to engineering the murder the High God's most beloved son. Peterson is striking at one of the most precious values of the modern West: the agency of women when it comes to the matter of sexual selection and reproduction.
With this act Peterson has crossed a kind of threshold, just as Loki's crime promoted him from mere nuisance to sworn enemy of the divine. The idea of compulsory monogamy is not some idea that will merely inspire outrage among radical feminists and the members of academia surveying the world from the dizzying heights of their ivory towers. Rather, the idea of enforced monogamy is the stuff of nightmares of every modern daughter of the West.
Consider the visceral hatred women have of ugly men, a disgust and resentment that draws its power from what is most essential to human beings. We despise ugliness because it signifies lack of health, unfitness and, ultimately, death. So imagine the horror of a woman actually having to have sex with a sexually repulsive man just once. Now compound that frightening prospect with the idea of actually having to bear that horrible man's child. Pregnancy is no small investment of energy and time, after all. Imagine the resentment of a woman who would have to devote so much for the sake of giving birth to a child tainted just once. Now imagine how much worse that anger would be if she learned she could only have that disgusting man's children, that every single one of her offspring would serve as a kind of blasphemy against Mother Nature's value of the beautiful. The inherent female anxiety regarding such a situation is something we can only begin to approximate through the movies of Cronenberg and other works dedicated to body-horror.
Informed by the Enlightenment values that championed the freedom of the individual, the sexual revolution was kind of a dawn for women. What Peterson is suggesting would be tantamount to murdering the light of that new day and plunging women back into the prolonged nightmare they believed that had finally escaped. If our latter-day god of mischief wanted a truly spectacular response, well, he's at long last going to get it.
Sadly or happily, depending upon your perspective, the amusement to be had at all of the outraged shrieking is the only good thing that'll come from Peterson's scandalous idea. Pandora's Box was opened long ago and trying to capture the evils inspired by the sexual alienation of the undesirable male and imprison them in the jar is an impossible task. We could no sooner return to compulsory monogamy after the sexual revolution than we could to authentic paganism after the rise of Christianity.
The most amusing thing about Peterson championing enforced monogamy is that, although perhaps done with the intention of quelling the wrath of the unlovable abominations who have been denied the right to live as humans were meant to, it's a flawed conclusion drawn from false premises. Enforced monogamy is no less unnatural to the human condition than the current dissolution of the family is. As an institution, monogamy was always fundamentally unstable and its dissolution was inevitable. The scholars who study evolutionary psychology suggest that, by comparing the degree of our sexual dimorphism to that of the other apes, our original state was polygyny with two or three female mates for every sexually successful male. Such a model serves as a compromise between monogamy and hypergamy, neither of which are viable. It allows women to share attractive and fit men without sacrificing the possibility of a family which is so integral in the raising of children. This is our natural state, this is the model most conducive to human sexual happiness.
Which means, of course, that even among our earliest ancestors there were undesirable males who went down to the dead without having children. The Hebrew creation story tells of the split between male as female, but the true division at the genesis of our species was the one that separated the tribe of men from that of monsters, beauty from ugliness, health from sickness, fecundity from sterility, Life from Living Death. This is the primordial dictate, and heartless Nature will severely punish every attempt to violate it.
So those of us who belong to the race of monsters, we unhappy Living Dead, can take some pleasure in all of the debates regarding the future of human sexuality. We can watch the passionate debates, laugh at all of the outrage, take some guilty pleasure in Peterson's wild iconoclasm. Yet our role will never be anything more than as spectators. Whatever shape the landscape of human sexuality eventually takes, we can rest assured we will have no place upon it. For us, the battles of men and women are just as irrelevant to us as those between gods and giants. Regardless of who the victor may be, our own doom is guaranteed. We truly unlovable, the abominations, needn't watch the horizon waiting for either glorious Millennium or fiery Apocalypse. We monsters were assured our own private Ragnarok, our inescapable twilight, the moment we took our very first breath. The cycle will continue just as it always had, generation after generation, incarnation of humanity after incarnation of humanity, and the unwanted will never escape it. While humanity will always have its dusks and dawns, winters and summers, sad deaths and joyous rebirths as history unfolds, there is for us misbegotten things only one endless lonely night.
R
Jesus Christ dude. Are you a philosophy student? Let me put it this way. You're obviously well read, but as they say: Brevity is soul of wit.
