No Prescriptions

On Saturday I had a great discussion with Anthony Johnson, Rian Stone (Married Red Pill Reddit) and “Carl” from Black Label Logic. The topic was a critique of the impact Dr. Jordan Peterson is having on a society of ‘lost’ (mostly) young men and how his message is affecting this generally rudderless generation of men. It’s a little over two hours long, but from the overwhelming response on YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and other forums it’s definitely struck a nerve. As an aside here, I’m considering making this meet up video format something I may do semi-regularly (like every other week) with some of the men I consider peers in the manosphere.

You can watch this talk at your leisure, but it has taught me a few things. As I mentioned in the chat it’s next to impossible to have any disagreement or critique of people whom other’s believe are your betters. As Rollo Tomassi it’s impossible for me to be critical of any high profile guy in the sphere without the accusations of professional jealousy or sour grapes being the first reflexive response from haters. I got that, but I’ve learned the conversation is more important that trying to convince anyone of it being genuine. In fact, I think it belies a bigger problem when they are above critique.

That aside, I think it was good to finally parse where Red Pill awareness and what Peterson is advocating have some overlap and where we differ. Peterson is a fountain of hope for the ‘lost’ boys, so anything critical of his message is going to sound like it’s endorsing an “enjoy the decline” mentality. I can’t expect everyone to have read up on my own opinion about that, but the short version is that I’ve never been convinced of some inevitable decline and fall of western civilization. In other words, I think it is possible to turn the ship around; where I may differ is in how that might be done.

For the record here I want to say that I have a great respect for Dr. Peterson. I think he’s what the sphere has needed for a while and I think he fits the role of ‘champion’ that a generation of young men have wanted to place on someone. Ideologically I agree with about 85-90% of what he advocates and there’s no doubt that he’s got definite skin in the game. In fact I really hate it when people use that as some catch phrase to disqualify men today. As a man we all have skin in the game now. How much and to what degree may be debatable, but we all live in a feminine-primary social order and as such we all have a lot to risk whether we acknowledge this or not.

Where I differ with Peterson is in his very Trad-Con solutions to turning the ship around. I wasn’t shocked to see him endorsed in videos for Prager University. In some ways what he proposes resonates with young men looking for a direction because their fathers and generations of Blue Pill men haven’t been able to deliver a way out of Hell for them. I go into this in more detail in our talk here, but here are some of my issues with Peterson’s take on things:

• Life is suffering and sacrifice: In every video I’ve watched Dr. Peterson’s founding (zen-like) premise is that life is suffering and the best men can do is to find ways to minimize that suffering. Men (and I’ve yet to see a video addressing women) must sacrifice parts or all of themselves in order to qualify for “genuine” manhood. The degree of that self-sacrifice is relative to how high a status that man can achieve.

I fundamentally disagree with this premise though I do understand why it’s so appealing to a ‘lost generation’ of young men. From my own perspective, life is based on a perpetual discontent, but how a man deals with that discontent – creatively or destructively – is the measure of him. Furthermore, I would argue that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make in order to facilitate their reality.

• Blue Pill conditioning seems to define his perspective of women: Essentially the archetype he has for women was formed for him as a 7 year old boy when he first developed a soul-mate ONEitis for his wife. His reluctance to acknowledge the Alpha Fucks side of women’s Hypergamy in any video (beyond his repeated use of 50 Shades of Grey as a humorous example) leads me to the impression that he defaults to women as innately ‘good’ and above too much criticism. As such he focuses almost entirely on the good provider / parental investment / Beta need side of Hypergamy. This is unsurprising as it follows the same Trad-Con interpretations of women being “closer to God than men” and men must qualify themselves, and sacrifice themselves for women’s (wives) intimate approval. Dalrock has covered this dynamic among male “complementarian” Christian leaders quite extensively.

• Sacrifice of men is a parallel to men’s disposability: Men will blow themselves up for pussy. From what I gather from his talks Peterson endorses male disposability as a form of Honor. He seems to play on the ‘Man Up / Shut Up’ dynamic I talked about in The Honor SystemWhat ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny. I’m not suggesting Peterson is accusing men of Patriarchy or Misogyny, rather, like most Trad-Cons, it’s a question of living up to one’s duty as a man in his disposability and his usefulness in that sacrifice.

• “Get your shit together” is also a plea for sacrifice: If a man is less valuable his sacrifice is less meaningful. No one cares about mediocre / average men’s sacrifices, but if a man accepts that he is to improve himself it is so that his sacrifice is more appreciated and important. Thus, the comparisons to Christ’s sacrifice as being the ultimate expression of sacrifice and meaning which Peterson uses in his dissertations on manhood and the Bible. My issue here is that women and a feminine-primary social order lack a capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make because these are taken-for-granted expectations of what a man just “ought to do”.

• Peterson is egalitarian to a fault: The mantra may be for men to sack up and make something of themselves, but this is couched in an egalitarian equalism that’s prevalent today. If I had one question to ask Jordan it would be this; is there a dominance hierarchy in a healthy LTR or marriage? I don’t know for certain. My guess is he would say it passes back and forth between a husband and wife which is to say he falls back on an egalitarian ideal. However, outside the family structure he acknowledges that men and women in a state of egalitarianism choose to adopt traditional gender roles (I think he gave the same example as was covered here).

• Dr. Peterson regularly resorts to shaming language with men, rarely does he do the same with women: This may be a simple question of his delivery, but Peterson is always harder on men than he is with women. In so doing he adopts the AMOGing of only men techniques that a pastor like Mark Driscoll uses from the pulpit. Inso doing he pedestalizes women and absolves them of any consequences of their Hypergamous choices by imploring men to “man up and marry those sluts“. In essence the sacrificial nature of men becomes one that is necessary for the continuance of ‘family’ and western culture in spite of women. I also see how this plays into the idea of women lacking any moral agency, personal responsibility and wiping the bad behavior of women off on the men who have allowed this to happen. Once again it comes back to the hypoagency of women.

• Peterson believes that desire can be negotiated: This is my biggest problem with Peterson’s approach to women. This undoubtedly comes from his being a clinical psychologist, but like most therapists he defaults to the idea that genuine desire can be motivated by a process of negotiation. If there is one example of his lack of experience with women it is this belief. In several of his interviews and podcasts he makes reference to appealing to women’s reason and negotiating terms for acceptable behavior (always a man’s behavior) in exchange for intimacy and/or a stress-free marriage. This is the egalitarian, Oprah Approved, male-sublimated means to achieving transactional intimacy.

As you might guess, I strongly disagree with negotiating intimacy. You cannot negotiate genuine desire. You can obligate a woman to fuck you (now called rape) via negotiation, but you cannot organically inspire genuine desire in a woman. This has always been my main point of contention with the marriage counseling trade for a long time.

What is the Red Pill version of “man-up”?

I had a commenter ask me this in the last comment thread. I think there’s two sides to this question. First, I think there’s a need to keep the Red Pill (in the intersexual sense) as close to an objectivist purpose as possible. That means Red Pill awareness is the result of a continuing praxeology.

I’ve locked horns with a few Red Pill guys recently who seem to think that ‘Red Pill’ is an ideology and it’s just the counter revolt to feminism; basically it is feminism for men. I think that does a huge disservice to everything and everyone that’s brought us to where we are today in Red Pill awareness and all of the work and personal risk that was put on the line to explore what we know as Red Pill awareness now. Not only that it casually devalues the effort and work that’s continuing right now.

Critics and feminists alike want to draw parallels in the manosphere to whatever (fictitious) wave of feminism they think applies to whatever the Men’s Rights Movement is calling Red Pill at the moment. Believing that Red Pill is an ideology is one more casualty of how the term / brand has been bastardized by other ideologies who’ve never had any business referring to themselves as “red pill”.

Presuming Red Pill is just an ideology is juvenile, and unsurprisingly it’s an opinion of some underexperienced men in the manosphere who want for simplistic answers. They don’t want to think about what Red Pill awareness implies on a larger social scale. They want a flag to wave and an easy to understand ideology so they can stick it to their feminist enemies. I get it. They want Red Pill (however they define it) to be that ideology, but to me, I think, and I’ve always said it, the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, areligious and amoral to ensure that it stays true to understanding truth. It needs to remain true to being an aggregate of men’s collected experiences with intersexual dynamics.

What these guys want is a meaning to that truth, but that’s not the Red Pill. Meaning is what men will apply to that truth according to their individual needs, situations and circumstances. This is why Peterson and probably some more personalities to follow him will be popular in the future; they prioritize meaning above truth. If you listen to the first podcast of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson they spend the entire time trying to come to an agreed measure of truth between the two of them so they can move on (in the second podcast) to what is meaning.

You want to know why I don’t do prescriptions on The Rational Male? Because we disempower ourselves when we follow someone else’s path and not our own.

There is a deep need in almost all people to improve or ‘fix’ ourselves in some way. I’ve written essays about it; discontent is is the human condition. That in no way means that life is suffering as per the Peterson (Zen) doctrine, but it is man’s condition to never be satisfied with even the greatest of accomplishments. That is what put us at the top of the species contest on this planet. You can be constructively or destructively discontent, but when you tell me that life is suffering and the only way to lessen that suffering (never to solve it of course) is to sacrifice my way to a better life all that says to me is that you’re out of ideas for a creative solution and you’re all-in on the destructive methods. Either that or you’ll continue naval gazing.

Fuck that.

So, the Red Pill needs to remain a praxeology and it ought to always resist being force-fit into an ideology because it’s always some ideological hack who wants to claim the truth it reveals as proof of his own purpose. The Red Pill has to remain an open source aggregate of men’s experiences. That’s why we’re still here today in spite of the Rooshs who said it would die out 3 years ago – it’s open source and decentralized information.

Now, to the second point, what does ‘Man up’ mean in the Red Pill context? I think this is really for the individual to decide, but I’d say that it would involve a man utilizing and internalizing the awareness the Red Pill represents to him and improving his life with it. In the Safety Net post’s comment thread there are hundreds of examples of how men saved their own lives, often literally. How the Red Pill truth reached them and then manifested in their lives is highly individual. I mentioned the need for a dissociation with ideology because that usually means aligning oneself with the expectations of someone else’s version of truth, not the objective (or as objective as we can make it) truth of the Red Pill.

When I hear ‘man-up’, I identify the context only as derogatory… is there any other definition which is not?

It should, because in almost all contexts imploring a guy to “Man Up” is following someone else’s path, not your own. This is what I mean when I say that I’m not in the business of creating better men, I’m in the business of men making themselves better men. And in today’s world of men seeking direction there is no shortage of personalities who’d like nothing more than to profit from selling men on their paths.

If there is a definition of ‘manning up’ in a Red Pill sense it is living a better way than your previous life that was informed by the falsehoods of your Blue Pill conditioning. Manning up Red Pill is killing off that old Blue Pill-created persona and killing off the false idealisms it taught you. It’s understanding and internalizing that those lies made you a less authentic person because the Blue Pill is firmly an ideology, but one that wears the mask of freedom or choice or individualism. If self-improvement in a Red Pill sense entail some basic tenets, one is that a man cuts himself away from that old Blue Pill paradigm and rebuilds a better life for himself based on a real understanding of intersexual truth on the personal, social and political scales.

Manning up Red Pill begins with rejecting the lies of egalitarian equalism and a commitment to real objective understanding of intersexual dynamics.


Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

725 comments on “No Prescriptions

  1. I feel like Dr. Jordan Peterson is the righteous sugar-coating of the red pill, needed so the masses can gobble it down before they fully realize just what it is they have all swallowed.

  2. Peterson is very careful of what he says, l’m pretty sure he’s laying out the prescription for the red pill in a way feminists can’t effectively attack . The channel four interview showing exactly how it works.

  3. Well, some of your disagreements with Peterson reminded me that saw: It’s difficult to understand something when your job depends on not understanding it.
    This I think clarifies his attitude towards the feminine-primacy bias burdening culture, law, and court decisions, and male-female psychological differences (which are enormous).
    This and nothing else.

    Because there’s nothing blue pill to him in any topic and point of discussion where being not blue pill isn’ lt a menace to his job and popularity.
    He is highly open-minded, and careless of preconceptions and dominant cultural memes.

    He’s trying as much truth as humanly possible to not be expelled from the mainstream.
    Except when it would cost him too much.

  4. @Rollo

    Was wondering about that. Had been keeping an eye on Molyneaux’s channel and hadn’t heard a peep yet. At any rate how do you think it went?

  5. @Ronin- “Peterson is very careful of what he says, l’m pretty sure he’s laying out the prescription for the red pill in a way feminists can’t effectively attack.”

    While I like your thought, and respect that tactic, I’ve learned in friendly arguments in real life with self-described feminists that they don’t fight reason with reason. I used to see their eyes glaze over when presented with reason. They’d give me an indignant look and come just short of saying, “But that’s just how it is, everyone knows that.” (“It” being whatever flawed conclusion is currently accepted as mainstream truth.) I learned to stop trying to dissect feminism with feminists.

    I’ve been using this board to try to gauge if there is ever a time in my personal relationships I should use reason and logic to make my point. The overwhelming response is no. My guess is that applies on the full scale also. Feminists won’t be reasoned with because their conclusions didn’t come from reasoning in the first place.

  6. Take Dr. Peterson’s word as one more input for building your Red Pill life. I watched a number of his videos, including the BBC Channel 4 interview, and read his book. What I got was a framework for how I can think about recreating my life. There were some things he wrote about that resonated with me, other things that didn’t. It all came down to where I was at in my life when I watched and read him. What I was looking for. What I was filtering.

    Maybe because I had been reading The Rational Male, TRP, many other books, Justin Sterling’s men’s weekend, and so forth, Dr Peterson was one more voice contributing to rebuilding myself after my blue pill marriage died in the swamp of divorce rape. Dr Peterson got me to think, but in the end I know myself the best and only I can shape my life. No book or prophet or snake oil internet guru has a clue how I should shape my life.

    I’ve had an ex-wife try to tell me she knows me better than I do. Nonsense. No one can know you better than you do. Treat Dr Peterson as one more voice in the wilderness. Use what suits you. Don’t use what doesn’t.

    I have found Rollo’s Iron Rules to be very useful guidance. As much as I wished they weren’t, from a blue pill haze, I know they are truth.

  7. “life is suffering”

    the way I understand the sixth patriarch, “suffering” (pain) only happens when you are attached to outcomes

    this guy’s blue pilled thinking in terms of females is incompatibile with a positive accepting outlook on the first truth because he would be so devastated by what his blue pill self would percieve as a “failure” (wifes unleashed hypergamy) of outcome that he cannot consider it, so of course he thinks he and all men “suffer” in the traditional medical kind of sense of the word

    dudes from the west should not fuck with zen. they warned us

  8. “Is he hot or is he hubby?” is the advice of a woman dating coach for women over forty. In the middle of one of her seminars, one of the women attendees says that nice guys don’t turn her on. And the coach says, yes, because they’re nerds. And everyone in the seminar agrees that nice guys don’t turn them on. Then the coach tells them that, if they want a man who will stick with them and treat them well, they are going to have to marry a man who doesn’t turn them on. She said, if the guy’s touch doesn’t make them want to run in the other direction, give him a chance. If he treats them right, marry him even if he doesn’t turn them on. She said that butterfly feeling they get when they see a hot guy is their 18 year old self, but they’re not 18 years old any more. She said when she met her husband when she was over 40, he made her feel peaceful, not hot. So, there you are gentlemen. The Red Pill Truth from women’s own mouths. Are you hot, or are you hubby?

  9. FWIW: To me “man up” means losing your blue pill illusions, embracing red pill reality, and walking the walk of a human being who controls his own life and destiny, fully aware of the evolutionary basis for male-female dynamics and the totally different ways in which men & women are treated or perceived in this world.

    In short, accepting reality and acting accordingly.


  10. I agree with Mr. Generic and Ronin. Seducing minds into the truth is no vice, and something that should probably be done more often and in more ways.

    It also seems a good time to point out and recall that “the red pill” is a metaphor for leaving the illusions and seeing things how they really are. Just that: seeing the truth. That such a thing could be shoved into becoming an ideology shows both the reflexive desire people have for an ideology and the unavoidable problem ideologies run into.

  11. Pour Girl 1: “So, like, have you ever had sex with a guy you just met that night?”

    Pour Girl 2: “Well yeah, of course,…*giggle giggle*, but, I’d never do that if I thought the guy was relationship material. Of course I’d make him wait to have sex. I wouldn’t want him to think I was easy.”

    I’m not sure JBP really ever acknowledges the dualistic nature of Hypergamy. I’ve seen the (many) videos where he giggles about women loving 50 Shades of Grey and the one where he quotes from ‘A Billion Wicked Thoughts’ about the sex terms women search for online, but it’s never a real reckoning about the visceral side of Hypergamy and how women effect it today.

    His main point with women is how they’re misled to be careerists in favor of motherhood, and how that’s ruining women and the family structure. Okay, did his wife give up her profession to be a mother herself? We don’t know. What he states is true, but there’s a LOT more to the state of women today that directly impacts men’s adapting to it and how that molds their perspective of marriage and life.

    Should a man consider being the Plan B for Pour Girl 2? I mean, she did want to find the “right guy” and have a family, just like the woman in Saving the Best:

  12. @fleezer

    My friends and I chatted about suffering this weekend.

    Your outcome dependent interpretation is apt.

    Where there’s commitment there’s a chance for personal failure and hedging ones marriage/job/health… with viable alternatives is RP essence.

  13. Life is suffering. Okay this is going to get kind of Zen so prepare yourself.

    The Buddha gave the flower sermon. All of his followers gathered around him for the sermon. He held out his hand, and in it he held a flower. He set there looking at the flower. Minute after minute he just sat there looking at the flower. He didn’t say anything. His disciples began to murmur among themselves. What was this sermon about? Then one student understood. The Buddha knew that this student understood, and he ended the sermon. That student began the Zen School of Buddhism.

    The teaching of that sermon was that, if you let go of an experience right after you have it, you will have no memory of it to compare to the experience you have in the next second. So, each second will be a new experience not compared to any other experience. Thus, you will never be bored, because you will never compare the experience that you’re having now to an experience that you’ve had in the past.

    The Buddha was able to look at the flower minute after minute, even hour after hour, even day after day, even year after year, because he let the experience of the flower go the moment after he had experienced it. Thus, he had no memory of the flower to compare to the experience of the flower he was having at that moment. Without memory of the previous experience, he could not become bored with his current experience.

    All dissatisfaction stems from boredom. All dissatisfaction is wanting something different than what is. All dissatisfaction comes from comparing what was to what is, or to what might be. By letting go of thoughts of the past and thoughts of the future and experiencing only the present moment there is no boredom, there is no dissatisfaction, there is no suffering.

    Another translation for the word suffering in the Buddha’s language was boredom. One view of Buddhism is that the Buddha was not talking about physical or emotional pain when he talked about suffering. He was talking about boredom. He knew that we actually equate boredom to death. As in bored to death. So, the way to escape boredom, to escape dissatisfaction, to escape suffering, to escape death is to escape memories. To experience a moment, and then to let it go completely. Keeping no memory of the past makes every present moment a pristine experience. These pristine experiences are without labels, because labels only exist in the past.

    Surprisingly, pristine experiences are always beautiful. Thus, to live in a Zen world is to live in a Nirvana on Earth. Because all experiences are pristine and remain pristine, because they are let go the moment after they are experienced. No memory is there to turn an experience into boredom, or dissatisfaction, or suffering, or death. Zen is to live in the present moment, without memory. Those present moments are beautiful, because there is nothing to compare them to. This is Zen: Letting go of experiences the moment after you experience them. This keeps the world pristine and beautiful for as long as you practice Zen.

    Told you it was weird. Sorry about that. But then, you’ve already let go of what I said.

  14. @Rollo

    Re: Fuck or Wait

    I’ve never had to ask a woman for sex and had them fuck on the second date a couple times pre-RP. I can say post-RP I’ve had fuck on the first date a couple times and it’s come very close to fuck on the first time meeting me several times. As in Fat Mama Hen managed to sneak them off when I wasn’t looking on two different occasions. And once a shitty wing man cock-blocked, and once a jealous husband I was unaware of showed up and cock-blocked…

    Bottom line: I’ve had them make me wait, I’ve had them jump me fast, and I’ve seen the desire to jump me immediately manifest… and being the guy that waits or negotiates is no longer on the list of shit I consider remotely acceptable. Pussy that’s soaking before the pants come off is a lot more fun. They even seem a bit annoyed if you engage in so much as foreplay once they’re naked if they’re that in to you. Of course sometimes I make ’em wait anyway. Frustrating them once they’re hot and bothered can be fun, especially when they realize you’re doing it on purpose. Having a girl physically attack you for dick is hilarious and satisfying.

    I suspect that the only reason some guys can accept it is that they’ve never known otherwise. One taste of the other side and you never want to even get the slightest hint you’re her Plan B. In fact I’ve had a couple bail for Plan B and tell me that’s what they were doing when I didn’t want to commit for valid reasons.

    I almost feel for those guys. Almost.

  15. Oh and a tip to avoid talking over each other that I learned when running The Man Table: have a text side channel that isn’t part of the audio, and have a moderator. Have the next guy that wants to speak indicate with a signal in the text channel, and have moderator handle transitioning to him.

  16. @Rollo: my sense of it is JBP considers Maps of Meaning to be his work; his definitions are therein. You might gain traction by critiquing within what he considers the scope of the critique-able and then expanding into your areas of expertise. Otherwise it may just come off as ad homimen.

    I grant you that young men may not hear JBP’s definition plus contextual framework and that’s a pity. His transition from pedagogue to celebrity has shorten a semester’s work into Y-minute video clips which are then re-mixed to present whatever the mixer desires. Chaos.

  17. First time commenter, although I have read the whole archive and 2 of your books so I am relatively familiar with your work.

    There are a few aspects of JBP’s work that I think were slightly inaccurate in the article (full disclosure – I have listened to approx 20-30 hours of his podcast/videos which is nowhere near his complete works, so take what I am saying here with a grain of salt).

    1. While JBP does often say that suffering is a constant in life, he generally doesn’t recommend trying to minimise the suffering as a solution. He argues that the remedy is finding meaning so the suffering in your life is worth it, as exemplified by the Nietzsche quote “he who has a why can bear any how”.

    2. The article stated that JBP seems to think women are above too much criticism. I think there are a few areas where this isn’t correct. Firstly, he never set out to aim his message at men, it just happens that men/boys are the ones that gravitate towards it (possibly due to western women generally being inculcated with so much “you go grrrrl” conditioning that their egos reflexively reject anything that tells them they should be responsible). So really he is giving his advice (and attendant criticisms) to everyone in western society, not just the males. Additionally, he stated something along the lines of “women, you need to deal with your crazy sisters, as men we have to keep our most powerful weapons sheathed”, which suggests he is well aware of the faults of modern western women. That being said, I think you are completely correct in saying he is egalitarian to a fault.

    3. Re: JBP focusing entirely on the beta / provisioning side of hypergamy and ignoring the alpha side, I think this is partially correct. Firstly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard him suggest that focusing on beta attributes will make you more attractive to women, just that these are what will give you fulfilment as an individual, as well as produce a functioning society (which is correct – society wants betas, even if prime age women generally don’t). Re: the alpha side, I agree that he doesn’t focus on it much, although his allusions to “be a monster” and “don’t be weak, be supremely dangerous but controlled” could be taken as a suggestion to understand and integrate (or even cultivate) the dominance seeking / aggressive / alpha aspects of your mindset and personality.

    4. Re: JBP resorting to shaming men, I have a different read than this. His exhortations to “man up” seem to be because he genuinely believes that taking responsibility is what is best for the individual / gives the individual meaning, not because it is best for society / women (although I suspect he believes those are both secondary benefits). That would give his exhortations a different frame to those coming from the pedestalising pastors in the US whose frame seems to be “man up so women and their holy vaginas / god will accept you”

    As a final point, the manner in which he dealt with Cathy Newman in the channel 4 interview I believe demonstrated that he genuinely doesn’t pedestalise women. He seemed to maintain a frame of “my ideas are correct and well researched, I’m not here to win your approval” throughout the interview. In fact I would suggest that the whole interview could be characterised as Newman throwing increasingly wild shit tests at him to try and break his frame, and every time meeting solid steel. Many if not most public intellectuals would have reduced themselves to supplicating to the domineering mother (as they would have perceived it) in front of them. Can you imagine Sam Harris in the same situation? (a man who I also have a great deal of respect for, although he genuinely is an inverterate pussy pedestaliser). He would likely have reduced himself to begging for her acceptance or showing her how wrong she is about him and how he’s actually a lovely person if she would just get to know him (beta identification game). It is to Peterson’s credit that he didn’t do that.

  18. AustralianIrishman: I was planning to write some ideas about how I think Rollo may be misinterpreting some parts of Peterson’s ideas, but you did more less what I had in mind in a very articulate way, so there’s no need to do so now.

    I hope Rollo responds to your post, as you make some good points.

    Aside that, as far as top advice on the manosphere Rollo and Peterson would be the top two that in my view hold the best answers and that make the most interesting analysis, It would be highly interesting to watch them discuss this topics live.

  19. AustralianIrishman

    Good post and analysis. Thanks for that. Agree with nearly all, the other things just quibbles…

  20. JBP does the same thing the OMGs do when he says man up and get your shit together.

    And JBP says thus to everyone, not just men.

    Of course, true red pill seems to state that women can never “man up” and be truly responsible without a solid masculinely framed guy to show the way. That’s the biggest difference between Rollo and JBP, but it’s a big one.

  21. “‘ . . . red pill seems to state that women can never “man up” . . . ”

    Because . . . Women are not men with tits.

  22. > “As Rollo Tomassi it’s impossible for me to be critical of any high profile guy in the sphere without the accusations of professional jealousy or sour grapes being the first reflexive response from haters.”

    When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks like this, it means they’re unable to engage with you on your ideas, and I would consider that a win on every measure that matters.

    I like Dr. Peterson too, but some of his supporters are real morons who are no better than the Feminists and intellectual dishonesty they’re railing against.

  23. I am still looking for the video where I first noticed JP’s blue pill misery where he describes how treating your spouse will be reciprocated. This video isn’t it but if you tune in at around 4 minutes you will see some strange disconnect in his normally fluid thought also consternation of expresion in a blue pill based relationship prescription. Give it a look.

    Don’t try this at home.

  24. I don’t see the Venn Diagram of JBP and The Red Pill as so intimately intertwined.

    But I do see the value of delineating the dangers of the Blue Pill Mindset.

    The fact remains: JBP has no incentive to give up his Blue Pill Ideals that he is happy within, in his relationship with his wife.

    He has no impetus to be red pill in regards to personal inter-sexual relationships, even if he is against top down egalitarian political arrangements. He’s against the top down egalitarianism and all the LGBT shit, and all the transgender shit. He want’s men to be men and women to be feminine in a top down approach. He’s just never had his eyes open to the bottom up approach. Possibly because he get’s laid with his own Blue Pill game, but that calls for speculation.

    We should form a cult, though. That would be fun. I can’t wait.

  25. More explicitly, the socio-biological function of women is different from that of men, they cannot be “responsible” in the same sense.. They can “woman up” to their responsibilities as women.

    Which will put them in conflict with men. Which does not make women evil. It just makes them women.

  26. Peterson has the exact same problem many TradCons-trying-to-be-red-pill have:

    Starts with an “r”, ands with “gion”.

  27. @ ManlyMan
    “February 12, 2018 at 7:55 pm
    Peterson has the exact same problem many TradCons-trying-to-be-red-pill have:

    Starts with an “r”, ands with “

    His understanding of religion and the power of human cultural stories are one of his great strengths. Actually fuels his red pill side.

    Rollo’s explication of complementary roles shows up again and again (and again) in “religious” tales. And the male Hierarchical heroes journey, too, helps understand capitalism. Norse, Greek, Judeo-Christian, it’s all in there.

  28. JBP is extremely interesting, his videos do inspire me to action and I personally like this delivery style. Unfortunately, he has been unwilling to look into the abyss with regards to women in the videos I have seen of him, and I don’t necessarily think it’s because he is holding back. This is really the only difference I see with him and the Red Pill, but it’s a huge difference as someone has pointed out, perhaps the biggest difference of all and the true key to internalizing red pill.

    JBP regards women as rational actors from an egalitarian standpoint. I’m more attuned to this I suppose, because I have a millennial I’m trying to red pill at work. Said lad has the very same egalitarian beliefs as JBP does. He has even made “make your bed” references, so I’m certain he is a JBP fan. JBP fits in very nicely with these guys because he explains/makes sense of the whole situation without breaking their egalitarian beliefs and thereby shattering all that generation has learned since birth and frankly shattering their beliefs and putting them through massive intense trauma, it won’t be easy for these millennial guys to truly unplug.

    For those of you that think JBP will be some gateway to the Red Pill, don’t be so sure. It’s not the case with this young lad, in fact because JBP is delivering such good explanations to the millennial generation , they are actually apt to shut themselves off to other view points and use JBP as a buffer as this guy is. I’ve pointed out Red Pill truths to this lad in person in front of our eyes and I can see the defense mechanisms kick in on him in real time, he may nod but has not truly internalized the lesson.

    Without going into the true nature of women/amoral abyss, this “man up” message is sending lambs to slaughter no matter if JBPs intentions are good(which I believe they are).

  29. “If there is a definition of ‘manning up’ in a Red Pill sense it is living a better way than your previous life that was informed by the falsehoods of your Blue Pill conditioning.”

    RULE 4

    Jordan Peterson is intellectually intriguing, I say as an autodidact intellectual. He can get someone off on the intellectual realm.

    Last April of 2017 I had some guys out to cut down trees and inoculate good mushroom spawn into them at my Farm. It was a The Tribe attempted peak experience and it certainly obtained that status for me, leader of men and all. Included in the tribe were my daughter’s boyfriend (who’s going to propose marriage to her this week on vacation in Miami, Heheh.) and also an intriguing former commenter Forge the Sky.

    Yep, young guy from a traditional religious community (something like Dutch religious or something, all those fucking religious sects confuse me.)

    After the adventurous day, the other five or six guys left and I talked with Forge about this fascination with Jordan Peterson that he had subscribed to. I’m like what’s the deal, he’s just an intellectual with like lots of intellectual spiel. After the sun set we talked by the campfire and Forge had no message for me, other than he opened up new horizons. (for like 90 minutes one on one) And I was thinking, so what, there are so many opportunities for that.

    But in the end Peterson is intellectually mesmerizing. And he never promised anyone a Red Pill Rose Garden, so the fact that he is separate from the Venn diagram in Red Pill is not any more surprising that Forge the Sky Ghosted this place. Had nothing to do with JBP, but had something to do with that UMC sweet zone old school idealism. When I talked about JBP with him, he sounded starry eyed. I can relate. I’m a starry eyed idealist. And I can’t say that didn’t work for me since I’ve been 27 years old.

    But grounding in Red Pill and fighting the Purple Pill has been fucking redeeming.

    I was never Blue Pill. I got Betatized. Which made it easier to crawl out of the hole I dug. My own damn fault for not having mentors. Or male only spaces. You live and you learn. Go forth and prosper with Red Pill and ditching those own demons you got.

    Use JBP for his insights. Use Rollo for your compass in Red Pill. Yes, JBb’S ideologies are intriguing and compelling. I found that out hanging out and talking with Forge the Sky who was an intriguing intellectual. I miss him Forge. But we all got to follow our purpose and he did, big time.

    His Rule 4 is an obtuse explanation that is better explained by Reality Transurfing. Reality Transufing is much more concrete for the abstract injunction in Rule 4 of JBP.

  30. Great post Rollo! Overall, I 90+% agree with your analysis of Peterson and since I am well versed in RP (thanks to you et al) I can take the very valuable nuggets Peterson delivers and easily ignore the BP/egalitarian fallacies.

    On the life is suffering bullet (the weakest on IMO), I don’t think he says you have to suffer, but, like Peck in “The Road Less Traveled” you have to accept that pain and death are given and thus transcend them (quit whining) and move forward productively.

  31. I first noticed Peterson on Public television “TVO” several years ago doing opinion pieces aimed at women “Wondering where all the good men had gone”which were very red pill. In a nut shell his belief is “Nobody gives a shit about men, so fix yourself”… l find very little at fault with that, it’s a way of saying that women are out for themselves and are monkey branchers…if you want a women you have to offer them what they want.

    In the Newman interview it was very evident he knows what shit tests, Game and Frame are and the best way to counter the tired old feminist arguments others have have simply apologetically lubed up and bent over for.

  32. Years ago I read; The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom which correctly stated that;

    Men were designed by nature to lead short, nasty, brutal lives and women were designed to lead long, miserable ones.

  33. status confirmed
    February 12, 2018 at 3:43 pm

    You can get a woman to reason. It takes a long time and your arguments must be absolutely bullet proof. You wear them down.

    It also helps if you can point out the specifics (with nuance) of their emotional reaction.

    I have been making consistent statements to the LTR for 40+ years. She is just starting to catch on.

    Women’s emotional reaction can be an enormous help if you are sensitive to every flutter and then reframe it in your frame.

    The one big secret I learned in the last 20 years (I was RP in ’62) is that women LOVE being abused – if you do it in a way she likes. I had refused to see this for over 30 years (I didn’t like “abusing” women). Now a days I’m into it. My LTR game has improved – 50 Shades of White Hot.

    Now I personally would not do a fleezer on her. I prefer emotional abuse. I leaves no visible scars. But his general outlook is correct.

    I did use dread all the time. But it was a tool. Not a frame.

  34. I’m not sure on this, but does Peterson advocate the average man should marry, as part of his manly responsibilities? Marriage though is optional. Its supposed to be something you engage in, not because its the right thing to do, but because you’ll find it ultimately rewarding. For the average “beta” man, it probably used to be. If a man takes an honest look at what marriage will do for him, and decides its not worth it, then there should be no shame if he decides not to marry.

  35. @SJF
    “His Rule 4 is an obtuse explanation that is better explained by Reality Transurfing. Reality Transufing is much more concrete for the abstract injunction in Rule 4 of JBP.”

    Do you recommend the entire series or just the first transurfing book?

    Also, as an ENTP, I can very much understand where Forge is coming from regarding his interest in JBP.

  36. CSI
    February 13, 2018 at 2:03 am

    I would add two conditions.
    1. A child is on the way or soon on the way. Very soon. This was in fact sort of traditional.
    2. She has ONE-itis for you.

    Otherwise it is 1. Not worth it or 2. Not feasible, because sooner or later you will make an “irretrievable mistake” in her eyes.

    I had this subconsciously figured out when I got married in ’83. Well before the current mess was screaming.

  37. @SJF: Blue Oyster Cult / Red Lobster Cult? Have breaded shrimp while shouting for more cowbell? Maybe I’ll give it a whirl. lol

    I’ve tried, based on your recommendation, reading Zeland but it is just not grokking. I’ve put it down and will come back to it in a couple of months.

  38. “Investors proposing to buy the assets of the Weinstein company, which includes a catalog of 279 films and a building in New York’s Tribeca, had reportedly planned to install a female-majority board.”

    The FI gets its hands on one of the biggest production houses in Hollywood. Get ready for a tsunami of movies that will push Feminine Supremacy and socially engineer men to voluntarily chop of their testicles.

    Women can’t create such businesses on their own, hence immoral tactics were used to take him down (I don’t condone what he did, but I don’t believe that those women are “victims”).

  39. Men who are new to the Red Pill or who are relatively inexperienced want the Red Pill to be an ideology because they desire that comforting embrace. They are coming from the Blue Pill which as you have pointed out is an ideology so they want that form to continue. With an ideology you don’t have to think, it’s all about believing. The Red Pill is all about thinking which causes them to freak out.

    As far as Red Pill being feminism for men, no, not at all. That’s known as MGTOW.

  40. I agree with Rollo. I’ve watched a few videos on YouTube of Jordan and he strikes me as blue pill in many ways which I found a little strange after seeing a debate with him on channel 4 but hey he’s probably hasn’t read any of rollos work. Jordan is still a top guy though if a little misguided. I don’t think there is an easy answer to fix western society. Female primacy is the complete norm. Afew years ago I wouldn’t have even understood what female primacy was/is. That bloody rabbit hole is huge!

  41. “So, the Red Pill needs to remain a praxeology and it ought to always resist being force-fit into an ideology . . .”

    Exactly. Takes wisdom to see this though, because the human mind is “spring-loaded” in preference of defining ideologies and forming groups based on these.

    The power of RM is it has not become brittleized into an “-ism” with attendant articles of faith. It is vibrant, fresh, eagerly incorporating new data as it becomes available. It is more method, like science, than dogma.

    As soon as Red Pill becomes an “-ism” or a prescription of a set of beliefs and “one size fits all” actions, new evidence must be denied in defense of the dogma. Therefore dogmas always die, because these cannot evolve. That’s what is happening to feminism.

  42. I’m a long time reader and this is my first comment.

    Rollo. Your writings have saved a life. No hyperbole.

    I have nearly completed a close reading of JBP Maps of Meaning and can say that, although some of its core notions can be applied to the praxeology of the red pill, his work and lectures should *not* be considered a representation or summation of red pill principles. The RP focuses on the the hypergamous impulse that manifests as the purposeful actions and behaviors of the human female in intersexual mating practices. The chaos that results from unfettered hypergamy forces us to reorient our disposition from the super ego pole of our culture and society, and reactivate the impulses of the id as contexualized by masculinity. The glitch in the system is an atrophied masculinity that has been abridged by three waves of feminism, in tandem with an emerging industry 4.0 that is marginalizing the value of masculine industriousness through the development of cyberphysical systems in deindustrialized western economies. The red pill helps us get laid but it does nothing to extinguish the existential anxiety that western men collectively feel. What value does a man have beyond the sexual? Even with sexual and reproductive success, the reconfiguration of Western Civilization is a dizzying experience even for the most alpha among us. JBP and his lectures speak to the multiple pressure points where these different anxieties intersect. Rollos critique is spot on in that it illuminates the reality that the old rules no longer apply. If JBP can be esteemed as a cultural hero by a lost generation just by spouting lukewarm aphorisms of red pill truth, then I wait for the day that the true red pill champion emerges. That is the day where the true super predator must emerge, the day when we realize that tradcon affirmations will never relieve a lost generation of its shame.

  43. @SJF
    “His Rule 4 is an obtuse explanation that is better explained by Reality Transurfing. Reality Transufing is much more concrete for the abstract injunction in Rule 4 of JBP.”

    Do you recommend the entire series or just the first transurfing book?

    Also, as an ENTP, I can very much understand where Forge is coming from regarding his interest in JBP.

    @Just Beers

    Definitely the entire series. Reality transurfing. Steps I-V

    It’s $9.99 on Amazon Kindle, the torrented copies I’ve seen are shit. I have Kindle Unlimited and can borrow it for free. (And loopholes to transfer to USB and convert to Epub, but don’t tell anyone..)

    It is a long drawn out read but has a great follow through throughout. It’s much the same “ancient wisdom” that Jordan Peterson uses. What it does is allows you to use the power of positive thinking in a rational, no holds barred way. It’s really an intellectual exercise.

    And the major thing is it definitely helps get through Red Pill and Game stumbling blocks. It’s all about mindset. It has helped enormously with mine and my red pill buddies field reports. What I do with my red pill buddies is field report after field report after field report in a causal fashion, either by email, hour long phone conversation or IRL meetup. It’s good stuff.

    I’m done learning new tricks, gathering information on how to proceed, but now have a framework in how to proceed gracefully in masculine fashion. I feel at ease.

    And Beers viva the ENTP in you. I’m lucky to have one INTJ red pill buddy and an ENTP red pill buddy. They are fun to hang with.

  44. @Ostnarc:

    Western society as we knew it is dead. It committed suicide in the early 20th century. Its rotting corpse continues to shuffle on as a zombie, which fools most into thinking it is still alive. When it finally falls over they will be shocked and stunned, much as the Romans were to discover that their Empire had fallen a hundred years before they noticed it.

    It cannot be “fixed” in the sense of restored. The only way is forward from where we are. Where it ends up may well be a Western society, but it will be a different one.

    Perhaps a very different one.

  45. This all sounds like one giant shit test…increasingly I’m getting:

    “That’s sexist…”

    “Don’t me rude..”

    Etc…from girls I’m gaming and neg or sexualise the interactions with. But it’s all about tonality…these shit tests are now automatic reactions to anything that 40 years ago would have been basic masculinity.

    Ignoring, smiling, amused mastery …name your pua response raises your value.

    Man up is basically “don’t take my shit if you want me to fuck you”

  46. “as far as top advice on the manosphere Rollo and Peterson would be the top two that in my view hold the best answers and that make the most interesting analysis, It would be highly interesting to watch them discuss this topics live”

    Rollo can flip him. that would be a massive coup. dude just has to realize that the nine year old princess unicorn he fell in luv with in 1925 would fuck an entire prison full of dudes if you catch her in the right moment – and that in no way makes her “unlovable” or whatever it is he’s holding onto

    the guy is ready to flip. all the pieces are there. he’s basically the hb9 at the party. everyone’s staring but no one will drop a serious neg to open up the path to closing him

    he would probably be the best notch on Rollos hypergamy post and the two of them going forward with a set of coordinated objectives… like independent cells attacking different parts of the oppositions organization but with the same overall noncontradicting goal…

    pill every man on earth

  47. @ Rollo – “I’ve locked horns with a few Red Pill guys recently who seem to think that ‘Red Pill’ is an ideology and it’s just the counter revolt to feminism; basically it is feminism for men.”

    Yup! The Red Pill is what YOU make of it.

    It is inevitable that you lock horns with some guys concerning this. Because some (probably many actually) are literally still subjugating themselves to women by thinking the Red Pill is a “counter revolt” to feminism. By thinking this, they place the feminist imperative in the position of authority, higher power, over what men think and do. They are trapped in a mental paradigm that considers whatever men think and do as a reaction to women; a reflex to feminist behavior.

    In their minds, what men think and do are reactions to what women do rather than actions men initiate.

    In their world, women are the initiators, men are reactors. This is perhaps the most confirming manifestation of well established extreme Blue Pill conditioning. Such men are dead fast mentally enslaved by this “woman as actor, man as reactor” paradigm. They are brainwashed so thoroughly to ignore the power of their own initiative to such an extent that they are unaware that their ability to exercise their own initiative even exists. Furthermore, they would have no idea of what to do with it if they were aware. They have no practice, no experience other than reactionary. They attempt to embrace ideologies as a psychological coping mechanism for lack of personal resolve. It is a false reconciliation for lack of initiative.

    Jordan Peterson is a “PUSSY”….a bad example a bad “role model”. And, (whether he consciously admits it or not) he is promoting his own special secular religion of sorts rather than anything else.

  48. @Chuck

    With respect The translation of “Suffering” in Buddhism as “boredom” is a very poor one. The First Noble Truth of Buddhism IS NOT the truth of “suffering” or “boredom.”
    It is the Truth of Dukkha. Dukkha is a (Pali/Sanskrit) term that literally refers to a wheel on a cart that is off-kilter.
    It is almost precisely what Rollo defined it as- (almost) perpetual discontent. A wheel that is off-kilter IS moving the cart straight a little bit of the time, but the rest it is not. Doesn’t mean the cart doesn’t move- though an off-kilter wheel is more likely to break, or land you in a ditch. The “Suffering” Buddhism talks about is the fact that life is pretty much always “not quite right” at small or gigantic levels. (The Second Noble Truth explains WHY this is- not because of “desire” but because of “craving;” ie- we hurt ourselves wanting things we can’t have/can’t exist or to change things that can’t be changed; the Third is the Truth that the Wheel CAN be fixed and put on kilter; the Fourth describes the effort-based methods of doing so.)


    One of the big mistakes JBP makes, and which I hope you can discuss with him, is that he says, “Female animals go into heat, human females don’t.” Obviously that isn’t true, and I think he’s even acknowledged the difference in women’s pairing preferences as related to the Ovulatory/Luteal dichotomy, so I think it’s just part of his Blue Pill cognitive dissonance. Watch for it when you talk to him and you guys can unlock some great discussion.

  49. “In their minds, what men think and do are reactions to what women do rather than actions men initiate.”


    maybe they should have blown up more stuff as kids. they’d see exactly what kind of actions boys with lighters can initiate

    go ahead and replace lighter with cock and the same is true because he’d know… I make that pussy wet. ME.

    nasty twisting shiv there, man

  50. “maybe they should have blown up more stuff as kids. they’d see exactly what kind of actions boys with lighters can initiate”

    I still have the plastic army truck and cannon that my father gave me for my first birthday. None of the Bag O’ Hundred Army Men that came with it lived past my 12th.

  51. Ronin
    Peterson is very careful of what he says, l’m pretty sure he’s laying out the prescription for the red pill in a way feminists can’t effectively attack . The channel four interview showing exactly how it works.

    I read him that way too. He’s aware of himself as an actor on a public stage, and aware that demonstrating full red-pill awareness would place him firmly – and permanently – outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.
    Of course he could totally be a BP in his relationship with his wife. But videos where he demonstrates deference to her could easily be a conscious virtue-signaling, that allows him to remain on the stage. If I were to take a guess about him, I’d guess he’d be more purple-hued.

    In any case, JP’s work against totalitarianism is what I consider to be most valuable about what he does. And I think the importance of that can hardly be overstated.

    dudes from the west should not fuck with zen. they warned us

    Cosign that. zen is totally incompatible with the western mind – except possibly at the highest levels of spiritual development, one can profitably meet zen. Possibly. I wouldn’t really know. Ever heard of Thomas Merton? A famous Trappist monk, who began corresponding with DT Suzuki and the like, and was mysteriously electrocuted in a bathtub in Bangkok as he was attending an zen/christianity conference. The same guy who wrote “The Seven Story Mountain” (that made him famous), also wrote “Zen and Birds of Appetite.” Very interesting man.

    However, ‘life is suffering’ is a key insight of Christianity, too, and has developed a totally different rubric to address it. The Passion of Christ – not zen, definitely, lol. And hard to understand nowadays, too, because one of our main occupations probably since the Enlightenment is to find ways to avoid suffering. It took me years and years to “get it.”

  52. “It is the Truth of Dukkha. Dukkha is a (Pali/Sanskrit) term that literally refers to a wheel on a cart that is off-kilter.”

    so the entire system is based on the idea that shit just ain’t right?

    lol. poor unhappy prince, so very tired of whores and hash

    which one is the system/religion that’s based on the idea that shit’s great?

    Pua maybe because fucking is great and it’s pretty much what we’re here to do

    years ago someone said after looking at a vix chart or something, “fuck it. I’m out. it’s craft beer and titties for me”

    does that version of the west have a chance at survival? we’ll find out

  53. “so the entire system is based on the idea that shit just ain’t right?”

    No, on the idea that shit don’t revolve around your desires. That just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that it’s not right.

    “it’s craft beer and titties for me.” does that version of the west have a chance at survival? we’ll find out”

    Yes. It might even be where to put the safe money, but the path to it won’t be all titties and beer.

  54. “Not only does Mike have to work late, presumably to keep Lisa in the style to which she’s become accustomed, but he also has to “make up” for it by cooking her dinner when he gets home!”

    Now all Mike needs to do is the dishes, “clean the bedroom” and hope/pray/beg for the obligatory starfish sex, and be understanding if Lisa refuses because she has a headache (again).

    JBP will be so proud of Mike. Life is a suffering …. after all.

  55. @Chimera

    The red pill helps us get laid but it does nothing to extinguish the existential anxiety that western men collectively feel. What value does a man have beyond the sexual?

    Very well put. TRP tends to be preoccupied with sex, and JBP is not. Women aren’t the most important thing in life. Even if you go your own way, there’s more to life than getting in shape, making money and having a hobby.

  56. SJB:my sense of it is JBP considers Maps of Meaning to be his work; his definitions are therein. You might gain traction by critiquing within what he considers the scope of the critique-able and then expanding into your areas of expertise. Otherwise it may just come off as ad homimen.
    I grant you that young men may not hear JBP’s definition plus contextual framework and that’s a pity. His transition from pedagogue to celebrity has shorten a semester’s work into Y-minute video clips which are then re-mixed to present whatever the mixer desires. Chaos.

    This is very true. Skip all the short videos about random stuff and just watch all of the Maps of Meaning lecture.

  57. “As you might guess, I strongly disagree with negotiating intimacy. You cannot negotiate genuine desire. You can obligate a woman to fuck you (now called rape) via negotiation, but you cannot organically inspire genuine desire in a woman.”

    Of Course.

    Because desire is of limbic-brain. Not thinking-brain.

    But the viability of “negotiated intimacy” is the inevitable result of an intellectualized approach founded on some basic beliefs i.e., dogmas. Peterson is not being disingenuous; he does not even see the dogmas.

    Got to deny a lot of reality to preserve an intellectually intensive thinking ideology founded upon dogma. And that precisely is the weakness: because The Real always peeks through, whether in the form of a cold bedroom, affair, or divorce for that guy who has followed the prescription and “done everything right.”

  58. If Peterson got divorce raped, he might change his perspective. Especially if she was branch swinging to another man on standby. It just takes one divorce rape, initiated by the woman of course, to change your idealistic blue pilled view of women and their hypergameous nature.

  59. “shit don’t revolve around your desires.”

    gonna be a tough sell then. and I even practice stare at the wall. i’d be more interested in something that supports my feelings of power

    like obama. that new portrait is amazing. only one guy I’ve seen so far called it…

    he has two right hands (not left hand invisible thumb with secret sixth finger – just hidden right thumb)

    obama’s religion allows him to believe that he is the first man, adam, who was made with allahs hands, and that he alone will speak to allah on mankinds behalf

    he is totally fucking insane and broadcasts it openly. that’s power

  60. @M Simon

    Can you offer some stories that involve the “abuse” that’s worked for you?

    Blax has gotten through to me on several points using stories. Thomas Shelby in Peaky Blinders and Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter are good examples of what it looks like when you simply act, without discussion, without permission and without consensus. It sounds pathetic as I type it, but I’m trying to get back to my natural state; before I started hedging my bets in the world and trying to protect my progress in my corner of the world.

    I went way overboard with dread on a girlfriend a few years ago. This was before I knew anything about the Red Pill, and didn’t know dread was a strategy to consider. I just decided that committed relationships were a waste of time for me. I’d break up with my GF’s 3-4 years in, because I didn’t know how to lead them into the type of relationship where we’d both win. So all I’d get out of the experience was a list of women I could have banged along the way and didn’t because I was committed. Stupid.

    So I told this one up front, I wasn’t into commitment and we would never live together. The only thing that should matter to either of us was the here and now. I wouldn’t worry about who she was seeing, and it was none of her business who I was seeing. If she had fun with me, keep seeing me. If not, there’s the door and no hard feelings.

    It drove her bat shit crazy and just about killed her self-esteem. Other guys were interested in her but she just couldn’t crack me. She’d get drunk and throw tantrums and cry about “why am I such a piece of shit that you won’t take me seriously” or “why would you live with her and you won’t even talk about it with me”.

    In terms of reducing the drama in my life (my #1 goal with this tactic), it was a total failure. Granted, that’s only one woman and another might react differently. But it’s clear I failed to strike an agreeable balance between dread and comfort.

  61. I think it’s clear Jordan Peterson lacks experience with women. His “game” is basically something he is advocating as an option: Find yourself a profession and work 80h a week for 30 years, it will surely give you the status to which some woman will be attracted enough to be your wife. And that’s not all wrong. But it’s also a very, very limited approach to women. And it might indeed be bad, if a figure of authority like Peterson has become is advocating this kind of solutions – wich will fail on many.

    But at the same time this lack of focus on and knowledge about women is also a strength of Petersons teachings. Because it avoids the danger of handing women the frame by dancing around their needs and desires. Peterson offers a plan which would be just as good if all females would disappear from earth tomorrow. Petersons “Maps of Meaning” is pretty much about building and maintaining frame, what frame is and how it all works. And we also know the way to attract women is not to focus on them, but on yourself.

    He also has some very good ideas about masculinity when he is talking about the hero-archetype. “Going to the unknown, understanding or mastering it and speaking truth to the world about it” is not exactly mystery’s switches, but I’d bet it’s going to work too.

    Since Peterson seems to be quite open to debating other Youtubers from the anti-feminist scene, I think it would be very good if someone like Rollo could bring the more tricky details of women to Petersons attention. I think he just didn’t meet them yet because his game is working wonderfully for him.

    And I think Peterson could maybe connect a few more dots for himself if he would think more about the specifics of women. While it’s true his relationship advice seems egalitarian, in his talks there are several points where he clearly states he doesn’t believe men and women are the same. At one point he states “the dragon of women is man”, meaning women seek the heroic adventure in the unknown not in the outer world like men do, they seek it in men. Which does indeed explain quite a lot of the strange desires of women we are discussing here all the time.

  62. Peterson would be a tough one to convert to TRP, I think.

    He’s principally a scientist, and so he’s intellectually very geared towards peer-reviewed studies (many of which he’s conducted himself) following academic-style procedures and regression analysis and so on. He will listen to anecdata, but to the extent that it doesn’t line up with his understanding of the “scientifically proven facts”, he won’t be quick to accept it. In other words — his paradigm is based on his scientific worldview (note, scientific, not just rational — it’s a specific epistemology here, not just rational reasoning) and, in his case, reams of academic psychological studies that he is intimately familiar with, and form a very firm foundation (in his own mind at least) for his views. He will be very hard to budge from those views unless he can be convinced that TRP at least meshes with the studies that form the basis of his views — which would mean someone would need to approach him from a very academic/scientific perspective, become familiarized with the same ream of studies, and build the intellectual bridge and foundation for Peterson to walk across towards the red pill without having to abandon the scientific foundation of his worldview.

    My guess is that a session with Rollo or another RP luminary would pique his interest but nothing more, because the interlocutor wouldn’t be able to engage him in a way that meshes the red pill with the academic studies and “facts” that form the basis of his views. What we have is a lot of anecdata — FRs — but we don’t have academically rigorous studies that build upon existing studies and test the hypotheses in a way that will be convincing to an academic like Peterson. Academics are tough nuts to crack, folks — they aren’t going to be swayed by anecdata, and Peterson is certainly like that as well (in his videos he is constantly referring to various studies that form the foundation for his views). To “flip” him we would need to have someone who is an academic in the same (or quite closely related) field review the studies that are the basis for Peterson’s views and build the bridge from them to the red pill, academically. Nothing else would suffice to move him, I expect, in terms of his views.

    Now, if he had a *personal* crisis with his marriage, it’s quite possible that he would be open to anecdata in a *personal* way, if they aligned with his own anecdata … but that would require waiting to see when and if such a crisis were to emerge. In the absence of that, you’re looking at a tough academic slog trying to convince a guy who has (at least in his own mind) a rock solid “scientific” foundation for his views.

  63. @Fleezer:

    “…He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man’s soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?”

    There’s your God of Titties and Beer Through Personal Power

  64. ““why am I such a piece of shit that you won’t take me seriously” or “why would you live with her and you won’t even talk about it with me”. ”

    these are some of the magic words. you should be able to make her cry in under 30 seconds too, just like a little sister. you got it.

    “Piece of shit” -Status- Confirmed has serious plate-spinin’ itch. whoever wings with him is gonna be in for a great time

    this is so great. every single day guys are waking up. just imagine a full bloom

    a player once said:

    “all we have to do now, is take these lies, and make them true, somehow”

    do n-counts for fags count? if they do, his was over 500

    fake it til you make it

  65. “There’s your God of Titties and Beer Through Personal Power”

    I would be working for free in your non-existent cult

    but only because you would be happy when I left without saying goodbye

  66. “Another RedPill statement Peterson agrees on is “men test ideas, women test men”.”

    Yes and no. He’s confining the statement to the Ivory Tower, ignoring that one of the ideas men test is “I think I can beat the crap out of you take your stuff. Including a War Bride.”

  67. do n-counts for fags count? if they do, his was over 500

    Heh. Gay “game” is mostly like “girl game” — all about looks, because they’re trying to attract guys, and guys are driven by looks (gay guys, too).

    His key line in that same song was this: “but when you shake your ass, they notice fast, some mistakes were built to last!”. Yep, exactly — that’s “gay game” in a nutshell right there.

  68. @SJF

    Off-topic. Just wanted to respond briefly to your Meyers Briggs stuff at the end of the last thread. I’ve never gotten anywhere with that because my results are always pretty inconclusive, and will vary depending on where I’m at in my life when I take the test. I guess you could say that my personality is not particularly fixed or stable over long periods of time. And not easily categorized.

    I’m always I and N, but the last two letters seem to be up for grabs. It makes sense because for most people it can take quite awhile to get a bead on who I am. Rarely does someone get me right away. And I long ago learned how to use that to my advantage with my “enemies”. People who come after me always, always, always lose. Because they always, always, always miscalculate who they are dealing with. Fatal mistake every time.

    Probably developed this chameleon aspect growing up in the military, and having to adapt to new environments every few years.

    [That’s because MBTI is complete and utter astrology horseshit]

  69. status confirmed
    February 13, 2018 at 8:42 am

    I don’t think there is a formula. Yo have to calibrate it to the girl.

    Some need a “beating”. For others a few swats on the fanny suffice.

    But just for your titillation. She “likes” hearing stories about being forced to watch me love another woman while she is forced to watch and help. “It makes you drop your barriers.”

  70. “do n-counts for fags count? if they do, his was over 500”

    Yes, they do. Because men (even gay men) don’t lie about n count.

    With females however, it is quite subjective – “if its not in the area code, then it does note count.”
    – “If its with a girl, it does not count”
    – “If it anal or oral, it does not count”
    – “If it is with an ‘Aziz’, it does not count”
    – “If she was drunk, it does not count”
    …. blah blah blah

    May the Player Reset in Peace:

  71. In the spirit of self-criticism over my previous posts (and in defense of Peterson):

    Perhaps the “Lost Generation” isn’t lost at all.
    Perhaps these see all too-clearly; and this is why they are walking.

    Perhaps the accomplishment of strenuous, death-defying, courageous things in that critical early stage of manhood requires self-deception. Perhaps we need to believe there is some great reward -the love of a true woman- at the end of that endeavor, even if there is no reward. Perhaps playing “Judas Goat” – knowingly or not – is the role Peterson is burdened with. Would I have accomplished those things, knowing back then it was a lie? Dunno.

    There may be fewer takers for the role “suicide bomber” if the truth of “seventy black-eyed virgins” was known.

  72. “There may be fewer takers for the role “suicide bomber” if the truth of “seventy black-eyed virgins” was known.”

    Sure, but more motorcycle street racers.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: