Monday, 14 May 2018

A discussion I had about Jordan Peterson with a beta male

I shared this with you to demonstrate the feminisation of men.

It is  a psychological study and it seems a very feminine response because the beta male anti-feminist repeatedly questioned my intentions and kept referring to his emotions. While it is true I was goading him, the hate that he kept accusing me of feeling  was a projection of his hatred of me for having goaded him.

In the end, he accused me of being a feminist. I think he meant to say I was behaving like a bullying a feminist.

In my view, a masculine response would be more based on whether it would work and whether it is the right thing to do, not whether the females of his society deserved to be saved from themselves or were  entitled to any protection after what they have done to men.

His insistence that I must try to persuade women was a deflecting tactic intending me to waste my time persuading those infirm of purpose and barely rational who would be powerless to do anything even if they completely agreed with me. 

My strategy remains to direct my message to alpha males and men having alpha male qualities prepared to take the risk of speaking out who expect to make sacrifices and fight with manly vigour to take their country back from the degenerate and demented matriarchy.

Since there are so very few of them, my task should not be too difficult, in theory, since only ten good men are required.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

CK:

What do you think of Jordan Peterson?

BETA MALE:

He is a necessary step, but cannot be the end point in thinking.  Resisting even this step is social suicide.

CK:

What do you mean by "end point"?
What do you mean by "this step"?

BETA MALE:

He still represents a view that places the lives of women and the obligation of men, in a place that is not in keeping with true balance.  Either there is true balance in rights and obligations, or rights accompany obligations,   You cannot have rights for one without obligations and rights only with obligations for other, and expect a stable society.  It was, that obligation and rights were 2 sides of the same coin, and that worked.  We have broken this for women only.  We have now obligated men to society and children, without associated rights, and in some cases without those even being his children.  That is not stable.

CK:

Are you saying Peterson does not go far enough?

BETA MALE:

Well in the end - yes.
However, jumping past him, is near impossible without stopping where he is first.  He is a creature of his generation, and cannot  get there without stopping along the way.  He is doing good things, but, until we can do away with the notion of women as victim, men as perpetrator you cannot get to balance.  Until society can see women as adults,  (cannot be part way) we will not get past this.  Today, we refuse to see women as actors, only acted upon, and frankly he does not come directly enough at this issue.  However, it is hard to do so, in the current climate.

CK:

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/as-nationalist-philosopher-have-decided.htmlI think I say pretty clearly what needs to be said, don't I?

BETA MALE:

Yes, but, I do not believe we can get there in a single step, and I do not think that most women understand that when you have a situation, where you have rights without responsibility, or where you are asserted to not be a criminal, when you commit an act that is criminal when committed against you - you must be said to have an elevated position in a country.  Peterson, is a required step along the way, jumping to the end point will cause a conflagration - because it will cause young men so see that this was really understood all along, while women of good will are still struggling to catch up.  However I deeply suspect that Peterson will be resisted, and the west will implode as a result. 
Peterson won't go far enough. 
Yes, but once Peterson is settled upon as an acceptable view, there will be more room to talk.  Once you open your mind that far, not seeing more, is hard.

CK:

Nah, you lay it on the line and get him to say it now, before more damage is done.
You have already accepted defeat.
 
I guess you think you've had your innings. Fuck the next generation, huh?
Can't remember now whether I've asked if you have any sons.
 
He's scared, you're scared. Canadian men are incorrigible cucks and it is impossible to shame them. 
Childless atheists don't care about making any sacrifices for the next generation. You think there is enough left in the world before you pop your clogs. God forbid that you would be inconvenienced by a conflagration!
And why the fuck do you all talk like that?

BETA MALE:

Not scared, and frankly I find the notion, that all men or women are all of one thing stupid.  No, I did not have my innings, and the idea is to change society, not destroy it.  I very much believe that once you get to Peterson, the rest comes clear much more easily.  There is a generation of women, in Canada that are pure hate, and they have no idea that that they are, - and frankly I just managed to get my own mother to see it.  However leaping to the end, will do nothing but unleash another round of hate, that will also not serve my sons.  Teachers have moved to not deal with me, because I will not accept the demonstrably false feminist lie.  However, not understanding that women are starting to see Trudeau for the hate he is, is equally bad.  I am not worried about me being inconvenienced by a confligration - because it would mostly hit a generation that richly deserves it, but rather, it would not stop there, and once unleashed would last generations.

CK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSrbzLl-hM
Listen to this fucker. He talks like you. Just the first 15 minutes and the impenetrable language, like he doesn't want to be understood.
Not scared with your impenetrable language?

BETA MALE:

Never bothered with a profile pic, and I have always told my kids not to - because for them I do worry - and do not like being a hypocrite.

CK:

Yeah, because you don't want to own your words.
Afraid of the consequences.
I know they are not insignificant, but if none of you will challenge feminism, you make it unchallengeable.

You don't expect anything to change in your generation, and you hope it won't.
You don't expect anything to change before you pop your clogs, and you won't rock the boat.
If anyone were to want to do so, you would tell them to stop, or maybe shoot them in the back to make them stop.

BETA MALE:

I hope it will, and have spent considerably funds to make it so.  Frankly  - you seem little other than hate, most of the time.
CK:

I think it is useful to speak my mind instead of beating around the bush cucked men do.
If you can't even say what you mean, then people won't be able to act on the ideas you are too afraid to express.Yes, I do despise the cowardice and denial I see everywhere.

BETA MALE:

Yes, and I find it useful to speak my mind as well, and generally do.  I do not beat around the bush,  and frankly you simply throw all into large pots.  Not all women support the current situation, most men are too indoctrinated to see it.  Speaking your mind in a way they understand, as opposed to reject out of hand is useful, you often do not appear to understand that.

CK:

Even when nothing is at stake, you won't speak your mind or defend your ideas. It really is truly contemptible.
Forget the women.
Wow, you think you can ever persuade them? You are trying to do that? Total cuck.

BETA MALE:

Seriously - I do speak my mind, just not interest in doing so with you, as you are utterly closed, and do not get things. You jump to conclusion instead of reading data.
That is, you seem too often to be too much of a dogmatist.

CK:

Not at all. I am very happy to have my ideas challenged.I cannot imagine you speaking your mind with anyone at all.

BETA MALE:

You are in essence making my point though. Rather like in the marriage argument,.  YOu do no understand the notion of balance at all.  You lead with massive generalizations, and make all things absolutes.

CK:

I rely on no dogma.  Everything I have proposed are logical propositions.
I do not deny that my generalisations are generalisations.
You are using the fact that not every proposition is 100% true as an excuse for inaction.
A very liberal tactic.

BETA MALE:

Yeah, and you operate on the notion, that my actions, and positions are visible to you. Where you are doing little but stirring anger without benefit.
I do not take inaction, I act not stirr hate.
You will never bestir yourself. Why break the habit of a lifetime?

CK:

What do you do?

BETA MALE:

Except you have no idea of me,

CK:

Sphinx Without A Secret.
Cuck.

BETA MALE:

Yeah - like I said, do little other than stir hate, for hates sake.

CK:

Hate is a useful emotion.It is the fuel for action.Emotions are the algorithm of human action.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but only if it is carefully crafted. Causing explosions, does not serve my sons.

CK:

I am not asking you to blow anything up.
Trust you to pretend that.
What do you tell your sons anyway?
I bet you tell them to never marry.
Bet you tell them you only want bastard grandchildren if they must sire offspring at all.

BETA MALE:

Nope, have not said that, but, I have been clear about the risks and hazards, as I have been in public discussion.  The reality is feminism has been a long lasting and enduring hysteria - and until it breaks marriage is a pointless hazard for men.

CK:

I knew it!
So you are happy to have bastard grandchildren.

BETA MALE:

Nope, not said that -and frankly I have not told them to do anything regarding marriage, or children - and will not pressure them, I will merely make it clear the hazards. Oh, and having kids period for a man, opens him to the same risk regardless.  So why would I do that? 
You are in effect deemed married the minute you have children, so what- that is an inane position. 
Again - you seem to not understand, that formal marriage is far from the end of the issue for men.

CK:

Wow, no belief in the sanctity of marriage at all.This explains completely your half-arsed attitude towards everything.

BETA MALE:

How are you avoiding the sanctity of marriage, - if you have no children at all.  How, is marriage in a western state have sanctity.

CK:

The purpose of marriage is legitimate children.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but if you have no children?