That said, I'm sincerely curious because you're obviously smart enough - without diving into a tangential metaphor - why do you say you have little use for his "philosophies", particularly in the context of how I have framed his arguments here? You say above that we will always be spectators. Is that it? Defeatism?
I am content to realize we will never be able to fix these problems in the span of our generation, and I have little care for the future of the species. But there is still something innate to me that wants to hear truth spoken and acknowledged. It's not just about enjoying watching people argue. It's about enjoying the sound of truth. Is that not also the case for you? Do you not believe he is fundamentally correct?
Men are by nature at their most masculine fighters. We aren't meant to give up. Even when the odds are against us and we cannot win. We have routinely been fighting to our deaths against insurmountable odds as long as we have existed.
Also, if you believe this is completely hopeless, look at China for inspiration. With their one child policy they completely changed the way families were constructed and how their social fabric was built. Now they are setting their sites on hypergamy. It is likely China will develop the template that other countries follow, likely through financial and social incentives towards marriage, cohabitation, and monogamy.
Last edited:
And then sharia will be implemented, "a pathological ideology". Fuck cuckqueers
This last segment of your post is especially well put with all the metaphors and references to mythologies. Caring about the fate of human sexuality is like caring about the 30th being Zeus has fucked within the last hour.
Last edited:
He really got them riled up with this. Femoids cringe at the thought of being within 10 feet of an ugly guy, she can't imagine actually being in a relationship with one.
Based peterson
He's okay, but his fanboys are ehhh...
G
jordan peterson is not my guy and I don't want to associate the incel community with him.
everything alright man?
Looks like we're gonna have to clean up ourselves, mates.
Since our goal is actually monogamy, let's rethink the misogyny.
We all want a wife, but some of the Chad's have turned off women to monogamy.
Leftist propaganda is implicit with public education but nowhere is there a class on monogamy.
Jordan Peterson's surely on our side but the feminists have lied about incels.
Not all of us want to murder all women, but the Santa Fe school shooter shows us not an example but a challenge: either direct the rage against Stacy's into a political movement for enforced monogamy or carry on with the revolution violently.
Or a third option like aligning with what Peterson said.
That was tried in the middle east and only works there.
Europe is example why Islam is incompatible with modern Western mores.
We may as well become Muslims but have to risk martyrdom before getting radicalized for traditional values.
It's doubtful our Muslim incel brothers exist.
Last edited:
Actually they do. But I'm a convert really.
If talking about enforced monogamy, Islam may very well be the solution.
Fuck Jordan Peterson and his bullshit "clean your room bucko"
Just scrub your cumsock bucko.
Why did he get so massively popular all of a sudden
G
Jordan Peterson is my mortal enemy, as much so as cucktears.
He's not "our guy", but in the current paradigm, he is about the most based you can get on mainstream.
You cannot be fully blackpill and get media attention at the same time. The world is not ready.
R
How do you guys say "fuck Peterson" when he's one of only a very few well known intellectuals actually arguing for our cause?
Are you people retarded?
See this blog post where he lays out the scientific case for enforced monogamy:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
Who is bigger and more on our side than he is? Who else is arguing this in the mainstream media?
Are you people retarded?
See this blog post where he lays out the scientific case for enforced monogamy:
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
Who is bigger and more on our side than he is? Who else is arguing this in the mainstream media?
R
As another example, here's Peterson talking about how makeup is used by women to manipulate their status among men (starting around 5:06):
Who else is talking about this and getting coverage for it?
Who else is talking about this and getting coverage for it?
Because of his anti sjw narrative.
He definitely is. I've read his book. Couple of chapters in it are full of blackpills.
Add this interview to that and I don't really get why a lot of people here doesn't like him.
Add this interview to that and I don't really get why a lot of people here doesn't like him.
Last edited:
I
He never said any of this stuff before incels started in Jan 2016. We influenced him, he did not influence us. He is a contrarian, and he sees incels have some politically incorrect views that make sense, and he is capitalizing on it. I remember spamming the phrase "enforced monogamy" on r/Truecels in 2016, and no one agreed with me at first, but I kept spamming and spamming until people started to understand.
It's good that he is saying stuff we agree with, but I don't trust contrarians and I don't trust people with crowds that big. He's with us now, but when he sees something even more contrarian, he will latch on to that.
It's good that he is saying stuff we agree with, but I don't trust contrarians and I don't trust people with crowds that big. He's with us now, but when he sees something even more contrarian, he will latch on to that.
R
Agreed for sure but who cares? Like you said - no one was listening when you said "enforced monogamy" in 2016. He says it once in 2018 and everyone explodes. His audience is huge, and I don't care if he's turning our pain into money for himself. He's serving our purpose and fighting our fight in a way we can't.
If in 2 years he disappears off the face of the earth, that's fine with me either way. As long as he spends the next two years continuing to argue our points, which is what he's doing now.
Trust has nothing to do with it.
It used to be illegal to cheat on your partner, I think adultery laws should return. If people are not in a relationship, or if they are both agreed to be in an open relationship from the beginning, it's degenerate but I don't care what they do. But once a couple is going steady it should be illegal to cheat on them. Worse charge if they're married and have money wrapped into it all. This is basically why MGTOW movement happened, too many men getting screwed over by their wives.
I like Peterson but him, the MRA, as well as the alt-right, are swimming against the current of nature with traditionalism. There's no going back. Even if we could, we'd be back to where we are now in a couple hundred years so what's the point. Furthermore, traditionalism is a form of regression which runs contrary to the nature of the Faustian European soul which seeks truth and transcendence at all costs (read: TRADITIONALISM: THIS IS THE ENEMY! by Guillaume Faye). And I don't glorify the white race. They're just another subgroup of the same shit species whose distinctive legacy of creating more marvels of men than any other race does not eclipse their darker and unspoken about legacy, and one omnipresent across all races since time immemorial, of undesirable men being bullied and ostracized by alpha males and roasties. Yeah, I, an undesirable, have no stake in saving the white race. I see them more as an accelerating agent for the rise of the machine/A.I./bioengineered super beings. To quote Scaruffi, "Humans are a footnote in the history of technology." Lastly, why do incels want an arranged marriage to some soulless cunt who resents you and only desires higher value men? I don't understand why you'd want anything to with women given what we've learned about them. "I want to get a gf and get married even though I hate women." Stop. This is just dumb. It's MGTOW/sex androids/artificial wombs/transhumanism or bust. Singularity is coming one way or another. Stop trying to delay the inevitable. And if humans are to be eliminated, I don't know how incels don't at least feel elated by the thought of roasties getting rekt by androids that are wholly immune to their phony charm. Humans were not meant to last, but given the way humanity has treated us I seriously don't understand why any of you give a shit.
Last edited:
fuck off jew
I think Peterson is possibly some sort of controlled opposition employed by the Jews due to his opposition to the far right. I think some of his advice is laughable and is not much more than the platitudes spread by normies. That being said its revolutionary that someone from academia would dare say some of the things he would say. I'm honestly surprised he still has a teaching position. There is almost no one else in academia who would be prepared to give incels a fair shake. I think he has done good work destroying cucks and feminists on main stream media. A lot of them have thrown everything they have into discrediting him and failed miserably. He has even talked about challenging zoolander "muh personkind" Trudeu.
I do agree with him on many things.
That being said his ideas of solving problems with "muh individuality" when whites are under siege by vicious collectivist groups like Marxists, Muslims and blacks are suicidal. Hence why i wonder if he is controlled opposition. The only reason any kind of individuality is allowed in our society is because of its white majority.
I do agree with him on many things.
That being said his ideas of solving problems with "muh individuality" when whites are under siege by vicious collectivist groups like Marxists, Muslims and blacks are suicidal. Hence why i wonder if he is controlled opposition. The only reason any kind of individuality is allowed in our society is because of its white majority.
Exactly how I feel about him
He's cucked on the Jewish question, but I bet he understands our problem very clearly and is opposed to unlimited sexual freedom.
He is not our guy, he is a lifestyle advocate and preaches vague messages and lets people interpret whatever they want to
To be honest I think enforced monogamy would be a hot crock of shit.
Having a thing you're supposed to fuck and call your wife that doesn't want to be there with you is fucking depressing, because nobody wants to be around you anyways, it's inceldom with company.
Having a thing you're supposed to fuck and call your wife that doesn't want to be there with you is fucking depressing, because nobody wants to be around you anyways, it's inceldom with company.
Similar threads
Serious
I am a nice guy
- Qwertyuiop99
- Inceldom Discussion
Qwertyuiop99
Users who are viewing this thread
