Toggle Dark Theme
logo
235,172 posts archived

1440
1441

I was listening to Episode #1139 of the Joe Rogan Experience with Jordan Peterson yesterday, and after a discussion on hierarchies and free speech, Jordan Peterson went full Red Pill on releationships, sex, and beta bucks/alfa fucks. The interesting details is that both Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan used language and terminology that we use here!

I had suspected for a long time that both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson have deep knowledge of gender/sexual interactions from a Red Pill view. Red Pill theory convinced me a few months ago, but hearing a Harvard educated psychologist talk about it was refreshing. Kinda makes you wonder how many of these academics have deep insight that they never share due to political corretcness.

Anyways - They start talking about Red Pill theory around 1:32:00. They start talking about “enforced monogamy”, rejection, incels, alfa bucks/beta bucks, sexual marketplace place on college campuses and then dwell into other Red Pill theory.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xc7DN-noAc

Consider yourself lucky, a Harvard psychologist is smacking Red Pill truths in your face.


[–]letterboyink 188 points189 points  (1 child)

Gets into it at about 28 minutes when he breaks down "the patriarchy" by comparing it to hierarchical structures and their inherent power due to competency

edit 1: 1:31:38 incels and hypergamy

edit 2: 1:44:00 gender pay gap

edit 3: 1:49:05 women in law firms

edit 4: 2:01:44 joe: "why are people so opposed to challenging social norms?"

edit 5: 2:07:31 Vice interview / make-up at work / sexual signals in the workplace / "no eye contact for more than 5 seconds = sexual harassment; netflix"

[–]LongElm 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You the real MVP. Thanks, man.

[–]BillyRedRocks 331 points332 points  (71 children)

Joe Rogan shat his pants as soon as he heard the word Hypergamy. At this rate there will never be a serious conversation about hypergamy on his podcast unless he somehow grows balls or he has trouble raising his daughters.

[–]ThatOneDrunkUncle 186 points187 points  (23 children)

He mentioned how that's such a scary subject. I noticed how they beat around the bush for 20 minutes about the topic, then that word was mentioned. He acknowledged it, didn't argue the idea of it, and they moved on. He tries very hard to make his guests controversial while toeing a neutral line so he can avoid the kind of labelling that JP gets. I get the feeling that he's much more RP than he'll admit.

[–][deleted] 93 points94 points  (2 children)

He has definitely been self-censoring a lot compared to the early days of the podcast. I think it's mostly to do with the liberal dominated comedy social circles he spends time with in LA.

[–]Luckyluke23 65 points66 points  (1 child)

how else is he going to get another Netflix special?

[–]Herculius 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Idk if I blame him. He can probably get 20-30 million dollars in the next 5 or six years assuming he has 3 or 4 popular specials.

[–]scottbrio 41 points42 points  (5 children)

In the early days of the podcast, he often talked about how he never wanted to get married, thought marriage was bullshit, and then eventually gave in to his now wife. He still says marriage is bullshit but did it "because it's important to her".

[–]Ignacio14 56 points57 points  (4 children)

Heh, that makes me remember his podcast with Dan Bilzerian. When Dan was telling how he wants to life the life he wants, fucking hundreds of chicks and partying instead of settling down. Joe got VERY visibly envious. lol

[–]scottbrio 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I remember that- Joe was definitely living vicariously through Dan in that moment and wearing it on his sleeve. He was like a little kid in a toy store that whole podcast lol

[–]Jampak_5000 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree, and I don't even think its a bad thing or anything like that. Its the reason we love rogan, because of his honesty. Not to say he was openly admitting his envy, but it was apparent in a way, that you could only get from rogan. Most people wouldn't even talk to Bilzarian, if there were in rogans position, let alone indulge him in that way.

[–]mp- 2 points3 points  (1 child)

fucking hundreds of chicks and partying instead of settling down.

Is the average age here 18? This gets old you blithering retards lol.

[–]BillyRedRocks 28 points29 points  (13 children)

All potheads act like that. Never taking a hard side, always looking for another perspective blah blah blah. Doesn't matter if he is if he won't manifest it. APALT (All potheads are like that)

[–]enadelb 1 points1 points [recovered]

What’s wrong with looking for different perspectives before taking a hard side? And what makes you think that all people that smoke weed do this? Just anecdotal?

not all things are black and white and sometimes the “hard side” doesn’t exist. not sure what you’re getting at.

[–]Conquerz 1 points1 points [recovered]

he sounds like a beta complaining about alphas because we do shit they don't.

let him have his hard side and fight until he dies. It's his loss, not being able to change perspective must suck

[–]Hyperintelligentwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But, sigmas do shit that neither alphas, nor betas do. Operating alone, not needing shit from no one, not taking shit from anyone.

[–]omfalos 13 points14 points  (2 children)

ASPHALT (All smoking potheads are like that)

[–]jm51 4 points5 points  (0 children)

ASPHALT (All smoking potheads are like that)

To quote Frank Zappa:

That's me! That's me!

Consider your line stolen. Thanks.

[–]scottbrio 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Potheads? That's quite a reach and entirely anecdotal. Joe tows the middle line because his guests are on both sides of the political spectrum, and wildly diverse in his beliefs. If he starts to sway too much to one side- his show gets lopsided and he's now another Glen Beck or Sean Hannity.

[–]availableEXCLAMATION 8 points9 points  (3 children)

I consume weed everyday for past 5 years, am pot head. I’ve heard other people say very similar things about pot heads, even my own father has suggested a very similar idea.

Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean about pot heads being wishy washy about things. Or how they seem to not take hard stances on anything? Why exactly is it bad to not take hard sides on arguments? What does pot have to do with this or how does pot change people to be more susceptible to this. I am legitimately curious about this.

My own brief insight as a pothead on this matter is Pot makes me super sensitive, so sensitive that I don’t want to be wrong about something in an argument. I see this in Joe Rogan, I see the weed making changing his personality, it’s making him timid about his beliefs. He doesn’t want to say something and be proven wrong or made to look foolish. And because of the weed, he is docile with some of his arguments.

[–]Freedomeofchoice 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Pot tends to make you averse to confrontation when on it, so you tend to to always be passive in that sense. Probably because it is generally harder to concentrate and keep more complex arguments going. So wishy washy is the result to not offend anyone or be wrong.

[–]BillyRedRocks 4 points5 points  (1 child)

" My own brief insight as a pothead on this matter is Pot makes me super sensitive, so sensitive that I don’t want to be wrong about something in an argument. I see this in Joe Rogan, I see the weed making changing his personality, it’s making him timid about his beliefs. He doesn’t want to say something and be proven wrong or made to look foolish. And because of the weed, he is docile with some of his arguments. "
You answered your own question. Being "timid" is no something you generally associate with masculinity. If you're wrong you can change your opinions based on facts but if you never have opinions you can never be right. Being afraid of being wrong = risk aversion = feminine trait. Being wishy washy means not living in reality. In reality you have to make a call, you have to make a judgement and you have to act on it. Sitting on the fence just hurts your ass. I have no idea how pot does this to people but I see it every damn time.

[–]Barrel_Dodge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question and response

[–]FlamingAmmosexual 208 points209 points  (29 children)

He seemed more accepting of discussing race and IQ when he had Sam Harris on than going down that rabbit hole when Peterson suggested that. He really seemed uneasy when Peterson brought up women tricking men into raising children that aren't their own.

[–]TheseNthose 106 points107 points  (18 children)

Could be because one of his daughters is from his wife's previous relationship/marriage

[–]scottbrio 51 points52 points  (0 children)

That's exactly the case. He's said it many times.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

ouch.

maybe he doesn't want to mention it because in reality, he cucked the original dad.

[–]FeelTheBernieSanderz 32 points33 points  (12 children)

LMAO.

That's got to hurt Joe's ego, not all the TRT and HGH can make up for the fact that he got.... CUCKED!

[–]Herculius 42 points43 points  (11 children)

No he didn't. His wife had a kid when he met her. He voluntarily raised the kid as his own.

The conversation was about women tricking men in to thinking kids are there's when they are not.. something that didn't happen to Joe at all.

[–]Soundmind78 19 points20 points  (10 children)

Using your own resources to provision for the raising of another man’s progeny is by definition cuckoldry. The fact that the child (or children) was born prior to meeting the mother does not change the fact that your life energy is being spent to further genetics that are not your own. The fact merely specifies the dynamic as ‘proactive cuckoldry.’ Get the Alpha genes first, then lock down Beta provisioning. The fact that he was manipulated or “voluntarily committed” into this state of affairs does not mitigate the reality. Viewed from this perspective one can see that cuckoldry, specifically proactive cuckoldry ( Think 28-32 yo single moms ), is rampant in Western culture.

[–]Herculius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Get the Alpha genes first, then lock down Beta provisioning

That might be the usual case but it isn't always the case. A woman might get divorced from a from a man with money and shittier genes and leave that man for a man with better genes/(and/or)/money when she gets the opportunity.

However I see your point that regardless of why the woman with a kid is changing partners, Men agreeing to raise another man's kids perpetuates the willingness of women to use various manipulative strategies.

[–]TheOneWhoDidntCum 0 points1 point  (7 children)

What does Proactive Cuckoldry mean? does it mean being aware of one's child not being his and provisioning for it as opposed to not knowing ?

[–]yungassed 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Proactive is when they get the alpha genes first, then find the beta provider. Opposed to the opposite when they marry the beta provider first, then cheat on him and get pregnant with an alpha during the marriage.

Before, most men were alpha with enough abundance enough to not accept a single mothers no matter what. Men died during war, so the ratio of able men to women was greater, so regardless of how one man compared next to another, women were so desperate for a decent provider, they would take nearly any decent man willing to commit. That means being a single mother would not fly since ever man had an abundance of options, with some groups having multiple wifes.

In current days, the ratio of men to women is about even, and since men desire women more in this situation, women have the ability to select now. They can get away with being single mothers and then locking down a provider first.

[–]TheOneWhoDidntCum 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Most excellent answer thank you for explaining it. To me it seems poor society -> marry beta bucks -> cheat on him rich society -> marry alpha (make baby/get dumped) -> marry beta bucks

[–]yungassed 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Sorta, but its not necessarily the wealth of a society, but more so the ratio of attractive men compared to attractive women. The only caveat being that wealth is a more attractive quality relative to other traits in poorer places. With woman being able to earn for themselves, money is no longer attractive as it once was unless its on the multimillionaire level. Hell, the person they cheat with might not even be more alpha than the husband, just a situational alpha. Consider a married woman working as a secretary. Her husband is smart and good looking, but the majority of the time she only sees him after women when he is tired, in his pjs and just wants to relax. Oppose that to her boss, who she only sees wearing a, business suit, nice watch and getting respect from everyone in the office. Even if her husband is like that in his own office, she doesn't get to witness it. Add along that she takes orders from her boss, you have the perfect recipe for her to cheat. That is way men of old did not want their women to work, because it would mean her taking orders from another man.

Also note that we are talking about cuckoldry, while although common, only happens to a minority of men (~20-40%). Its just never been so blatant that a man willingly enters such an arrangement. At least before, the woman had to lie about it and the man thought all the kids were his (with the majority of kids actually being his). Most people do not cheat (although I am skeptical about this and not sure if it is a pill I am still unable to swallow yet).

[–]Soundmind78 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Apologies for delayed response, a woman that has a child from her Alpha then seeks provisioning for said child from the Beta. The Beta spends his money/life energy on raising another man's progeny: cuckoldry. The proactive bit means she gets knocked up with the Alpha genes first then seeks provisioning. The alternative would be reactive or 'normal' cuckoldry where she cheats, get knocked up, and bears a child that is not her Beta providers, though their LTR is already established.

[–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm quite sure that his wife was a widow.

[–]BillyRedRocks 164 points165 points  (5 children)

Yup. Nothing is more "problematic" than something negative about women.

[–]DONT_reply_with_THIS 74 points75 points  (2 children)

Joe "Saying Anything Remotely Negative About Women is Problematic" Rogan

[–]Endorsed ContributorMetalgear222 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Things change after you have 3 daughters I guess. His standup from 2006 he rips on women the whole time.

[–]Luckyluke23 42 points43 points  (0 children)

well some someone has BIG as his podcast is... maybe he is just trying to avoid a shitshow.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Or telling him to stop eating elk.

[–]Orsick 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Because you have way more data on IQ than hypergamy, so it's way safer to talk about that.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah that's not the kind of idea you want to get behind if you haven't also thought of a solution to go with the idea.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 40 points41 points  (8 children)

Laws of Power: Think as you wish - but act like others.

(Also - never talk about fight club)

[–]FeelTheBernieSanderz 14 points15 points  (2 children)

That's in pursuit of power.

In pursuit of truth (i.e. natural law), it is wise to open up and support an objectively true position, it is the moral action, whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

What you pursue of course is entirely your decision. Jordan Peterson is objectively on a moral path - within reasonable boundaries. Without a doubt he knows deeper truths, but the truths he shares, are truths that his audience could be without, had it not been for JP.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s in pursuit of maintaining his YouTube revenue stream, as well.

Rogan must always maintain a layer of abstraction as a buffer between him and this subject matter.

[–]2CHAD_J_THUNDERCOCK 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Thats the kind of law that lets you survive at the middle levels of dominance hierarchies as you climb up. But leaders of some businesses (and cults) often stand for something completely different to conventional orthodoxy very vocally - and provided it has some truth and they gain a following then they do very well for themselves.

[–]TheOneWhoDidntCum 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I love that name , but what does J stand for :)

[–]Endorsed ContributorUEMcGill 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I love Joe Rogan and he's redpill without knowing it but... He's raising someone else's daughter. The subject might hit home for him in some ways.

[–]BillyRedRocks 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I guess that's why we'll never see Rollo on his show. Even the "edgy" Molymeme couldn't handle the rational male.

[–]dulkemaru51 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Is the conversation between Moly and Rollo available somewhere? I've searched for it frenetically without result.

[–]BillyRedRocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nope. Hasn't been released.

[–]Jampak_5000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah, he also recently talked about a "bit" hes doing about Katlyn Jenner, the premise being, if you live with crazy bitches, maybe you become one.

That wasn't the interesting bit though, what he said was; as he has 3 daughters and a wife, they are stealing his manhood, and said if his manhood was a 10,000 marbles, every day they take 2-3 which seems insignificant, then one day you wakeup and you've lost your masculinity.

[–]Joey_Lopez 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Do we really need him to bring TRP mainstream? If it gets into the mainstream females are just gonna put up bigger bitch shields to try and scare away red pilled betas. Just like feminists started all this anti street harassment because PUA's were inspiring too many betas to approach.

[–]Gabberjacky 1 points1 points [recovered]

Having watched between 1:30:00 and 2hr mark, it's painfully clear to me that Rogan and JP are operating on vastly different intellectual levels. Not surprising, given that one is a podcast host and the other is an Ivy League trained psychologist with both practical clinical experience and academic accolades. At numerous points in the talk I found myself wanting to scream at Rogan "you dense motherfucker, let JP make his damn point!"... At least Rogan seemed like he legitimately wanted to have a constructive conversation rather than a so-what-you're-saying-is style witch hunt, and his frustrating ocassional derailing of the discussion with ridiculous hypotheticals seemed to come from geniune inability to fully grok JP's argument rather than malice.

That said, I'm grateful to Rogan for giving JP this platform to express his views and there are moments when Rogan is silent long enough for JP to drop some truly thought-provoking facts and arguments. Will definitely have to watch this in it's entirety at some point.

From a red pill perspective, what I took away from this talk is as follows: Enforced hypergamy would be ideal on a civilizational level, even if it restricted maximal sexual success for the ultra-competitive men JP mentioned who would dominate in a more polyamorous mileu. It's unlikely that we'll get back to the old-school patriarchal enforced monogamy model now that the radical feminist and sexual liberation (AKA unrestricted hypergamy) cats are out of the bag, so the best we can hope for is leveraging RP type knowledge of sexual dybamics to gradually shift the rules of the sexual marketplace so as to reign in the worst excesses of hypergamy.

Now I'm aware that many in the RP community are of the enjoy-the-decline school of thought. Personally, I plan on having children and could not morally justify that decision if I did not simultaneously strive to improve the condition of the world I would be bringing them into. Like JP mentions, the best conditions in which to raise successful children is without a doubt a stable, caring traditional nuclear family. These are the conditions I plan to create for my children as best I can within the limits of the current sexual and social environment. As much as some cynical red pillers might mock this approach, human civilization progresses only through the birthing and raising of future generations, the figurative passing of the baton. To me nihilism and hedonism are not viable options.

All that being said, of course I'm not advocating that we go out preaching the gospel of RP (rule #1) or laying pearls before swine. Get your own house in order (or your bed, as JP would say) before you try to change the world. But don't become so jaded by staring into the abyss of human malice and frailty that you forget that you CAN change the world, if only in your own small way.

[–]MMDT 22 points23 points  (2 children)

I think Patrice o Neal is the best guru for that. Since he's not necessarily about pick up game, more about how to be happy with women in the long run

[–]FeelTheBernieSanderz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

He was regularly frustrated with women on the black phillip show, shouting and ranting - was it for comedic effect? Seems unhealthy to be constantly annoyed.

[–]Herculius 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He was annoyed at feminists tropes in popular culture and was annoyed when his own women attempted to tame him and take away his desireable manly qualities. But He gave good advice for both men and women to be happy with each other.

And in many interviews it seemed that because he stood his ground in his relationship, he had a loyal and respectful woman.

[–]FinalPrince 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I used to think like this but it essentially comes down to 'who cares?'

'human civilization progresses only through the birthing and raising of future generations.' Who cares?

Humanity also regresses through the exact same process. Once you're dead you're dead. You're like one step away from the final freeing nihilism, the truth that living a good life now is king, that raising kids is for women and cucks. In nature alphas just create the children. And with protection you don't even need to do that.

Alphas only get involved in child rearing where the inherent disadvantages are minimal due to social structure aka patriarchy. We now exist at the complete opposite end of this deal. As soon as a woman pops out that rugrat with your name on it, you're done. Marriage, religion, law, all the institutions designed to control this shit in the first place have failed and we are rapidly regressing back to a pre-patriarchal state, that is, a fucking free-for-all, only in modern times the legal repercussions persist. All the disadvantages and none of the benefits. Who cares whether such a society persists or not?

[–]monadyne 28 points29 points  (4 children)

raising

kids is for women and cucks

Anybody with a dick can impregnate a female and produce an offspring. It takes a true man to be a father and actually raise a child. One reason for the devastation we see in our various societies is due to the lack of fathers living in homes to raise their children. Look at the African American culture where above 72% of children are born out of wedlock. "Who dat? He my baby-daddy!"

It takes a great deal of personal resources to stick around in a marriage (especially in these hypergamous times), make all the money that children consume in growing up, and to provide teaching and moral guidance for them as they develop into adults.

"Once you're dead you're dead" only applies to people who haven't had children. I am connected in an unbroken line not only back to the earliest hominids, but all the way beyond that to the first single-celled animals that came to life on this planet. In my son, that line of living beings is continued, and through his children and their children, stretches on until... someone breaks the chain and leads a childless life.

My son is an engineer. He works in a laboratory. His team safeguards America's nuclear arsenal. He has Above Top Secret clearance, so he's not permitted to tell me even the slightest detail about what he does. Apropos of this discussion, it gives me a very, very deep sense of pleasure to know that by devoting twenty years of my life to trying to raise my child up properly that he became someone smart, sane and stable enough to be worthy of a position with the highest possible responsibility. That sense of pleasure transcends any temporal pleasures my male ego has provided me with.

So, while some may be content to roast marshmallows as the world burns, others, thankfully, are working at keeping that from happening.

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

Out of wedlock does not mean 'absent of fathers.'

[–]cyrilan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A fitting response. You understand sir

[–]BurnDownTheMission68 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Great point on the intellectual difference between these two men

JP is 2-3 std devs smarter

But Joe really fancies himself an intellectual because he conflates talent with intelligence

Very talented guy that JR but average to above average intellect

JP is off the charts

[–]BPasFuck 0 points1 point  (3 children)

When Rogan's being more honest, he'll say he's 'smart for a meathead.'

What I do like about the guy, is that he's frequently a unique and creative thinker. His bit about the retarded stonemasons of egypt, comes across very incisively.

[–]eyewant 0 points1 point  (2 children)

retarded stonemasons of egypt

Does he do this bit in OP's link?

[–]BPasFuck 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No. It's an old old old standup bit he did years back. Google 'Dumb people outbreeding smart people' and it should bring it up on youtube. Or try this link, if it works. I fail at making links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiyo2K7DvfA

Posting about it made me try and find it the other night, because I couldn't recall exactly how it goes.

[–]boxxybebe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is Joe talented at? Don't know much about him

[–]washington_breadstix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the one thing I cannot stand about Joe Rogan's podcast. He thinks he's automatically in the same intellectual league as every one of his guests and tries to add too much "Joe" to the conversation when it should be all about the guest educating Rogan and the listeners.

[–]goodbyehouse 423 points424 points  (140 children)

Joe Rogan turned me onto a Ketogenic diet and Jujitsu as a work out. I lost 20kg(44lbs), started getting haircuts and beard trims sooner. I think by the end of the year I will have visible abs. With that comes confidence. My posture is better. Thanks Joe!

[–]the_one_tony_stark 168 points169 points  (71 children)

Ketogenic diet

Just be sure not to put your kid on a ketogenic diet if you have one. A 1/20 chance for a kidney stone doesn't seem worth it. But that's only been observed in kids, not adults.

Great progress mate. Keep it up.

[–]BPasFuck 50 points51 points  (26 children)

The thing to keep in mind about Joe and diet is:

He's on mega trt and hgh. That's why he and Dana White look so alike. They both got that Barry Bonds hgh dome.

Keto and Jujitsu are great. They will do good things for you. Expect improvement. But don't go into it thinking your results will match his.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 27 points28 points  (15 children)

Huh, I didn't know that. You're right though.

He shoots himself up with testosterone on a weekly basis — [snip]— as well as human growth hormone. If he’s dragging a little, he’ll pop a Nuvigil, a variant of the focus-improving drug that fighter pilots use.

Sorry if I know little about this. What's hgh dome? I get the hgh and that it's probably some shape of your head or something that changes?

[–]BPasFuck 19 points20 points  (13 children)

the shape of his skull is what hgh dome refers to.

Human growth hormone causes bone to grow when it would normally have halted. It's why any given user's face change so much.

Look at early photos of Barry Bonds, and late career. It's obvious.

Then look at early photos of Rogan. Some of the change is because he's gained weight, sure. But even so.

[–]mattizie 7 points8 points  (11 children)

Sorry mate, but I'm not seeing it.

Is the skull more elongated, round, or just grows bigger or something?

[–]Morphs_ 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Whole face is more round. Not like fatter, but as if there's more bone tissue on the skull. Google "Joe Rogan old vs new", same with Barry Bonds and Dana White. Their old pics their skulls look slimmer and now they have a more "bulkier" look on their skull.

[–]Polishrifle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if I buy this. I've never used HGH but I've lifted for a good 15 years of my life, done muay thai for 5 years, and eat a shit ton of food. Gained a lot of muscle as well. My facial features changed similarly to Rogan's. I was a rail in highschool and now I have a bit of a beer belly and a massive head.

[–]mattizie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clearing that up, I did search that originally, but it's hard to tell because he had hair before.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's just bigger. Bigger nose, bigger jaw, bigger fingers, bigger wrists. HGH adds new cells. Athletes who use HGH become more "orcish" or "brutish" not as "refined" as a non-HGH user. This is not always bad, if you have a beta skinny skeletal frame, HGH can make you bigger, your whole bone structure will increase in volume. However, if you already have good bone structure, best to stay off HGH and just take other roids to improve muscle that you have.

[–]mattizie 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Sounds like positives all round. Gotta get some of that stuff when funds permit!

But talking seriously: from the research I've done so far, I think it's better that I avoid steroids for the time being, but it's always good to know what's out there.

Cheers.

[–]LeavingHumanityBehin 1 points1 points [recovered]

Bigger heart and intestines is a negative witht hgh that kills you at 40.

[–]mattizie 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah, I figured there would be complications and side effects of that nature. I've been doing a fair bit of research regarding steroids, trt, etc. I want to be properly informed in the event that I decide to go down that path.

[–]wristcontrol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a long time, Dwyane Wade (legendary NBA player) was accused of doing HGH. If you look at pictures of him in 2006-2009 vs 2012-2014, specifically at his chin and cheeks, you'll see what other users are referring to.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And Joe isn't even Keto. He might eat in a keto fashion for 1/2 the day and most of the week. But he's not even in ketosis ever.

[–]acetylcysteine 4 points5 points  (7 children)

mega trt and hgh? doubt it. i'm sure he's on one or the other but i wouldn't call his dosing "mega."

[–]the_one_tony_stark 6 points7 points  (1 child)

He's on both per his rollingstone interview.

[–]acetylcysteine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ya trt gel (which isnt good for mega dosing)

[–]BPasFuck 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Compared to a blast and cruise bro? Yeah, not mega. But I guarantee you, he'll piss hotter than almost anyone in say... baseball.

Compared to a natty bro, he's on mega doses.

[–]acetylcysteine 0 points1 point  (3 children)

he said he uses trt gel in the past. no one on high doses would take that as you'd have to bathe in the stuff.

[–]BPasFuck 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Maybe I'm wrong. But, I've been a Rogan fan for a very long time. And the way he carries himself, he's the kind of animal that isn't going to waste his time with a less effective option.

Gel is the less effective option.

I'm almost certain I've heard him say on his podcast that he's in full time replacement therapy. It may be that he wasn't willing to admit it at one point, and hedged his bets by owning up to 'using some gel in the past.'

But I'd bet you $1000 that if you ransacked his shit, you'd find he's doing the injections.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'll be going full-time on that shit myself, without a second glance when the time comes.

Just pointing out that anyone thinking a little dieting and jujitsu will turn them into an animal like Rogan, may need to revise their expectations a little, and account for the performance enhancement that's happening.

[–]SpinPlates 8 points9 points  (1 child)

He is 100% on full time TRT. I've been listening to him religiously since 2011. He's mentioned his TRT a ton of times.

[–]goodbyehouse 68 points69 points  (26 children)

Kids? What the fuck are they? I'm 37 and happy childless. Seriously though I don't recommend any diet. Each to his own. Blood work is important because there can be hormone changes for some on Keto.

[–]BigGut 19 points20 points  (17 children)

Get a vasectomy if you haven’t already - best financial protection

[–]busshelterrevolution 16 points17 points  (13 children)

My doc told me he won't give a reference for a vasectomy to a 26 year old who hasn't had any kids yet. He only gives references to older men who have already had kids and don't want anymore. What gives

[–]BigGut 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Get another doc - you don’t stop producing sperm, you can still have it extracted - or reverse the procedure. It’s a bullshit tactic by most docs - but guess what, if you want kids you’ll have to fork over 5-10k for the procedure, which you should have anyways before having children. Just my personal opinion

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There used to be a doctor in Australia who specialized in vasectomy reversal back when the technique wasn't well developed. He would fly you and family to AUS, put you up in a nice hotel, provide a few days of tourism, perform the operation, and fly you home, all for less than it cost to get the operation in the US.

[–]mattizie 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Find another doctor.

Or lie and say you already have kids, just that it isn't "official". Or they're with an overseas partner or some other bullshit.

[–]Coil222 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Try another dr. I had mine done at 25-26, no children.

[–]FeelTheBernieSanderz 9 points10 points  (5 children)

are vasectomys permenant? I find it very sad that good men are cutting themselves off from the gene pool. I guess to each their own.

[–]Coil222 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yes but no guarantee. Also you’re looking at 5-10k to have it reversed, which I think is a great barrier to entry for breeding anyway. If you can’t swing that you’re prob not in a good position to start a family. But until then you won’t get trapped because of a broken condom or a forgotten pill.

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

Don't ever get a vasectomy planning to maybe have it reversed someday, because it is no guarantee. Be 100% sure you'll never want kids or wear a damn condom, it's not that bad.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's a good thing man, it means our potential dating pool widens everytime a sperg decides to limit his existence

[–]2CasaDeFranco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm in my 20's and have a higher profile which women assume means easy wealth (rich on paper but it's all tied to assets). I'm considering it but I want to actually have a large family one day, is it easily reversible?

I've had a few women drop the "I'm pregnant line" and it's a stress I'd rather not have. I use protection, try not fuck gold diggers and dispose of condoms appropriately so I haven't felt an urgent need despite the risk.

[–]Lib3rtarianSocialist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are not permanent. They are reversible.

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

I really don't get this argument... You can still freeze a sperm... I think it's not about the doc but laws. For example in my country u can't get vasectomy before turning 35 under any circumstances. Whatever, I'll go to Germany for vas.

[–]BostonPillParty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had one at 23. And I probably got it from one of the most renowned facilities in the entire United States (Men’s Health Boston).

Do your research, explore alternatives, talk to people that I’ve had vasectomies, and meet with multiple urologists. You’ll find one that is willing to listen to you and your rationale. It’s important you do the steps outlined at the beginning of this paragraph because communicating how much time and energy and effort you’ve put into this thought will help the doctor feel at ease about performing this procedure on you. Sucks you have to prove your sane but it’s how I did it and you can too.

Also, this goes without saying, but really think, like block offs few hours to think long and hard about this. Bring up pros and cons. Talk to yourself. Make sure this is for you. If you even remotely want to have kids, don’t do it. Reversal is an expensive, non-guaranteed bitch...my comprise during this deep meditation was that I accepted that I am 100% comfortable adopting orphan children in the future under the age of 4. Do what suites you in the long run my friend.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

and say goodbye to what mother nature gave you, just to have 5 minutes of pleasure :)

[–]the_one_tony_stark 12 points13 points  (4 children)

I haven't gone on keto yet, but I'm considering it. I would not take Rogan's advice on many things, but diet is definitely one of the things I would.

Thanks for the bloodwork tip, I didn't know.

[–]Earthworm_Djinn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I’ve tried it and been successful for stretches. If anything it helps you realize hidden sugars, bad carbs, gets you more used to keeping meals simple meat and veg. Worth a try for sure, the subreddit has great resources.

[–]goodbyehouse 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's a difficult diet to start but one you do it gets easy. I had some friends over and had a big blow out to get rid of all the shit in my house. I gave away a lot of my food. Lot's of tinned food and did a massive shop. The first couple of shops can be expensive. But it's cheap after that. You feel like shit for a couple of days. Look up advice online and consult your GP. Like any diet it won't be for everyone.

[–]notyourduck 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's a great diet but again it's just that a diet. Most people don't do keto for life. That's not me saying dont do it, but think about changes you can make with food that will be lifestyle changes. If you don't change your lifestyle you will end up in the same body.

I tried keto years ago and had really good success but I only stuck with it for a month. I tried again later but had a limit of 60g of carbs which is kinda too high to be keto. That was awhile ago though. I got married, fat, and divorced again so I started working on me again. I have no interest in going full keto, but I've lost 51lbs with cardio and a low carb lifestyle. My previous attempts at keto and low carb gave me insight into carbs effects on appetite, and energy level. I also can spot high carb food with easy now which makes it a lot easier to avoid. So I'm not interested in doing keto again, but I will continue to use the knowledge I gained going keto to build a lifestyle that is sustainable.

[–]goodbyehouse 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. That's all you can do, find what works for you and do it! It is weird walking around a supermarket when you start reading what is in food.

[–]GBP4tendies -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

being anti natalist is as blue pilled as it gets. you're ensuring you're a genetic dead end. might as well be a sodomite.

[–]goodbyehouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have made some large assumptions there. Do you often take your own inadequacies out on others?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Ouch, a kid shouldn't really be on any type of restrictive diet other than calorie restrictions if they are overweight. They still have a lot of growing and developing to do.

[–]DaftOdyssey 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The thing is Kato it's used on kids who experience epilepsy or are epileptic. The low amounts of carbs helps greatly

[–]randomusername7725 6 points7 points  (0 children)

uhhh eating a bunch of hershey's bars will do nothing positive for a kid. They most definitely do have to restrict their diet.

[–]IkWhatUDidLastSummer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

What youre saying makes no sense. Restricting macros, in this case carbohydrates, is literally restricting calories. You have to restrict the calories from somewhere. You wont grow less because you do that. The body will break proteins into carbs anyway if it needs it.

[–]scottbrio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Based on that theory all of the Inuit children from Alaska eating seal blubber would have just atrophied away and died. Not the case. The body actually (imo) does best when it's burning fat, not sugars.

[–]Jyontaitaa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Leto diet was originally developed for people with extreme seizures this includes kids.

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

or increased risk for heart disease doesn't seem worth the gamble

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

Keto isn't meant as a lifestyle more so a temp diet change

[–]IkWhatUDidLastSummer -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Dont talk about what you know nothing about. Link me a pub.med that shows any correlation between a low carb intake and "kidney stone". This is obviously based on some pseudo-science about high protein putting stress on kidneys, but its blown absurdly out of proportion as it doesnt pose a potential issue unless youre getting like 700-800g of proteins / day or some absurd amount. So dont worry about that.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 5 points6 points  (2 children)

[–]IkWhatUDidLastSummer -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Do you know what you just linked to? This suggests that it would be good for children to go on a ketogenic diet to combat epilepsy.

[–]throwawayPzaFm 5 points6 points  (0 children)

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/0883073809337162

ctrl-f "Adverse effects"

There's a ton of bad with the good when it comes for kids and keto.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (9 children)

Any book/material/plan you read on keto diet ? Thinking about starting that.

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

Bacon, eggs, low carb sausages, and keto coleslaw. One meal a day.

You’ll lose weight and forget the sensation of hunger.

[–]Trowawayantifap28 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What about me. I am 1.90 at 77kg. If i dont get like 4000 calories a day i start to loose everything, starting with muscle mass.

[–]saucierlol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im same 182 68kg i have to eat insane amounts of food to gain weight and my stomach is just to small. Also if I force myself to eat a lot im so exhausted from digesting that i cant move my ass for shit

[–]Greek-God-Brody 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Look up JRE podcasts episodes with Robb Wolf, Mark Sisson, Rhonda Patrick, Dominic D'Agostino.

[–]goodbyehouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I started online. Diet doctor I think the website was called. It's pretty easy once you get into it. Just make sure you chat to your GP too.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 7 points8 points  (1 child)

You should clean your room too, while you're at it.

[–]goodbyehouse 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I cleaned my house today! Started in the kitchen and finished in the garage. Looks good.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I lost 20kg(44lbs)

What weight did you start at and what height? People always leave this out.

[–]goodbyehouse 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Sorry I'm six foot and was 110kg (220lbs?). I have a big frame though so BMI is kind of lost on me. I was 25% body fat I haven't tested my current body weight but I would estimate around 15%. The thing is it seems easy right now and not out of the question to get to around 10%. I haven't been that fit since my mid 20s.

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

Cool... good stuff, brother. Keep it up.

[–]chaseexcellence 2 points3 points  (0 children)

oticed how they beat around the bush for 20 minutes about the topic, then that word was mentioned. He acknowledged it, didn't argue the idea of it, and they moved on. He tries very hard to make his guests controversial while toeing a neutral line so he can avoid the kind of labelling that JP gets. I get the feeling that he's much more RP than he'll admit.

Good job buddy. Keep up the good work. I am proud of you.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (49 children)

Carbohydrates are necessary for anaerobic (weightlifting) performance as well as sustaining higher volumes of exercise.

Consider transitioning to a low carb diet once you reach your weight loss goals and once your diet adherence/control is where you want it to be. While carbohydrates added to the diet do make hunger and appetite more difficult to manage, they will improve muscle and strength development more than a ketogenic diet could.

[–]raoulduke415 5 points6 points  (1 child)

You can also do targeted ketosis, where you essentially carb load 30 minutes before you workout, and that raises your blood sugar levels enough to get a workout, and burn all the carbs off without going out of ketosis.

[–]goodbyehouse 16 points17 points  (4 children)

Hey each to their own. I don't lift weights for gains I am already naturally muscular. This is less of a weight lose goal and maintaining muscle while dropping my fat percentage. I have more energy now in ketosis than ever before. My blood work is great. It works for me.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

If you feel great on it then stick with it my dude, it being "subpar" does not at all mean you wont get results on it, just potentially slower results (which in your case it sounds like that really doesnt matter). The best diet and routine is always the one you can stick to and enjoy.

[–]goodbyehouse 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. In saying that you do have some valid points. I'm still getting a lot of fibrous carbs in my diet and will eventually experiment with carb windows after a workout.

[–]hot_rats_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969192/

This study just came out earlier this year challenging some of these assumptions.

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

Participants in the CTL group were instructed to maintain their normal dietary habits throughout the study. Only KD subjects were asked to complete three-day food logs (two weekdays and one weekend day) to return within one week of T1 and T3 testing.

As noted previously, only the KD participants completed food logs. Of the seven KD participants, only four returned the T3 food logs. Notably, self-reported carbohydrate consumption decreased (T1 = 164 ± 32 g/d, T3 = 15 ± 3 g/d, p = 0.014) and total calorie consumption decreased (T1 = 2499 ± 350 kcal/d, T3 = 1948 ± 293 kcal/d, p = 0.032). While self-reported dietary fat values were greater (T1 = 154 ± 40 g/d, T3 = 170 ± 25 g/d, p = 0.576) and protein values were lower (T1 = 114 ± 10 g/d, T3 = 89 ± 20 kcal/d, p = 0.112), there were no significant differences between pre- and post-values. Additionally, while three participants failed to return post-study food logs, weeks 1–12 average blood ketone levels for these participants were 0.87, 0.95, and 1.43 μM, suggesting that they complied with the KD guidelines throughout the study.

Regarding CrossFit workouts completed over the intervention, the KD group completed an average of 27 ± 3 workouts, whereas the CTL group completed an average of 20 ± 5 workouts (p = 0.245 between conditions).

Completely different and untracked calorie/macro intakes as well as completely different and untracked workouts.

This is a poor study IMO, and I wouldnt rely on any conclusions it came to.

[–]Dabunghole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah he’ll be fine for his goals. If you were to add any food in while training it would be Intra-mD or another intro-carb source for training.

[–]Greek-God-Brody 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what TKD and CKD are for.

[–]Magnum256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aren't there bodybuilders and marathon runners that are on strict no-carb/keto diets?

Can't remember the guys name, think it was someone on another Joe Rogan podcast saying he does those insane 100 mile marathons on a ketogenic diet.

[–]IkWhatUDidLastSummer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, Carbohydrates are much more important for aerobic sports than weight lifting (anaerobic) sports. Thats why you see professional cycle riders consume white pasta, gel bars, high-carb bars etc. The carbs you get from a low carb diet is more than enough, if the body needs carbs it can break proteins into carbs, the body is smart like that if it needs the energy.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage -4 points-3 points  (18 children)

Low carb diets provide a sufficient amount of carbs for weight lifting. Mostly, the only time a higher amount of carbs is important is when going into competitions such as fighting, lifting, or other sports. Even then, a ketogenic diet is fine until the days leading up to the event.

Keto doesn't mean no carbs, it is just another low carb diet with intermittent fasting involved.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Keto doesn't mean no carbs, it is just another low carb diet with intermittent fasting involved.

You have no idea what you are talking about and every single thing in your comment is wrong. Ketosis is achieved with extremely low to no carbs, traditionally under 35g per day. Intermittent fasting is not at all involved in a ketogenic diet they are entirely separate (but can be combined) nutritional strategies.

Low carb diets provide a sufficient amount of carbs for weight lifting

This is entirely dependent on the total volume/frequency/intensity of your weightlifting sessions and cannot at all be said as a blanket statement.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Listen, I didn't approach your comment saying, "You have no idea what you're talking about and every single thing in your comment is wrong." Even though I disagreed with it mostly. I'm not going to discuss something with someone looking to argue, especially when they approach it in a directly condescending manner. You're not looking to have a discussion, you're looking to be right.

You can look up the scientific articles and educate yourself or keep believing your bullshit. I was wrong about the intermittent fasting being a direct part of it, I'll rephrase that to, "Most people following a ketogenic diet combine it with intermittent fasting due to the autophagy effects amongst other benefits."

You gotta have a baseline of respect with people if you want to have a discussion dude, when you just fly off the handle with unwarranted disrespect it's off-putting and makes you look like a jackass. For most people on the receiving end it immediately shuts their ears off to what you have to say.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

You gotta have a baseline of respect with people if you want to have a discussion dude, when you just fly off the handle with unwarranted disrespect it's off-putting and makes you look like a jackass. For most people on the receiving end it immediately shuts their ears off to what you have to say.

All true, I'll take the hit on this one I do type pretty bluntly.

You can look up the scientific articles and educate yourself or keep believing your bullshit

Copied and pasted from another comment of mine in this thread.

Here is a link I love to share:

https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/

and a table from that link that sums up ketogenic vs. standard diet style:

https://sci-fit.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Summary-Table.png

Good for diet adherence. Bad for everything else. Keto is a fucking awesome choice for sedentary fat people, and is a subpar choice for everyone else.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you owning up to that and your response, seriously..

The research you posted seemed overall inconclusive in the majority of areas and still needing research, I'm not at all dogging it or disagreeing, I just don't feel convinced that because anaerobic performance is slightly lowered that a ketogenic diet is bad for weight lifting. I said originally that a ketogenic diet provides what is necessary for building muscle, but I will add that I do agree that it is at a reduced speed compared to having a higher carb intake. As a matter of fact, if you are purely trying to build muscle it is considered better to start the keto once you have obtained the muscle as it can help maintain the lean muscle mass while removing fat.

I guess my question is, why do people still make gains when doing the ketogenic diet? I'm not talking random people, I'm talking about powerlifters and athletes. From my understanding based on what I have read, your body adjusts to having low carbs and begins using fat and protein for the same functions. You just have to have sufficient intake of fats and proteins.

I absolutely agree that carbohydrates are the fastest and most efficient source of energy for lifting, but I've noticed certain physiques are typically attained when having low carb diets. Also, I originally said that before performances, athletes typically do intake carbs because of them being the best for performance, I do not disagree with you on that, I just disagree that they are necessary in excess of what is considered 'low carb' to obtain muscle mass. It is just at a slower rate AFAIK.

Hope I got my point across better, as I can now see I left a lot of gaps to be filled in on my original response to your comment.

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

You better check your cholesterol level religiously my friend.

[–]goodbyehouse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's good. I have another blood test coming up this week but the last one came up better than average.

[–]Vakleri 211 points212 points  (37 children)

He also strongly advocates against red pill principals preferring monogamy and less meaningless sexual encounters. Everything I've seen of Peterson on suggests that yes he understands red pill theory but he doesn't necessarily agree that it is a good idea.

[–]womans_algorithm 294 points295 points  (16 children)

"Just bang chicks all day" is the most heard opinion on TRP because most people on TRP are in that phase where they want that. But it's not the only RP advice to follow.

[–]Vakleri 75 points76 points  (4 children)

For sure, but reading through most pinned posts monogamy is a no no. He also believes in finding your other half and intertwining your lives together and working with each other to have a happy life. Red Pill is more about working on yourself and having relationships at a distance.

Personally I think this subreddit is too full of bitter divorced people that an honest discussion about monogamy is ultimately useless.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (2 children)

that put the nail on the fucking head, too many divorced dudes who married some psycho cunt who stole their money/life/friends and now they blame it on the females hah.

clearly men have lives need to be taking care of and once they do, they get the poontang

[–]Polishrifle 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That's originally what this sub was about and where most of the hate came from. There are no unicorns, this is true, but that is not to say that you cannot find someone that could provide value to your life. Vetting someone like that has to be vigorous though; That's definitely part of the conclusion I've come to from TRP.

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

exactly, there is no unicorn but in reality you can piece yourself together so you don't get shafted or taken advantage of as clearly there are women out there who aim to get pregnant with some dude and then fuck some other alpha once she's had that kid( and therefore leave billy beta with all the bills)

I think vetting is possible but at the same time you can't confirm everything about a chick and there's nothing stopping hypergamy especially when it's natural, it's only fair right?

[–]womans_algorithm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

more about working on yourself and having relationships at a distance.

So you essentially have a monogamous FWB, you live your life, she lives hers. You can have a closer relationship than that.

[–]iamnotfromtexas90 1 points1 points [recovered]

Thank you. I get it.

But those guys need to realize there is nothing as fulfilling than getting married to a great girl who wants to be a traditional great housemom, raising a family,and then growing a legacy with grandchildren.

Few great men with grandchildren think on their death bed, I wish I didn't have any kids and just fucked thots all day.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that option, but successfully pulling off a family is the greatest way to 'win' at life.

[–]djaffar09 13 points14 points  (1 child)

You have written a great fantasy.. I can't deferentiate between redpill and blue pill anymore

[–]jm51 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Few great men with grandchildren think on their death bed, I wish I didn't have any kids and just fucked thots all day.

Why be great? Every man with grandchildren thinks like this.

Listen to this all of you clever as fuck young dudes that got snipped without saving swimmers. I am going to be an ancestor and you are not. You might be the most important leaf on the tree right now but come autumn, you will be gone. As will I. Come spring, a part of me comes back to life but you will still be ever so dead.

You haven't won, you are a Darwin suicide.

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You haven't won, you are a Darwin suicide.

That's not even the game, but OK brother; you do you.

My genes live on in my niece and nephew, and my ideas live on in my writings and all those I influence. I'm glad of my childless life and will go to a happy grave with no regrets.

[–]UPURS145 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yes it isn't the only RP advice to follow and those are the parts I follow. I went through that phase of wanting to fuck every girl I saw and honestly I can say that I could still do that if I wanted to. I have the confidence and ability to do that unlike before where I was just a pussy when it came to women. However I have grown past the phase of wanting to plate women and enjoy being with one person who loves me for who I am. I think that mentality came from my father who always looked down on me for not being the "player" that he was when he was younger. I honestly think that I was coming at that ideal from a weak place. I have grown from that view and am a much confident and content individual.

[–]lastdumra 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think this idea that wanting to fuck a lot of women comes from a place of weakness is wrong.

I believe every man has to go through that phase successfully to become a confident man. That does not mean you have to want to do it all your life, but the people who get bored of that lifestyle don't value enough what those experiences gave them.

Human development is full of these cases. For example, there are a lot of things that you need to do as a teenager that you don't want to repeat as an adult, yet you are happy you did back then.

There is no need to look down on that lifestyle, even if you don't want to practice it anymore. You enjoyed it and it was useful for your development. It might have come from ignorance and immaturity, but that's how you grow, by experiencing shit, not by convincing you don't need experiences to mature.

[–]UPURS145 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't look down on that lifestyle at all. Its people's choice at the end of the day, but for me it was not something good for myself. For others that's their decision and I respect how they want to live if that's how they find contentment.

[–]666mafioso 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Honestly I went through that phase and during that said phase I fully bought into that and saw it as something that would satisfy me throughout the rest of my life (as with all phases). But it didn’t satisfy. It was almost the carrot on the stick and it was definitely beneficial to get my foot through the door and kicking down my naiveties. But after awhile... it just becomes the same old no matter how different the women was. Like RP teaches AWALT. So no matter what different costume this woman came in she was in fact just fulfilling her role as another woman in my life. I moved onto the phase of self-imposed asceticism and discipline and I haven’t looked back since. I still enjoy flings from time to time and I have a LTR who I am not ashamed to say I truly love but nothing beats the grounded feeling of pushing yourself to limits in fields of venture beyond what I thought was possible before. It’s like a battle I fight every day and ending in my bed a winner non dependent of any situation or circumstance outside of my control. Even if I had the shittiest of days as long as I didn’t succumb to self-victimization and giving into laziness I feel like the master of my universe.

[–]womans_algorithm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good written comment and I agree with you 100 percent. But know that that phase made you who you are now. Without that phase, you could still be chasing oneitis or doing other beta shit.

[–]the-dan-man 87 points88 points  (0 children)

He seems happily married, so it is understandable that he is against a lot of meaningless sexual encounters. The 'red pill theory' you refer to isnt exclusively for banging as many girls as possible.

It can mean using what you know about women to make a marriage work. Rollo Tomassi, arguably the godfather of the Red Pill, is married also.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Because it's not helpful long term.

It's essentially bread and circuses. "Enjoy the decline" is a take what you can get mentality.

[–]NormalAndy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My way to break through that particular thinking was to read Julius Evola ‘Ride the Tiger’- suggested on this sub.

It’s a bit of a head full but the guy really draws together a lot of thinking into a clearer way forward.

Edit- ride

[–]MyNameIsSaifa 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Of course he's against it, it's essentially cheating the system. It's not a good long-term solution as far as society goes.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 52 points53 points  (1 child)

I wouldn’t say enforced monogamy is against red pill. It’s necessary for civilization. If women are conditioned strongly enough, the odds of cheating go way down. But all civs need some form of sexuality management to grow and thrive. Ours is totally fucked. So I’d say the larger red pill is realizing what is pro civ vs anti civ.

[–]jm51 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t say enforced monogamy is against red pill. It’s necessary for civilizationempire building.

FTFY.

A community based on life long monogamy will piss all over a polygamous society. Empires get built. Men bring home the spoils of war, the women get to wear bling and their men get laid.

Nobody gets close to fucking over a society based on fraternal polyamory. How could they? Their soldiers can die knowing that their wives are not widows and that their children are not fatherless. Great for survival but shit for doing more than survive.

We are now in a society based on serial monogamy and polygamy can torch that. It's not just men that 'it's your turn' applies to. Give the women enough turns and at some point the polygamists have some attraction. 'Help me' shouts Jane as the Neanderthal carries her off. 'Not my circus' replies Tarzan.

[–]AlexDr0ps 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Its refreshing though. I agree with most of TRP but believe all ideologies can be dangerous. Peterson seems to consider a lot of viewpoints and develop his own opinions

[–]magnificent18 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Its because of the children he doesn't like it.

In polygamous society the one who is affected are the children.

It's funny how nature fucked up. The whole goal of hypergamy is to produce the potential of successful humans yet the environment also plays a huge part in children development, which gets fucked up in a polygamous society.

Having 1 dad and mom is optimal for the child to be successful which is why monogamy was established thousands of years ago into culture/society and has worked. Having a single mother raise a child, especially male can result in a feminine man.

However!!!!! The biological inclinations have not died away and women are internally batting with themselves to whether they should follow society vs being hypergamy. Hence AF/BB. Why it's common for a women to cheat with a higher status guy.

And then you have the women who don't care about what people think about them (Amber rose, Blac Chyna) are the ones who fuck around and do things considered "bad" in society, when in reality they are acting normal.

They see a guy on the rise and they are attracted to him and bounce around.

[–]RaughKee 12 points13 points  (3 children)

In a tribal setting long term monogamy wasn't as necessary because the tribe was the family and children were the future of the tribe. Monogamy was a later adaptation to agriculture and land ownership where paternity became more of an issue due to inheritance. It looks very much like we are moving to a new, yet to be defined paradigm where monogamy is most definitely broken, the government and courts have stepped in to enforce financial support but no one has figured out how to give children the emotional and developmental support that a nuclear family or tribal family could provide.

[–]magnificent18 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting!

So is Peterson right or wrong about polygamous being bad for children? I wonder if they did tests to prove this.

Going away from only children, it's still bad for dudes who couldn't get some and resulted in violence within society.

Think to yourself: Now I have to take care of some dudes kid, that doesn't even look like and may not respect me when he grows up, fuck that. My individualism / pride is what causes me to say fuck that shit. I'd rather get a woman on my own and have my own kid. Yeah humans are sociable and work together but individualistic when it comes to sexual competition. Back in the day when there were no consequences, shit I'd start doing some evil things to get what I want (aka violent societies) unless I go monk.

Going back: We all know today just because a girl picks that guy he isn't truly alpha. Just desirable to her. I know so many dudes today that have girlfriends but are skinny af. Most of them are just facially attractive but that's it.

Any built dude could physically take any of these guys down, back in the day.

So is it some subconscious biological inclination that's saying "mate with him" even though he isn't true alpha, is it society setting standards or is the environment of social media inflating the ego of a woman thinking she can always do better?

You can be smart, buff, confident, got game, but average looking and still be undesirable over a dude with really good looks.

The frail good looking guy can easily get the initial attraction going to get within a relationship. People project on good looking people which makes them desirable. And in today's society it's all about first glance.

Only places where personality shine are in group settings, schools, or places where one continuously sees the person over and over. Very limited. Essentially clubs are a no go to find someone if you are average looking.

[–]OceanPoultry 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You read Sex at Dawn by Chris Ryan?

[–]RaughKee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's where some of my thinking on this was formed. If you look objectively at our behavior as a species, we are not monogamous biologically and can only be monogamous if we use our higher mind to override our more primal instincts. This made sense in our more natural environment, the advent of technology has changed our environment and we have to create the appropriate social structures to be congruent with our new reality.

[–]Joey_Lopez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jordan Peterson is really just voicing common sense. It sounds radical to some because they been brainwashed with feminist bullshit.

[–]CopeNrope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without acting on it. He is obviously redpilled, but being redpilled doesn't necessarily mean fucking and dominating everything. He seeks truth.

[–]SilenceMyDissentPlz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only reason "bang as many chicks" is advocated here ip because that's the only winning move left in a hyper feminized gynocentric world. A culture where monogamy is enforced or rather valued, it would overall be better for men because then it won't just be the top 20% getting any.

[–]IveRedditAllNight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There comes a point in life that that becomes tiring. You need to be a alpha male to snatch and bag the Alfa female. She would bend over backwards and die for you..... If you are the proper Alfa me.

[–]didiflex 79 points80 points  (33 children)

What is solution? "enforced monogamy" or free market where alphas fux, beta bux

Right now we have hybrid system where betas buck women(IF they are lucky) that alphas used to fuck in their prime

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (3 children)

My god it was good to see JP have to admit that marriage is a fucked up deal for modern man, he couldn't describe marriage for men without using the word 'sacrifice'.

[–]p3n1x 20 points21 points  (0 children)

As he said at the beginning of the podcast, it is another system that has value and that system can/has become corrupt. People make money from manipulating the outcomes of monogamy. Lawyers, Government, Marketing, Special Interests groups and so on.

[–]killabeesindafront 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I liked how Rogan used his equality of outcome argument against him

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I think it also compounds with just the sheer magnitude of population and vast capability to communicate and recognize other's positions, social media. If its 2 guys in a tribe of 10 seeding all the women its a lot more stable than 5-20% of the ~2Billion with the relative same access to technology. The former becomes a flashing neon sign to the incel of their ineptness.

[–]johnyann 5 points6 points  (3 children)

We had no-sex until marriage and then marriage.

That worked for a bit.

[–]RaughKee 3 points4 points  (2 children)

There was plenty of sex before marriage, it was just frowned upon and kept secret.

[–]johnyann 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It wasn’t even close to how it was today. Also, you didn’t have hormonal birth control, which created a massive potential consequence every time people had sex.

[–]RaughKee 5 points6 points  (0 children)

True and the societal shaming for premarital sex was massive, I'm just saying it didn't stop people and there were plenty of shotgun weddings or girls going to different cities to "live with their aunt."

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 21 points22 points  (19 children)

Monogamy will never be enforced again (unless Islam in its current form takes over before it's feminized as well), so no need to even think about whether it's a solution or not. The sexual marketplace is now fully deregulated - act accordingly.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage 58 points59 points  (7 children)

If people listened to the podcast, enforced monogamy as referred by JP is not the government forcing marriages. It is enforcing the idea and values of monogamous relationships in society. At least that is what I understood it as, I apologize if I misinterpreted it.

[–]OneCovah 11 points12 points  (5 children)

"the government forcing marriages" is reality. With tax law and common property law, including common law marriage in some states, government encourages if not demands marriage. We take it for granted, and living as an unmarried couple is frowned upon.

The converse is government supplied consorts. Dan Savage in the Maher interview mentioned Handmaiden's Tale, a fictional reversal of reality. Incels might demand government give them women in the same way women demand government give them men.

Gender/sexual equality indeed. Women define equality as themselves having all the power, being "more equal" in the Orwellian sense.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage 12 points13 points  (4 children)

I agree, the more I think about it, the only way to enforce monogamy through societal standards is the same way that having a job is enforced. You're considered lazy if you don't have one and it is overall detrimental to the individual. I wish I understood more what JP was talking about with this point, because I don't necessarily agree with it, I just relate to the idea of wanting a society that isn't so promiscuous, but maybe that's a BP desire.

It's weird, I used to hate the idea of any girl I wanted to date already having been threw a slew of dicks, but at that time I knew if I were in that position I would do the same or if I could achieve women consistently at the time I would do the same as a man.

Where do you find 'good girls'. I know that is worthy of it's own post in and of itself, but I used to always go to bars and party places and realized all of the women were there for the same reason I was - to get laid - except they were actually successful.. Very successful.

I see girls in my classes that I am attracted to, or girls in hobby-related activities, but I either feel uncomfortable approaching because it feels the same as doing so in a work environment, or I come to find out that they are the party girls I was referencing above.

Do I just learn to deal with it? Or do I push past the uncomfortableness and go for it anyways?

[–]ificouldificould 1 points1 points [recovered]

Dude, it's not about acceptance it's about understanding. These girls aren't out there acting like hoes to slight men, they are out there because they have a biological imperative , same as why you go out to meet girls.

Best advice is to go after relatively young women (20s) and accept that they probably did a dick or two. The real test isn't getting a nice piece, it's keeping it and being bad enough to make her continuously work for it. Get you some, so long as she ain't pregnant or sick and make it yours.

[–]PrettyBelowAverage 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Appreciate this brotha, was some motivation I needed.

[–]ShuWasHere 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well JP's "enforced monogamy" ideas are usually targeted against polygamy or open relationships and not marriage itself. Societies where monogamy is the norm have been more successful overall.

[–]Senior ContributorMentORPHEUS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Societies where monogamy is the norm have been more successful overall.

Are you 100% convinced monogamy as norm is the controlling variable here? Consider the effect of "the Protestant ethic" wherein the same religion that insists on monogamy also teaches that God's judgement of them is unknowable. This led to the emergent belief that material success was a sign or hint of God's approval, motivating them to devote much of their energy to work, and to reinvest the proceeds in their enterprise. Thus you wind up with a successful society that values monogamy, but it's not successful because of the monogamy part.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not that different. If the American people were to magically go back to patriarchal values, shaming the unmarried mother, then they will elect representatives who will set the morals in stone in the form of law, starting with getting rid of no-fault divorce. But first, morals of a people don't roll back (zeitgeist) and even if it were to happen (say a country becoming predominantly muslim, as European countries will soon do), it will still be slowly undermined by a feminine imperative trying to impose hypergamy.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I'm not convinced it will never be enforced again; cultures that have it have more children and better children. It's unlikely that in the long run those cultures won't be the ones that gain power in the future. Now whether that's islam, a revived christianity or something else is anyone's guess, but it'll likely be a culture with enforced monogamy.

[–]party_dragon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

However, as cultures progress technologically and in standard of living, they have less children. Even in Israel! I don’t think a billion savages can overpower a few millions of highly advanced peoples... and the gap would only grow bigger over time (with technology developing even faster than population growth).

[–]the_one_tony_stark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would be accurate if countries were barriers of separation between cultures, but as national borders aren't protected in most cases, those billion savages erode democracies.

[–]Luckylancer96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Freedom is way too important in west. But system works fine, people do what their instincts say with %100 freedom. Therefore enforcing anything is hard.

[–]6-_-j -1 points0 points  (4 children)

You don't know what enforced monogamy means.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You don't know how to converse on the internet. You gotta say I'm wrong AND explain me why you think so.

[–]6-_-j 0 points1 point  (2 children)

ll you need to do is read about it, you don't need me for that.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're the laziest troll I have yet encountered.

[–]6-_-j 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a troll, you don't know what enforced monogamy is, you should do something about it. Then you can come back here and apologize to me, if you have any character that is.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What is solution? "enforced monogamy"

We already had that and it lead us to what we have now. Any time you force someone to do something he/she doesn't want to do, you create a resentment and frustration, which in turn leads to making emotional decisions based on "ill do whatever not to do that again".

Do remember that every time you force a woman to marry, you also fore the guy to marry her. You can't force ONLY women to marry in that system.

[–]Joey_Lopez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's a solution to the clueless fucks to live in blue pill bliss.

[–]Joey_Lopez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No we increasingly have a system where females are free to slut it up with alphas and then have a government enforced beta bux.

[–]FlamingAmmosexual 83 points84 points  (15 children)

I listened to this yesterday and wish they would have gone more into it. It seems when Peterson brought up hypergamy Joe quickly changed the subject saying, "these are difficult things to talk about." Yeah and they need to be talked about.

I get what Peterson is saying but he didn't go far enough. He said he didn't want laws or government enforcement for monogamy. He mentioned his son and said if he cheated or left his wife he'd be disappointed and not want that. He'd encourage against that behavior and thinks society should as well. That's great in clearing that up. It's aimed at the wrong gender.

Women are the ones that divorce more. Women cheat as much, if not more depending on which study you read. Women are the ones getting knocked up by the "bad boy" and then using lower market men afterwards as an ATM. They clearly talked about it on the podcast but they danced around the subject as if they were talking about holocaust denial. Women are the ones with the upper hand in this power dynamic. Nobody wants to discuss it as they're too afraid.

Hell OKCupid confirmed it but deleted the study.

Peterson also mentioned hierarchies and we can't let them get unstable. We're there. The dominance hierarchy in marriage is given to the women. The system is correcting itself but feminism and society is trying to keep it to where men are at the bottom because of some conceived oppression.

Here's a great example. MGTOW, incels, and such are avoiding women or getting sexbots. That's the system correcting women going towards a small group of men. Problem? Society is trying to shame and even pass laws to keep these men from doing that. Why? Keep them at the bottom of the hierarchy they are trying to create.

Joe did have a point. Jeff Bezos is good at climbing the hierarchy. He worked hard and has made it to the top. It's also insanely richer than 99.999% of the planet. If we're going to leave that hierarchy alone but meddle with the sexual hierarchy isn't that hypocrisy?

I don't buy Peterson's premise that a small group of men, like those in the manosphere, working hard and having a lot of sexual partners is bad for children. That's not on the men. That's on the women and has been since the sexual revolution.

It's not men or the children's fault if their mom wants to slut around. Women have been encouraged to do this and some men have figured out if they put in the work they can be in be in the top 20% of males these women go after. The MGTOW, incels, and others that have all spawned out of this is like what we see with Occupy Wallstreet and capitalist systems. Some are fair criticisms and some are just crazy.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 41 points42 points  (10 children)

I don't buy Peterson's premise that a small group of men, like those in the manosphere, working hard and having a lot of sexual partners is bad for children. That's not on the men. That's on the women and has been since the sexual revolution.

Let's look at this argument.

When men work hard and have a lot of sexual partners:

  • 1. It's bad for the children.

I think this one goes without saying. Energy is a finite resource and energy spent fucking other women is energy not spent on either gaining resources or raising the children. By every metric and study I've seen, children that are raised by a heterosexual two parent household outcompete practically every other child.

  • 2. Men are to blame for the fact that they choose to do this

I think the process of assigning blame is a low-grade way of looking at it. I think the men that are choosing less good outcomes for their children are responsible for the outcomes of their children. I think cultures where a lot of men make this choice are less likely to be dominant cultures in the future. This means that their kids are more likely to be subservient towards other more dominant cultures in the future. So, it seems to me, yes men that engage in this are responsible for this. I prefer the word responsibility over blame, because I do think people have the freedom to choose this.

  • 3. Women instead should be blamed since the sexual revolution

Again, I'm not fond of saying who should be blamed. The majority of the women at the time resisted both the birth control pill, feminism and the sexual revolution. Only through making birth control free and free of stigma, pumping culture full of stories about it and educating 30 or so lifelong gender activists per university across the west has the culture shifted to where we currently are. That's not to let women of the hook about mindlessly defending the current state of affairs. But if you look into it, it wasn't women who started this shit; the groups can be closer defined than that.

Are women to blame for lesser outcomes for children? Absolutely. The divorce rate, most of the time initiated by women, which has terrible outcomes for children. The de-stigmatization of single mothers is another, who's children have the worst outcome of any demographic. But I don't think women are to blame singularily for this; men too have stood by and watched this change of culture.

I applaud people judging the current landscape accurately and doing the best they can inside it. The clown world is crazy enough currently that I can't fault either men or women fully for being hedonistic about it. But hedonism is part of the demise of the culture you're part of and it's forfeiting the future of your children. If you accept that, fine. But don't pretend it isn't bad for the children and that both men and women have responsibility for that situation (and as women don't take responsibility usually it'll be up to men to fix it and putting women in their proper place would be part of it).

[–]Lammy8 7 points8 points  (9 children)

That's too simplistic and only really indulges men whom have children. Those who don't have children bare little to no effect on children in general (the little being the mother's that get fucked, potentially), I dislike the broad phrasing used as it's a real stretch to say the sexual nature of a minority of men absolutely corrupts the upbringing of all children.

[–]Magnum256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think when Peterson says "it's bad for children" he might also mean that it's bad for the children who don't exist yet (or may never exist) due to the nature of a polygamous society. Basically if you want to look at sexual partners being divided roughly by Praeto distribution where 20% of men are having sex with 80% of women then it's likely a large percentage of those 80% of women wouldn't want to have a child with a man who's not exclusive to her, as well as the man not wanting to have a child (and all the responsibility/cost that entails) with a woman he's not fully committed to. There's no denying birth rates are on a decline in North America, Western Europe, Australia, etc. and I have to assume that this is at least partly due to the more casual view we have on sex and broad hedonistic tendencies.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 0 points1 point  (7 children)

It's not good for a people to be a minority. Therefor, the more people that choose not to have children of a culture, it's bad for the children. They'll be a minority; they'll be marginalized. They'll have fewer people like them.

[–]Lammy8 2 points3 points  (6 children)

That doesn't make an my any sense at all. There's no causal effect between men who fuck a lot of women and children they've literally nothing to do with whatsoever. Where's the connection? Nature won't allow for a majority of non reproducers.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 6 points7 points  (5 children)

It's a couple of things that are connected.

  • 1. Women who have had more sexual partners are more likely to divorce

The more sexual partners women have had, the less they have the ability to pair bond (more likely to divorce).

http://archive.is/uzsQg

  • 2. Divorce is bad for children

I think it goes without saying at this point, but let me know if you need evidence for this.

  • 3. The more high value men that decide not to have children, the fewer children there will be

Women who miss the boat go on to become old "where have all the good men gone" cat ladies.

Nature won't allow for a majority of non reproducers.

That's exactly what I'm saying, whatever culture (and I use culture somewhat interchangably with ethnicity here as they're deeply connected) has a low fertility rate is a culture that will cease to be. As you said; nature won't allow for a majority of non-producers.

[–]Lammy8 1 point2 points  (4 children)

1) This doesn't equate to men being sluts. This is an issue of women being sluts, no?

2) Evidence points that way, still not the exact fault of male sluts

3) Surely the fact that most children are born to those of lower intelligence/physical prowess negates your point here? The quality of human is lower (alpha traits) but the number absolutely isn't. This I can accept as being bad for society rather than just bad for children, though in modern western society there's no issue with women getting pregnant from an alpha and staying a single parent/settling with another.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You have to understand that I'm speaking of this of the perspective of how it affects an entire culture/society.

  • 1. If men in large numbers choose to do the things that make them attractive to women and then proceed to have lots of casual sex with women, then women will have had more sexual partners before they settle down. They'll be more likely to divorce.

Does that mean that women are also choosing to have more casual sex? Of course. Are they responsible for that as well? Of course. But I was examining the part that men had control over. If men didn't, or if men strongly enforced a culture where monogamy is the norm, then the outcomes for children would be better (note: don't do this alone; then you're the one sucker who loses.)

  • 2. When men choose to have more casual sex, then women have more sexual partners before divorce and then there's more divorce and therefor it's worse for children. I'm not saying don't do this, but a culture must accept the consequences of their actions; if they don't they'll only blindside themselves to a choice they're making.
  • 3. I didn't really just mean fewer children as an absolute number, I also meant fewer children compared to cultures/races that have more children.

Society is not a singular thing; there are in every western nation now multiple different types of society competing for dominance, so it's not about what's bad for society as a whole, but for any of the discrete mini-societies. The strongest one will persevere and decide the political future in the end.

So when any of these cultures have traits that are worse for their children, they're a competitive disadvantage.

[–]Lammy8 1 point2 points  (2 children)

1 and 2) That's supposition not actuality, the scale at which that happens has grown though and less people are even bothering with marriage in the first place. Marriage being necessary for successful child raising, is that true? I wouldn't say so, I'd say partnership gives a greater chance, even if that means the parents aren't together. An absent parent altogether is the hindrance.

That's true, though this issue is meant to be covering society as a whole. I imagine there are discrepancies when you start filtering by race, social status, financial status etc. From the top of my head I can think of Judaism promoting the promiscuity of men and the fact that religion has been prominent for millennia. That's probably due to the enforcement/encouragement of making a marriage work with a lot of family closeness.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 2 points3 points  (1 child)

1 and 2) That's supposition not actuality, the scale at which that happens has grown though and less people are even bothering with marriage in the first place. Marriage being necessary for successful child raising, is that true? I wouldn't say so, I'd say partnership gives a greater chance, even if that means the parents aren't together. An absent parent altogether is the hindrance.

The evidence does not support this claim. One of the reasons is that living together is much cheaper and that the extra resources tend to be good for development of children (extra time, extra attention, better tools, more chance for extra activities or homework help). Besides, this is just the explanation of why it might give better results, it's supported the studies I've read on this subject, where married parents that aren't in love have better life outcomes for children than separated parents that report having good cooperation (for as much as you can trust self-reporting).

I imagine there are discrepancies when you start filtering by race, social status, financial status

I agree.

From the top of my head I can think of Judaism promoting the promiscuity of men and the fact that religion has been prominent for millennia

Do they? I thought judaism promoted anti casual sex habits. Hole in the blanket and all that, male circumcision. Various anti-casual sex measures. Feel free to correct me. I know a lot about male circumcision, but only very little about judaism.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Men wouldn't cheat if women didn't respond positively to it.

[–]Luckyluke23 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nobody wants to discuss it as they're too afraid.

yeah, because the blue-haired land wales will come screeching like a bunch of banshees at them. who really wants that

[–]Meisner1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair, my father's the one that cheated my mother. But I'm in a different country.

[–]diogenes_dookie 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Just heard this. Most mainstream discussion I have heard of Hypergamy and RP theory yet. Was surprised when Peterson mentioned the word, Rogan immediately knew.

[–]slip_like_space 45 points46 points  (2 children)

Out of all of his appearances on JRE, I think this is JP's most profound as far as RP truths. It gave me a new perspective on hypergamy in correlation to the dominance hierarchy.

[–]scottbrio 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That's what I love about JP- as much as any human can do, he doesn't let his own beliefs or life practices get in the way of objectively studying society and reporting on what's really going on. He's saying the things that nobody has the balls to discuss and through pure intelligence and intellectualism, he has not only created a shield of protection around himself, but monetized his platform.

[–]ButcherAndTheRye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As JP said, “Your ability to articulate your self is your sword and your shield.”

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Not sure about Joe Rogan he has a lot of feminist women on the show and agrees with them when they spout their piffle.

[–]3d_truth 8 points9 points  (2 children)

That's because both sides are right. Ignore the unintelligent vocal majority of feminists. I'm sure if we listened to an intelligent feminist she would have some good points.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is the main one I thought of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBVbkPxSV1c

Look at the metrics!

[–]AnaxDenisa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed, this is the same for the followers of any point of view, dumb ones will drag it through the dirt, intelligent ones will successfully explain the actual reasoning behind it.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (5 children)

OHHH you beat me to posting about this!

Dr Jorden Peterson appeared on Joe Rogan again yesterday.

If you are not familiar with him, he was the professor for psychology at the university of Toronto and publicly opposed the compelled speech bill C16 and he wants everyone to get married.

I don’t see any issues with a lot of his ideas, except the monogamy narrative, so far I have seen him go unchallenged on these ideas and it was great to see Joe ask some hard questions before he moved away from the line of questioning by talking about virtue signalling (a subject he knows Joe will react too, take the bat and change the subject). Really interesting to see someone who is so into marriage wrestle with hypergamy LOL!.

[–]AwareSwimming 1 points1 points [recovered]

Your end point seems to really miss what JP is saying and what the red pill is about, monogamy is the goal and always should be as society functions best with a monogamous patriarchy. He can advocate marriage while also admitting that marriage is not currently worth it. But, I will say, there's a reason the only red pill voices worth listening to are married, and have been for a long time.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Your end point seems to really miss what JP is saying and what the red pill is about

TRP is only about self empowerment and movement towards an idealised self and not an idealised women, so im unsure as to where you felt I went wrong, perhaps take a moment to unpack where monogamy falls into that paradigm?

[–]Cyxana 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Monogamy would be the end game if ypu consider your children the highest priority and red pill is a great way to become such a man tha you can have children with a good mate as well as for keeping her around for the children and raising them in a two parent household. If you don’t want children then monogamy probably isn’t your end game.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I had suspected for a long time that both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson have deep knowledge of gender/sexual interactions from a Red Pill view.

One you stop idolizing both, you'll notice that besides talking about FEW basic RP truths, Rogan is completely BP dude. As for JBP, he knows RP theory, but his MO is closer to being a tradcon, not an alpha from TRP.

[–]UPURS145 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The thing is that Jordan also talks about the virtues of monogamy as well as having a family which is not necessarily the ideas that are spread by many of you. Not that I disagree with many of things said on this sub but Jordan Peterson doesn't really believe in all of the Redpill ideology it may seem like it but in most of his talks he mentions on putting time on one person on one relationship. On this sub I see many people talking about balancing plates and being single and never being married. Jordan seems to be a person who is against that view. He also does state that focusing on yourself is also just as important though i.e. fix your room.

[–]kingbraderz 4 points5 points  (1 child)

What a coincidence I’m watching right now an hour in

[–]shapman27 5 points6 points  (1 child)

holy shit this was the most interesting interview, I couldn't stop listening to everything jp was saying. i dont know why but it reminded me of hitler for some reason when he was talking about the leftist wanted equality and the pain behind it.

[–]TrumpChooChooTrain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you liked that podcast you should listen to the first two podcasts between them. Mind blowing

[–]crespo_modesto 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Hmm was reading/pronouncing that word wrong

Hyper-gum-e

[–]3d_truth 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How is pronounced correctly? Hyper game e is correct, no?

[–]crespo_modesto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read it as hyper-gam-e but Peterson/Joe I think said hyper-gum-e and I'm not arguing who's right/wrong I've never heard it said out loud by someone else is what I'm saying. Only read it.

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

I always thought of it as Hi--PUR-ga-mee, with emphasis on PUR. Never heard of it out-loud before listening to Red Man Group and some of the 21convention talks.

[–]crespo_modesto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

like hyper-buh-le for hyperbole probably no relation

[–]NiceTryDisaster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A casual glance through the psychology subreddit top posts is like reading trp frontpage

[–]ddiogenesofsinope 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I loved this episode. Like him or hate him Peterson just has an insight into the pysche as a clinical psychologist that not many people get to see.

What helps is that he is intelligent so he can break down the ideas he gets from his practise, and really see what is going on, from the darkest perspective imaginable. He's been to the underworld a few times and we are really lucky he is sharing his insights with the world for free.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 12 points13 points  (24 children)

If Jordan Peterson is so "Red Pill" how come his household produce a Blue Haired Feminist daughter? Would really appreciate an explanation of that.

[–]redvelvet_oreo 14 points15 points  (10 children)

I listened to him on Jocko a while back for the first time. I think he understands RP but is inherently beta. He is a man of logic but lacks the true nature of an Alpha male. Doesn’t mean he can’t explain the fundamental nature though.

[–]monadyne 13 points14 points  (6 children)

lacks the true nature of an Alpha male

So, Jordan Peterson makes some angry comments about "compelled speech" in some videos, then engages leftists in a few protests about pronouns... and sees that his ideas have traction among people who are desperate for a change in the socio-political landscape. Within eighteen months he translated that into worldwide fame and influence. He's made millions, evidently, though his motivation appears not to be wealth for its own sake but, as he has stated, to help individuals become better able to meet the suffering that life can bring.

Pretty fuckin' Alpha if you ask me, bucko.

[–]redvelvet_oreo 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Clearly Jordan is man focused on his mission and is doing well and has a following. Sure he is an Alpha in that aspect if you will but he does not strike me to carry the other facets of being an Alpha male. Plenty of successful leaders out there who are entirely beta.

[–]monadyne 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Jordan is man focused on his mission

And what is his mission? To help other people. Perhaps he doesn't better embody the Alpha male as defined here in The Red Pill arena because helping others is not the classic Alpha mission which is to help only one person, i.e., oneself, and Not Give A Fuck about anybody else.

Given that Peterson's raison d'être is quite different from someone whose goal is to maximize his own circumstances, he has gone about fulfilling his mission with intelligence, self-discipline, and near tireless effort. The result of that is that he has utterly dominated the spheres into which he has placed himself to the extent that his message is now worldwide.

There can be more to life than aggrandizing one's own ego. That's why we don't hear a lot of, "Man, Einstein was such a beta cuck! He coulda been out bangin' hotties and makin' mad bank! Instead he wasted his life away working on stupid formulas - what an asshole!"

[–]redvelvet_oreo 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I can see your cock sticking through your pants.

Given that Peterson's raison d'être is quite different from someone whose goal is to maximize his own circumstances, he has gone about fulfilling his mission with intelligence, self-discipline, and near tireless effort. The result of that is that he has utterly dominated the spheres into which he has placed himself to the extent that his message is now worldwide.

To achieve any major goal takes the first 3 attributes you desccribed. Your just putting JP on a pedastal. I dont care if you idolize him. We all need role models. I just dont see him as an Alpha male. Understanding the nature and capability of an alpha male and being one is two different things.

Perhaps he doesn't better embody the Alpha male as defined here in The Red Pill arena because helping others is not the classic Alpha mission which is to help only one person, i.e., oneself, and Not Give A Fuck about anybody else.

Disagree with this as well. This entire subreddit is dedicated to helping others. You can be Dark Triad or you can be Benevolent. The choice is yours.

[–]monadyne 0 points1 point  (2 children)

To be clear, TRP isn't about helping others, it's about helping men become men in a certain very specific way. That's a different arena from striving to help humanity overcome their weakness and fear in order to combat the suffering and chaos life can dish out.

And by the way, why start with some homo bullshit, like because I point out certain things about Jordan Peterson, that makes me a fag for him? That's a juvenile way to refute someone's arguments. Just put your points out there: if they resonate, they'll rise to the top. That's how honorable men conduct themselves.

[–]monadyne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By the way, I never stated that JP was an "Alpha male." What I said was, in effect, that he has exhibited some rather Alpha behavior: he rose to a position of eminence in his chosen field, and then when he got some traction on YouTube, he carpe'd the diem as effectively as anyone ever has. These are evidence of power and mastery, and should be recognized and respected as such.

Granted, JP doesn't exhibit the totality of attributes we associate with Alpha males here, but then again, this is not the arena he has chosen to do battle in.

p.s. The only person I've ever put up on a pedestal is Jimi Hendrix. He's still there.

[–]redvelvet_oreo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn’t think that needed explanation given what kind of subreddit this is.

I’m not looking for upvotes but it does sound like you have a hard on for JP ;)

[–]pronatalist257_2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Almost gave up his career to speak the truth, yet you call him beta. He is more alpha than 99.9999% of the people here

[–]jm51 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

He is a man of logic but lacks the true nature of an Alpha male.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

That also applies to Machiavelli.

[–]monadyne 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Peterson has put hundreds of hours of videos of his amazing lectures online so that people can, for free, perhaps benefit from his insights. And they have so benefitted, in the millions.

In addition to teaching, Jordan Peterson was a practicing clinical psychologist for many, many years, working with clients to help them overcome their fears, weaknesses and prejudices.

And then you come along and have the balls to judge him as someone who "can't do"??? Who do you think has had a more positive, more powerful impact on the world, Jordan Peterson? ...or you?

(Or me, for that matter, but I'm not the one casting aspersions.)

[–]BillyRedRocks 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Have you seen her recent pictures? I'm not saying she's not a feminist (is she really?) or that JBP is "red Pill" but I'd sure as hell examine her joint mobility.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So Red Pill definitely a rejection of Liberalism and Feminism going on here. Raised by a "strong masculine" father. Yup...

[–]BillyRedRocks 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Looks like she needs to clean her room. I have no idea why anyone would think JBP is part of the red pill. All I'm saying is I'd help her rearange her bedsheets and I'd gladly help her with her "meat only" diet.

[–]scottbrio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love that she's found (by sheer realistic exploration) that her body works best on mostly meat. Really seems, much like the blue hair, that vegan and vegetarian diets are adopted by feminists too because it's popular.

[–]reecewagner 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You've decided solely because she dyed her hair blue that she's a liberal feminist?

[–]lotteryroll 24 points25 points  (2 children)

[–]adool999 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She does not look like a Blue Haired Feminist at all. She has a good looking husband and a child. Was there a missing /s

[–]pronatalist257_2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't know if you are trolling but what makes you think she is a feminist? I'm sure not everyone with blue hair is an SJW

[–]El-Chapo-Dynamite 1 points1 points [recovered]

Jordan Peterstein is a goy. He is well aware many of the deviancy involved in the west, emanates from Jewish influence. The thing is, his social circle is Jewish. So from his perspective, it be suicide if he critiqued the Jews.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I never did get the whole "da joos" meme.

[–]El-Chapo-Dynamite 1 points1 points [recovered]

You can read The Culture of Critique by Kevin Macdonald. To get a more informed view of the group. The "redpilled" solution is to gas them frankly. Antisemitism just like anti-Islam, doesn't come out of nothing. I also recommend The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones.

They've been kicked out of countries for their parasitic nature and their predilection to use deviancy to subvert cultures. Jordan Peterson is more lukewarm in awakening people in the west to see reason. His individualist strategy will undermine the west, in favor of more collectivist and united nations such as China. He is also dishonest and blatantly lies which groups are responsible for the deviancy in the west. Which is the Jew. His favorite author Aexander Solzhenitsyn understood the Jewish question. Jordan Peterson is fundamentally wrong if he doesn't address the Jewish question.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the Jews.

[–]Do not send modmail to my personal inboxCrazyHorseInvincible[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya had to get all weird, didn't ya?

[–]EdmondDaunts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As ever the solution is to contain the blast radius. You can’t stop hypergamy. In fact you could say it’s an essential part of human evolution.

The impact of it and the accommodation of it is what is getting us into trouble. And that is largely due to men agreeing to women’s demands. To appease women or to impress them. A variant pf Gad Saad’s Sneaky Fucker idea.

[–]Yuken27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

rogan and peterson on gender pay gap - https://youtu.be/FbX0TFVuOH4

[–]grandmasbroach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Enforced monogamy isn't what most people assume it to mean. It isn't like the government or a third party actually enforcing laws about it.

It speaks to societies as a whole. Where monogamy is the preferred way to mate and have offspring. The society or culture is enforcing monogamy through marriage and social pressures. I would say birth control pretty much killed that in the west.

Before, women more or less policed themselves when it came to slutting it up. They knew that a pregnancy without commitment was a death sentence back then. So, they put pressure on themselves to ensure monogamy as it had the best outcome for the woman and the children.

This doesn't even mention the idea of women gatekeeping sec and men gatekeeping commitment. Nowadays, and this is the really odd part to me. Since birth control became accessible to anyone who wanted. Women took away almost all of their bargaining power in relationships. Sex is easier to get than almost anytime in modern history now. If a guy is in a relationship, and this applies more to higher smv type men. If she isn't putting out on a regular basis, he'll just leave and or find it elsewhere.

This has created an odd happenstance where men hold almost all of the power in a relationship, if he chooses to wield it. That's why I say it refers more to high smv men, and even more so to high smv red pill aware men. Betas will be oblivious for the most part, and would have given up that power regardless. Women don't want commitment from them anyways. Those are the left over, she needs to find a stable guy to raise Chad's kids now, type of men. She'd rather have Chad's commitment any day, and is why we have the term alpha widowed.

Anyways, women have lost an immense amount of power on relationships. However, they have gained it legally, and often divorce rape men. This is why you shouldn't marry. You will lose that bargaining power you previously had.

I just think it is funny as hell and beyond ironic that feminism has accidently created a scenario where women have almost zero power in a relationship, if the guy chooses to wield it. Now we have marriage and birth rates diving off a cliff, and women asking where all the good men went.

[–]AllTheDevilsAreHere_ 4 points5 points  (1 child)

To say he went "full Red Pill" is an exaggeration. Sure, he mentions concepts like hypergamy in the interview, but the problem with Peterson is that he wants to stuff Red Pill truths within his TradCon and Blue Pill belief systems by any means necessary.

Some of these reactions here remind me of those cringe-worthy questions audience members ask in debates where they're trying to signal how devoted they are to a particular group. If you've ever listened to some of Sam Harris' live shows, there's always one person who asks something along the lines of "What would Hitch think of Donald Drumpf?" only to be followed by a barrage of cheers and applause from the rest of the audience. They ask the question to get validation, not to encourage a discussion.

Peterson is Cypher from The Matrix. He knows that the steak isn't real, but acts in ignorance because of how uncomfortable Red Pill truths are. As soon as he mentions concepts like hypergamy, some of y'all want to get down on your knees and throw your hands in the air as if you're attending one of those Benny Hinn "faith healer" events.

I would encourage all of you to reread "Jordan Peterson is Not Your Friend" if you haven't already done so.

[–]killabeesindafront 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How about you motherfuckers listen to the podcast before you comment

[–]dinnerwithfunions 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t be surprised if both of them browsed TRP now and then or once upon a time. I remember hearing manosphere type speech from Peterson watching some older videos.

It’s sort of like on social media, when you see people post content you get a sense of who they are, what they think, and what sites they visit. I’m in a meme group and see folks post memes I’ve seen in various reddit subs even some red pill type content.

[–]DadOnDabs 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Red pill going main stream? The US may have some hope after all.

[–]MaliciousMack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not for a long time. I think those with the will to grow may pick up on it, but until the whole "love your feelings" fad passes, we will still have a bunch of men who don't want to solve problems themselves, but instead eat them, etc.

[–]TriggeringEveryone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Full red pill" would include race realism and the JQ.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (23 children)

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

u/gaylubeoil has a post on JBP and "mainstream conservative values"

Joe is great until the topic is nuanced with a strong emotional wall in front of it. JBP is blue pill because of circumstance thrusting him through his proverbial bog into a blue alpha. Look into Rollo's work on that.

Never meet your heroes.

Edit: But as much as these two are gatekeepers they allude to this and similar communities.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (4 children)

lol alone in my room at 6am ironing my shirt for work and im screaming "Fuck you" to JP for telling men marriage was the answer.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children)

It is just blatantly absurd in this day and age. You simply can't put feminism, current legal statures, back in their box once they've been opened. It's like being red pill aware then attempting to revert back. Then you have all these kids down voting me because they haven't taken the time to unravel their internet father figure and who he actually is in relation to the literal world they live in. But you better be making that bed when you're done ironing that shirt boyo.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

hahaha this, so much of this. I wasnt expecting to see him as 'ugly' but holy shit im happy to leave my internet father in the belly of a whale for the bullshit he has been telling men about marriage.

I am not fully mad about it though, his ideas lead me to seeking redpill, I remember briefly looking at the sub after a girl I had just started dating 3 years ago asked me if I know about it, my response was 'ohhh stay away from them'.... I thought this because I was getting easy beta pussy only to have that same chick who held me closer than I have ever felt and told me we are the stars together latter cheated on me with an old friend of hers...... turns out AWALT.

Hearing him walk away from the hypergammy issue just pissed me off all over again.

Also, i did make my bed, not because he said I should but because a man must act in abundance.

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

Both JBP and Joe are great stepping stones. They brought me here and this place pushed me forward to others. AWALT will always be there. You don't hate the lion because it kills things.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not mad at women, mad a faulty men telling other men to be faulty, selling books on how to be faulty and doing talks on the advantages of fault.

He is selling the blue pill with a red wrapper.

[–]Bad_nuggets69 1 point2 points  (13 children)

I watched the podcast. I remembered GLO post on it and took it with a grain of salt. He skimmed the hypergamy topic without delving in deep since he is too pussy to dig into it and lose face.

Figured it would get posted here eventually.

[–]Hyper_Sonik 23 points24 points  (8 children)

It's better not to talk about it in public. What don't you guys get about rule #1.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

I'm basically making the argument that men need to get off their knees in public spaces. Don't sperg out and plug this reddit but also don't go "It's a dark topic Bucko!"

[–]ThatOneDrunkUncle 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If every man holds frame, there's no need for TRP and the world is less fucked. Can't really change the status quo, but we can be men

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

I agree its on men and men as a collective, the average not exception, have been the cause.

[–]Hyper_Sonik 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I value this community and maybe it's in vain but I want to keep it pure. The problem is that once an idea goes mainstream it morphs into something else. The message gets perverted and diluted. Now I hear RP terms being used in public which don't have any contextual relation to the true RP principals. Best example are the terms "alpha/beta". Now every nerd that wins a chess game thinks he's "alpha" and we even have betas calling others betas. I avoid using those terms now because they've lost their context and TRUE meaning. That's the danger of valuable information spreading mainstream. And it's why the number 1 rule of TRP is dont talk about TRP. But insecure men NEED to identify with something, so they look for validation through parroting RP terms.

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

yeah, women will high jack it and use it for themselves.

[–]the_one_tony_stark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The desire to sort out what the hierarchies are like is deeply ingrained in humans, I'd say. Alpha/beta was first applied to wolves and although they've stepped away from using that for wolves, it has gotten into common vernacular and I think it did this before the redpill made it part of the context.

There's no loss from people using the same words inaccurately, just as there's no loss for you from a mcdojo teaching bad martial arts. Valuable information is ONLY valuable in proper context. If people apply it badly, it does not damage your understanding of it.

It does dilute the conversations about it though.

You can't really keep information from spreading when you're discussing it in a public forum. It's an adapt or die situation. This place will meet its heat death like everything else. Hopefully later rather than sooner.

[–]Bad_nuggets69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Testosterone is pumping through this one. No need to get hostile.

[–]JacobyAhrar[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I watched the podcast. I remembered GLO post on it and took it with a grain of salt. He skimmed the hypergamy topic without delving in deep since he is too pussy to dig into it and lose face.

The last thing Peterson needs right now is some feminist outrage machine 2.0

[–]Bad_nuggets69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Strategic move - perhaps.

I love Peterson myself. It supplemented TRP in recent times - even recommended it to my blue bill friends as a “gateway drug”. Still would stand by my criticism.

[–]BurnDownTheMission68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Peterson isn’t worried about how he comes across to certain groups like Joe is

Remember that JP came to fame by taking on the fems in Canada for pronoun usage

[–]BurnoutRS 0 points1 point  (3 children)

This is a very important time to make a point about individuality. There are many great minds out there who you can learn a lot from but you should never emulate or strive to be exactly like them.

Of course some slack should be given for many of us are desperately lacking in fatherly guidance that we can easily glom on to a figure like Peterson.

Some seem to talk as if "enforced monogamy" would eliminate any chance to go out and fuck lots of girls. Having the greater majority of people be aware of the benefits of monogamy and having a society where, for the most part, children are being raised by nuclear families, is beneficial to our society. However, this is essentially trying to put the rabbit back into the hat.

Todays women are damaged, especially if we consider monogamy to be the working order. A girl who has rode the cock carousel is never going to be the ideal fit in a monogamous relationship like the girl who lost her virginity to the man she married etc.

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

Yea the chance to finding that pale freckled farm girl with her hair in a braid and a father holding a shotgun are long gone. Fathers are absent at work or in the bottle from their surroundings.

[–]BurnoutRS 0 points1 point  (1 child)

shit you just made me wanna take a drive through the country

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

Might catch a glimpse of a unicorn /s

[–]MobileInspector 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Came here expecting to see a discussion about TRP on JRE 1139 and was not disappointed :)

Small correction - He taught at Harvard for a brief period as an associate prof from '93 to '98 and has been a full professor at the University of Toronto ever since. Please fact check before posting next time...

[–]U-94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely giving this all beef diet a try. I've been on a strict low carb/no carb diets for 5 years but your body adjusts and I was looking for some new challenge to shock my system. This sounds like it could do some awesome damage.

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

best podcast in a long long time, peterson is on fire here. joe is very much on edge the whole time, i wonder why....

all the sad sappy losers pay attention, this man could change your life (but don't listen to EVERYTHING he says as gospel)

he clearly points out that monogamy is a good thing for kids, nothing more on the subject and if you don't see this, you're clearly a sperg.

if you intend on having kids, don't be the guy or cuck that gets shafted with a shitty partner for the rest of your childs life. shitty enviroment's piss all over the chance of a decent childhood, yes you may have never had that but it doesn't give you any fucking right to piss all over someone elses.

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

Jordan Peterson Is Sandman conspiracy

[–]trentreznor95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just watched this last night. Thx for sharing

[–]cumfortably_dumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ohh really? I just listened to it for the first 30 mins and my commute was over. Will listen to the whole thing today.

[–]dialecticwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he understands capitalism, he will know why.

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

He did criticize MGTOW fairly harshly, and then apologized for the critique at a later date. He recanted his derision, but not so much that he accepted it as a wholly healthy movement. That sequence of events leads me to believe he may have delved deeper into the assortment of men's subs (MRAs, TRP and MGTOW) that grapple with the issues at hand.

[–]didiflex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you are saint or budhist monk chances are that you are hypergamist if there is a chance for you to be one, its natural tendency for us to strive to go for better options

Its closely related to greed and selfishness

[–]mvnarachi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will have to check this out, thanks for the info 💪

[–]chaseexcellence 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw that. I was not sure if I was overeacting to Jordan Peterson talking as if he was on RMG panel. I was shocked.

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

It's a good interview, also they talk about the MSM misrepresentation on them.

[–]MrMelbourne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having seen much of his material on YouTube, it is the first time that I recall Peterson saying the "H" word. Hypergamy.

[–]Leonidas_79 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ive never understood why so many TRP boys dislike JP. I’m redpill in my soul and I vibe with the guy on some things.

Just because the man says some things that you dont fuck with doesn’t mean all his material is waste.

[–]JacobyAhrar[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

JP is Red Pill. He wants to reverse the downfall, here at /TRP people want to enojoy the downfall. Big difference.

[–]Leonidas_79 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. Ironically, being annoyed about someone destroying how things are now is very un-RP.

[–]TittyRiot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My takeaway: I give professors no credibility when I don't like what they see, but when you do like what they say, you take it as validation.

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

Jordan Peterson is very interesting person. Especially for western world, as he comes from cucked Canada, openly opposing fascist speech control laws.

[–]OneCovah 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Jordan Peterson attacks leftists for defending all those incel losers when the simple solution for those losers is to "be a man". That's like the rightists who tell poor people to "get a job". Leftist means support the people, and since incels are the people, they are supported by leftists. I'll meet your rightist and raise you a Dan Savage on Overtime May 18, 2018, look it up. He says incels should be able to buy sex without stigma.

And I'll mention that at every age there are more men looking for women than women looking for men. So it IS the women. Women do not have the passion to satisfy all men.

Monogamy is half the solution. Many woman are happy living alone and leave an equal number of men without women. Furthermore, the discussion ignores age. Women are generally attracted to men older than themselves, and leave young men out in the cold.

[–]Pastelitomaracucho 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Still doen not change the facts. Dudes need to man the fuck up.

May take them ten, fifteen years. Make take them through fire and brimstone in highschool and college, but they need to become men. Then they can cash in.

[–]OneCovah 0 points1 point  (1 child)

One more time: At every age there are more men looking for women than women looking for men. So it IS the women's fault. Women do not have the passion to satisfy all men. Blaming men for women's weak passion plays into women's hands, gives them power, and is feminist. Women deny they lose passion. They will always demand that men work harder to arouse them as they lose their passion. They blame the men. Women have weak passion and lose what little passion they have. Female passion is rare, fleeting, and precious. Male passion is as cheap as dirt and women literally throw it a way like garbage.

Men cannot win this dishonest game. Red Pill admits this, and says men should leave women who lose passion, which is correct. Biologically, women who know their men will leave them if they lose their passion will sustain their passion longer. But if she feels her man is committed she loses her passion real quick, guaranteed.

[–]Pastelitomaracucho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At every age there are more men looking for women than women looking for men. So it IS the women's fault.

This does not make any sense. Are the men the ones who decide to look for women for agressively than the other way around. Even when generally, there are more women than men in a population. How can the behaviour of men be women's fault?. In other words, scarcity of sex is felt because men are a bunch of thirsty bastards.

At every age there are more men looking for women than women looking for men.

I literally cannot wait for you to be +30 and attractive. It's a buyers market out there for us men.

Women do not have the passion to satisfy all men.

Nor the duty to do it. Its men's responsibility to move on or improve.

Blaming men for women's weak passion plays into women's hands, gives them power, and is feminist.

If you are not instilling passion in your women, there is a lot you need to improve. If even at your best, you are still not cutting it, you need to move on.

Men cannot win this dishonest game.

Sexual strategy is amoral. Back to the sidebar.

The market is how it is. Women are the way they are and there is nothing morally wrong with humans being humans. You either adapt to the market or you die. And all the bitching in the world will not shift the market in anyone's favor.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol I was literally just listening to that segment 5 mins ago

[–]c3ntrifuge -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

What if I told you diets were total bullshit and all you need todo is count your macros and eat sensibly

[–]carpetstain 18 points19 points  (1 child)

What if I told you that ‘counting your macros and eat sensibly’ can be thought of as dieting?

[–]c3ntrifuge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Can be thought of” Well I’m assuming anything I say could be misconstrued and thought of whatever the fuck people want to this it is

Counting your macros is simply quantifying food intake, how is accurately gauging your caloric intake a diet?

How is eating sensibly a diet?

[–]TRP_TEX 1 points1 points [recovered]

Eating sensibly + counting your micros is a diet.

Diet is the type of food a person habitually eats.

[–]c3ntrifuge -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Yes, hence the core to my post was quantifying intake, not determining the type of intake.

If you’re a fat fuck and too dumb to eat sensibly or put 2+2 together and understand the foods required for humans to function optimally, I’ve got bad news for you.

[–]owlsden 0 points1 point  (3 children)

No, you didn't say counting calories. Counting macros is most certainly determining different types of intake.

[–]c3ntrifuge -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Are you saying that counting the amount of carbs, fats and proteins you consume in a 24hr period is a diet?

[–]owlsden 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The act of counting macros by itself - no.

But counting macros with the goal of consuming specific daily amounts is by definition a diet.

Why do you have such a bizarre aversion to a word for which the definition and usage is well established and commonly agreed upon?

[–]c3ntrifuge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looked up the definition, you guys are right.

[–]Jake_le_Dog 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You shouldn't have to count your macros, man. You think caveman John counted any fucking macros/calories? Caveman John could get food maybe three, maybe even four times a week if he was lucky. Caveman John didn't fucking eat every day, and most certainly did he not eat multiple times a day. Even if he had weeks of the year where he could eat multiple times a day, he had to endure weeks where he might've not been able to eat anything at all. The capability to survive in times of extreme scarcity prove to be evolutionarily superior. The capability to be able to eat a shit ton of food at once, and be able to reliably process it, and store enough of its energy and minerals/vitamins for later use, also proves to be superior.

For a minimum of 5000 years we have been able to cultivate our own food. Thus the occasions on which our ancestors could eat had increased massively. They probably never had to endure a week without food, as there must have been something to around to eat. The human hadn't suddenly evolved to eat more, nor hadn't he lost his capability to eat less. No obesity issues at the time, strong and able soldiers, etc. So what's going on? Today we have obesity as an actual epidemic?

1 Too much processed shit. The fibers, fats, and some proteins, are removed from the foods when processed to be shelved. To produce sunflower oil, you need to process a shit ton of sunflower seeds. How many of those processed sunflower seeds do you think you could eat in one sitting, without actually fucking dying? - As a side-note: people could preserve foods long before processing; this involved salting foods, fermenting foods, and I'm sure there's more I can't think of.

2 Too frequent eating occasions. You don't need breakfast, motherfucker. You don't need lunch. Hell, you sure as shit don't need dinner either. You can go on for days without food. Or you can opt to sometimes not eat that fucking breakfast. Try not eating for a few days, and see how you stand it. I'll tell you what you'll find: if you don't pussy out because of the "hunger" after two days, you can go on until you feel like it, because that "hunger" was your "macronutrient" addicted ass telling you you're depleting your short-term energy stores. Even that feeling only hits you at the usual times you would eat. If you're not under 8%bf, you sure as hell will not be cannibalizing your musculature or any other of your essential tissues, not until your bodyfat has been ridden of.

You can eat whatever the fuck you want if you can balance the above two points. I challenge you to prove me wrong, macroboy.

Disclaimer: the problem is much more complicated though, but by following these two points you begin on the right route. Just check out how many athletes are beginning to realize the potential of fasting/time restricted feeding. You can count macros if you actually need to, but first get the primary problem fixed, then address surface-level shit like macros. Addendum: Not every fat was created equal{1g fat != 1g fat}

[–]c3ntrifuge 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Your point is invalid

5,000 years ago was a hell of a lot different that today. Intuitive eating doesn’t work, track your shit.

[–]Jake_le_Dog 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What was so different as to invalidate my point?

[–]c3ntrifuge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obesity stems from lack of emotional awareness. People eat because it makes them feel good. Quantifying your intake gives you an objective, easy to understand representation of your daily food intake.

Once you have that data, you can adjust your intake accordingly. And you’re right, it does go beyond just intake as processed foods will slowly kill you. Both food quantity and food quality are equally concerning issues.

[–]offense_is_ok 1 points1 points [recovered]

This dude might be personally redpilled, but he doesn't do shit for the masses, he still refuses to discuss the jewish question.

[–]midnightreider 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What is the Jewish question?

[–]MrMelbourne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

seemed that because he stood his ground in his relationship, he had a loyal and respectful

Not going to happen.

One cannot simply, "Name The Jew". To do so would be carreer suicide.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (10 children)

JP sounded pretty beta honestly. Joe seems pretty red pill though

Edit: downvoted lmao? Am I the only one who actually listened to it?....

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I did and it is exactly opposite, if u listen to their content.

JP sounded pretty beta honestly. Joe seems pretty red pill though

Coz of squeaky voice, and buff, deep-voiced tattoed gorilla.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

And JP is super anti-polygamy

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Yeah, he cares about kids, but he is RP aware. It's just imo the west cannot be saved anymore, so yeah enjoy a decline.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Now you’re insulting my hemisphere? Wtf? Lmao

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

It's my hemisphere too, chill.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Then why not rejoice in the knowledge that you’re among champions here in the west instead of spewing negativity about how we’re supposedly gonna decline and blah blah blah

[–]kurdishpower01 1 points1 points [recovered]

Don't you dare insult my que.. Master! Insult my master 1 time and you're getting my downvote also

[–]Layback -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It starts at 92:00 not 132:00.