CK:

You don't have to have children to understand that marriage is a child protection scheme.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but I am not saying people should have kids under the current situation

CK:

There is never a convenient time to have children.

BETA MALE:

Let us be frank- it makes no sense today for men, and well, if women want kids, there is a discussion required.  Fix it now, or well society collapses

CK:

I am trying to get it fixed ASAP and people like you are dragging your feet.

BETA MALE:

Yah - you expect all to agree with you without paying any attention.

CK:

Not pay any attention? Moi??

BETA MALE:

yup

CK:

I have paid enough attention to know all Canadian  men are cucks, including Jordan Peterson.

BETA MALE:

No - he can see what he can see- which is limited.

CK:

The key to overthrowing the matriarchy is male solidarity enabling male co-operation.
Being overcautious even in speech is demoralising to supporters. You are happy to be overcautious because that is how you have always been.

BETA MALE:

Agreed- but, Peterson, sees what he sees.  What he sees is both powerful, and nearly impossible to deny.  It is a point, where women who choose to deny it, can quickly be shown to be a problem as self interested haters.  Part of creating male solidarity is having a position, that they will broadly support. 
Domestic violence is a clear issue - where women are the primary initiators and where they get 1000 times the resources in the best cases.  This is easy to show, The wage selling of the "wage gap" as hate , is not hard either.  Sexual violence, as a one way thing - is demonstrably false - and thus is a solid point.  The issues in education are the same.  As is family law .Most aware men, will agree on all these, thus they make a solid foundation

CK:

Did you even read my post? [Referring to As Nationalist Philosopher, I have decided to appoint myself unofficial White Advocate after listening to Jordan Peterson's uneven performance on Start The Week]

BETA MALE:

Yes, and you are suggesting all over the place what he should have said, rather than looking what he believes.  I happen to agree that we are closer to a matriarchy than patriarchy, but, that is not even perforce how people see it.  It is rather that we have created a situation where women are harder to criticize than they should be, and we have allowed a focus on only one type of power.  However, much of this stems from a nasty issue with the boomers, seeing horribly damaged men,. and hearing and believing the stupid war propaganda - of motherhood and apple pie.  You are in effect attacking Peterson - as opposed to suggesting that perhaps his views are but a step along the way.  Social views cannot leap from where we are - to where we must be in a  single bound.  First we must see that feminism has been a hateful lie.

CK:

I say that too. You are the one who has not been paying attention to what I have been saying for years and years and years!

BETA MALE:

You have no idea what I have said.  I do not disagree with that - it is that this must first be understood.  It is like fixing the marriage law is required but not sufficient.  However, the rest cannot follow until the first is done.  You believing it, or me believing it is so, does not make it generally accepted.  Until it is generally truly accepted and that it is generally understood that domestic violence is two way , and the current government position is support of hate - the next steps will not follow.  Jumping past the initial understanding by more than you and me, does not serve.  It is like trying to teach calculus to kids who have yet to get addition.

CK:

No one is even proposing to abolish no fault divorce. 
I say it, but no on else will even talk about it. 
Basically, beta male victims of feminism who are campaigning against feminism are not interested in marriage. 
They are certainly not marriageable, and know it.

BETA MALE:

Lots of people are proposing abolishing no fault divorce,.  However, it is not what I seek.  I rather seek a situation where I do not owe her jack because she chose to leave.  Leave if you will, but if I had my career on track before we met, then my career is mine.   
Fix divorce, does not mean getting rid of no fault per se - it means making it so, I am not obligated to her, when she leaves.  She walks she walks. 
Fix the support issue, the way assets are divided, the assertion that his career is 1/2 hers without proof, make leaving a real risk, and watch i get fixed.  Force the issue of truly shared custody, and watch how few women leave.  Today, it is there is no risk for her, that is the issue. 
It is that we treat women as in need of protection, even when they are doing great harm. It is that they get the benefits of being treated as child, and adult.

CK:

I have already proposed a holistic and comprehensive solution.  You just haven't listened to my video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxf3Kv4qGE&t=109s

BETA MALE:

Frankly, I am far more interested in what Peterson has to say.

CK:

We have already agreed that he doesn't go far enough, remember?My role is to drag him along to the destination.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but I have also said he is a required step.

CK:

I do not deny that.
My post is not long and describes the discussion.

BETA MALE:

Yes however, my point is, you are pushing a view, that skips past one, that most men  could be made to understand and support today.  He is interesting because he is so hard to deny.

CK:

Peterson missed an opportunity by not saying that the patriarchy has been eclipsed by the matriarchy.

BETA MALE:

No, because the visible social society that most think of as important is still dominated by men.  It is that most do not think of all the other places where there is real power, and the majority of real power is actually played out. 
That is, he would not have advanced his argument, by saying that, because the ground was not set.  It is why he is so hard to deny, he goes on the ground that cannot be denied.

CK:

What is the illegitimacy rate of Canada?

BETA MALE:

Less than 1%- however, I dare say - you are doing your normal.  You will simply assert that because you believe it, it is so.

CK:

Are you sure?
Are you saying only 1% of Canadians are bastards?
"In Canada, the percentage of births to unmarried women was 30 per cent"
https://www.ctvnews.ca/births-to-unwed-moms-rising-sharply-in-u-s-canada-1.398292

BETA MALE:

No, I would suspect that somewhere on the order of 10-15% of Canadians are not children of the father they are asserted to be.

CK:

This was 2009. The percentage of bastards born to fornicating sluts must be much higher by now.
Wow. You actually don't know what bastard or illegitimate means!

BETA MALE:

Sorry, read  - illiterate- illegitimate - well different question - if you count out of wedlock - pushing 50%
Bastard - by the way - is an older term, and does not work in today's environment, because marriage is not seen as sacrosanct.

CK:

People still use the word as a term of abuse.
So you are in no doubt about what I am saying, my position is this:
The perfect patriarchy would mean 100% of parents are married parents.
The perfect matriarchy is a society whose members are 100% bastard.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but without the meaning behind it.  However, it is far more critical to think in terms of false paternity.

CK:

The creation of marriage simultaneously created the slut, fornication, adultery, sodomy and bastardy.
You dare not say such words any more because the slut has become sacrosanct and your unofficial deity.
In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the fornicating slut.
Even men chosen to lead the nation are in fact chosen by women eg Justin Trudeau.

BETA MALE:

Yes, and strangely, they are also going to be seen to be responsible for the disaster he is leaving.

CK:

What has Trudeau done that you think will be disastrous for Canadians?

BETA MALE:

Gee massive deficits, continued and massive push on a large set of false narratives, created a inquiry, that focuses only on women regarding natives, when the native men make up 70% ++ of the victims of the issues the inquiry was meant to investigate - oh, and that is all transparent and coming to light.

CK:

What false narratives are you referring to?

BETA MALE:

Wage gap, domestic violence, education issues for women ....

CK:

Would you be prepared to have a chat with me on my YouTube channel?

BETA MALE:

Oddly from what I have seen, no, because I would not hand you the control.
You seem to like going out of your way to make men look bad.

CK:

Just trying to shame them into action.
I anticipated your answer correctly!

BETA MALE:

Yes, but you ignore what they have to say in the end, and why they are saying it.

CK:

What have I ignored?
I know all their excuses.

BETA MALE:

I expected as much, well, for one, you assume that shame is an appropriate tool.

CK:

I admit it is useless when men no longer have pride and feel no shame.
Such men are but cattle and can only respond to bribes and threats.
I have not the means to use physical threats or bribe such cattle.

BETA MALE:

It is not just that, but you choose to attack, rather than ally.  You should rather question women, and ask about whether they can claim to love their sons when they attack shelters for men.  Why must it be men that act?  Men need society far less.  It is feminist women that hate, why not shame them?

CK:

You don't seem to grasp what I am saying: I won't waste time trying to persuade women.

BETA MALE:

What you do not believe that you can?  Why no? Because they do not listen?  Do not take the lives of others into account?  Do not really care about men, only like shaming and bullying them?
I would note, Karen Straughan gathers far more support from men, makes far more headway in gathering men behind her.

CK:

There is no point persuading the sheeple.
Even if they agreed with you they are incapable of effective action.
It has to be a masculine project, I am afraid.
You have to be prepared to - shock horror! - ignore the views of your oppressors.
That you "men" see nothing wrong in hiding under the skirts of a lesbian is contemptible.
I do understand that you have no pride and feel no shame. Everything you say reinforces this.

BETA MALE:

Yes, so let it be then, as you seem to be far more effective at alienating men.   Karen Straughan is not a lesbian, and I do not hide behind her, however, far more people are interested in her, because frankly she speaks from a position where asserting "male privilege" against her does not work.

CK:

Only cucked men suffer themselves to be led by a lesbian.

BETA MALE:

ExactLy- you attempt shame on me, and assert the reason it does not work is I have no pride, as opposed to considering that I see you as pushing hate.

CK:

Her boys are bastards, aren't they?
You are projecting.
You hate me, of course.
So you accuse me of it.
Still, it is useful to know the depths of your cuckdom. You want mummy to sort things out.

BETA MALE:

Who do I hate? Shame is a destructive force, that does not build people up, which is what is required, it knocks people down, which seems your intent.

CK:

All emotions have their uses, don't you know.

BETA MALE:

Yes, but you seem to want to manipulate.

CK:

I am trying to get the message through, aren't I?
If the problem is matriarchy, then the solution is patriarchy.
If the destination is patriarchy, the vehicle must be theocracy.

BETA MALE:

The question is, do you actually alienate men from the message in your approach - and I would suggest you do.

CK:

There is no nice way of saying that a patient who has a gangrenous leg that has turned black needs an amputation if he wants to live.
Clearly, you have no real desire to live in the long term.
You are an atheist, aren't you?

BETA MALE:

Hmm must be something you can hate, - interesting.

CK:

What must be something I can hate?

BETA MALE:

Well you are so busy trying to categorize me.

CK:

I have already categorised you as an atheist Canadian cuck who will not take any risks and hopes things will hold together while he lives, without him having to do anything much other than to complain anonymously on social media.

BETA MALE:

Exactly, yet this without knowing me, You assert much, without history, personal knowledge or understanding.  It is very interesting.  It is that you believe asserting such things, without knowledge will cause me to think you are part of the solution, not problem that is most interesting.
You are not actually interested in men, other than abusing them.

CK:

I am interested in getting things done quickly, in my lifetime, if possible.
You seem to think you are immortal.

BETA MALE:

You seem to think you have a handle on what I support.
I see the liberal use of shame you have, as making it radically harder to gather men, and radically harder to save society.
Peterson is a required step, in ending a hysteria, which is nearly done. I am just as concerned with the reconstruction, and the route there.  Peterson matters, because he allows people to start questioning.  There is a generation  that will be held in contempt for the next 1000 years, and that is the boomers, because they have encouraged all this, and allowed a horrid view of men, to be funded by choice.

CK:

You just want the good strong men to organise the cattle.
I don't say Peterson is not welcome, just saying he bottles out where I would not.

BETA MALE:

I do not care who organizes, but, shame is not the route.  Also , I would suggest, that by bottles out where he does, makes him more effective, at least until his position is understood and accepted by the many.  Note, the attacks on him, and his relatively moderate position, makes them seem unreasonable, and makes his position harder still to deny.  If he had gone further, the delusion could be protected.

CK:

He could have struck a mortal blow to the matriarchy by stating that we are now a matriarchy and point to Canada as 50% bastard.

BETA MALE:

Except your definition of bastard is not going to have the effect you would assert it should.  You are attacking from a moral perspective that is not shared today.  It should be that children are born in stable marriages, and remain in them, but this today to assert that a single mom is by definition a disaster is to lose too much of the target audience before you start.

CK:

You cannot restore patriarchy without marriage.
Stop pussyfooting around like you have all the time in the world.

BETA MALE:

It is that we have a worship of single motherhood from some, and an acceptance that dad is the fault too often, that he would have merely isolated himself.  It is that his view must first be established without first getting the other issues to hand.  I agree that marriage must come back - but, your route is a certain loss.

CK:

Coward.
Cuck.
I know you can't help it. It is just as way of thinking with Canadian "men".

BETA MALE:

You seem to think shame will work, but that requires that I care what you think, or value your position while you act like a feminist.

CK:

How can someone who proposes to establish a theocracy to restore the patriarchy ever be called a feminist?

BETA MALE:

I did not say that you are, I said that you act like one. I do not support you in all things, so I must be a coward.  You use shame and attack as your only tactic, and ignore the notion that a battle of any kind, cannot be won, by leaping to the end.

CK:

You can construct an argument, but you are too afraid to do even that.

BETA MALE:

There you are again.  It seems fairly clear that you do not actually worry about boys at all, only your dogma.

CK:

There is no dogma to saying that we live in a matriarchy. It is just a fact.
You yourself have told me Canada is 50% bastard, which is why you are all so cucked.
The Americans are not quite so morally degenerate.

BETA MALE:

Hmmm, it is interesting, how you choose to argue.  If it is a matriarchy, should not women be responsible for the change required to save society if it is to be saved?  Would not it make sense for you to gain the audience Peterson has, if he is less effective than you?

CK:

Excellent question.
I can't do that because MSM have decided to ignore me.
Eventually everyone of us will be accused of being sexist, racist, Nazi, fascist etc.

BETA MALE:

Well, would that not be reasons to alter tactics?  Would that not be reason to credit Peterson, and how he has chosen to pick his point of conflict.  Would that not mean he is moving things quickly, and thereby making the next step more possible more quickly.

CK:

The higher the status, the greater the sacrifice.
The greater the sacrifice, the more impact it will have on the public consciousness.
I repeat: I do not think he shouldn't exist, I am just saying he should go further, and have given my reasons. I despair at your complacency.

BETA MALE:

Peterson, is going as far as will work, today.  He is fighting the battle before him, Should he win, voices with more points, further along , may be able to make headway.

CK:

I know he just wants to sell books. This means he will prove a great disappointment, but he is all you cucks have.

BETA MALE:

I am not complacent, it is rather, that you engage and convince where you can.  I have gotten very frustrated by women against feminism because that is the one group that can move without tearing society part at a real pace.  I know that if men move with force and emotion, not logic and reason, all the anger will come pouring forth at once.  That will be the end of anything like reasonable debate.

CK:

If something should be done, then it must be done.
Do you think attitudes will improve while you pussyfoot around?
In the next generation?

BETA MALE:

If something should be done, if it is truly important, it must be done, so that it will succeed,  Peterson is a requisite step.

CK:

You will be even more cucked and attitudes even more entrenched.
If you leave it, things will be much worse for your sons.
That is UNDENIABLE.

BETA MALE:

Ha - however, that is what is not true.  The younger generation of men, seems less willing to buy the shit, despite (or perhaps because ) they are selling it in school.  The boomer generation is far more believing. 
That is the point, it is not being left. It starts with rejecting the way schools work.

CK:

The % of bastards is going up, not down.

BETA MALE:

Besides the old patriarchy was all about protecting women - do western women deserve this protection.

CK:

Look, it is not about you thinking your women deserve it or not.You obviously don't give a damn about posterity.It is about husbanding resources for the next generation as a principle of good rational government.

BETA MALE:

Hmm, there you are again, the only way is the way back, but those bridges have been burnt.  So well, where do you go?

CK:

What bridges to where have been burned?

BETA MALE:

The reality is, that to return to the old system, requires first trust from men, which has been heavily damaged. It requires women to be seen as able to actually not cheat, and not be self interested, and well, that has already failed.

CK:

When you say the old system, do you mean patriarchy?
Men can only trust the system if they run it again.
You can't even bring yourself to say patriarchy!

BETA MALE:

Yes, but the question is, will they trust women at all?  Without having a path through the rubble and having lots of women acknowledge the hate, that they have in effect held, that is not possible.  The thing is, that there is  proven issue, that women tend to believe they are good because they are women, and that other women are good because they are women.  A sort of moral superiority thing, that is easy to have.
I have no problem saying patriarchy, but I also know that the old patriarchy sacrificed men and boys first.
I have the overwhelming sense that this is what you seek.

CK:

It is the natural role of men to fight and defend principles. You seem to have lost this sense of the natural order of things. Atheists tend to do this, I suppose.
It is pointless to ask where men as a whole or women as a whole or humanity as a whole can be trusted.
You impose new rules, you enforce them, and hope for the best and that your spouse is good and true. That's all you can hope for.

BETA MALE:

It is men, to defend their own.  It is not for men to defend the tribes of others.  I do not owe feminists defense for instance.  I am not responsible for the values of others, only my own and defending my own.  It does not fall to me to protect people from their own decisions.  As such I owe few boomers my allegiance, I owe no feminists my allegiance.  I owe my children my allegiance, my wife, because she believes in real marriage and in real defense of boys as well as girls my allegiance.  I do not owe a feminist state my allegiance, as they have already said, I am not their tribe.
I do not believe that women are without agency, or as individuals that they should be protected from the consequences of their own choices.

CK:

All irrelevant to the fact that the current system needs to be overthrown.

BETA MALE:

It may be, but it speaks to how change is made.  It speaks to how much of a rush I should be in, and how much I should be concerned with the end point, as opposed to the points between.  If I worry about a 15 year boy, I have 30+ years to focus on getting best outcome.  If I worry about adult an adult woman who is 30, I would have 5.  If she is not already racing to fix the issues, she is not my concern.  It is not to me, to save her ability to reproduce, nor to help her find salvation, that is her problem.  If she has chosen feminism and that destroys her life, that was her choice.

CK:

This is not about particular people that you care about or don't care about, but fixing things before they get worse.

BETA MALE:

That is why Peterson matters- it is changing the flow and direction.  It is allowing the change that can be made to be made.  I am not going to destroy the chance to make long term fixes by being stupid.
Start with actually getting books for boys in school, the reality of men being required as fathers.  Start moving that and the lies fall fast and furious.  Get more than by challenging certain views as a starting point.

CK:

I just tell men that it is not safe for men to marry and that they should declare an official marriage strike.
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/official-marriage-strike-by-men-and.html

BETA MALE:

I would suggest to you, that an official strike is not realistic, as it goes against the very nature of what you have said of men.  However, the reality that there is in fact a critical mass of men, doing exactly that, is why suddenly some of these issues have any traction at all.
Oh and note, men seem to be pulling back from sex far faster than women as well.

CK:

It has to start somewhere. You are just too cucked and shy to even talk about it to anyone.  You don't even have a best friend to discuss such things with because men are atomised and isolated.
Women will always find it easier to refuse no-strings sex.
That is the advantage we have over you.

BETA MALE:

Again you assert, I actually have a number of men I discuss this with.  Your hate is quite impressive.

CK:

Do you think I hate you? You do take things personally!
Would I be impressed by these men?
Probably not, eh?

BETA MALE:

Ah yes, very good, just keep acting like shame is a viable construct.  You have convinced me, you want only ill for men.

CK:

Just trying to shame men into action.

BETA MALE:

Yup, and acting as though your shame matters.  You shame men, into acting, when you have as much voice, but use it to attack men.  You seek to achieve what other than harm to men, really in the end.  You see men as tools to protect you, and it is their duty to do so - what is yours?

CK:

I never said anything about men protecting me.
I am just saying that if it is obviously the right thing to do, then you do it, instead of looking for excuses because you are scared.

BETA MALE:

"It is the natural role of men to defend principles"  - so why is that not the role of women?  Is that not protecting all, including you?  Why is it the responsibility of men?
It is after all the hate of feminism we discuss,  That is hate held by women.  It is the issue that they are creating a moral desert for themselves.

CK:

Because men are better at these things than women and they have their superior physical strength.
Why discuss emotions all the time like women?
Why not discuss tactics and strategy to win the ideological battle?

BETA MALE:

I am not, I am asking why should  this be a concern for men, as opposed to something women fight?   Does this not start at a young age?  Has it not been women who were meant to instil values?  Is it not there the failure lies?
I did try, to discuss tactics - you choose to say, that engaging in the battle that can be won, is a waste, even though this opens the way to the next battle.  You assert Peterson should do, what I say, cannot work today.
You tell me, that shaming men, is a good tactic, I tell you, that doing so, merely affirms a growing view that women do not care, and cannot be trusted therefore.  That prevents a return to traditional family, because that at its root requires trusting women.

Ck:

You are more interested in apportioning blame than in reversing the situation. How very beta male of you.

BETA MALE:

No, I am telling you the tactic will not work. You return to it immediately.  It merely makes it clear that you do not actually care, and want to shame and blame men.  That is, you would rather shame men, than own any agency of your own.
You assert what I have done, or not, who I am or not.  It is actually very sad

[Discussion ends after I am blocked.]

As Nationalist Philosopher, I have decided to appoint myself unofficial White Advocate after listening to Jordan Peterson's uneven performance on Start The Week

No comments: