THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label Jordan Peterson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jordan Peterson. Show all posts
People who want to live in a patriarchy would want to believe in God. You would want to live in a patriarchy if you wanted to be a married parent and properly parent your legitimate offspring.
Affluent and high status married fathers in the West do not feel a moral imperative to condemn unmarried parents because they are mostly morally compromised slut-fuckers or afraid of their wives like Lord Rothermere and the Murdoch brothers who have left-wing feminist wives. They are afraid of their wives divorcing them under the rules of no fault divorce and taking half their stuff.
Even Jordan Peterson dares not discuss slut-shaming, but I do.
Because most men are bachelors living in a gig economy and can easily find a slut to fuck, they will not be supporting marriage. Because Western men refuse to contemplate making the sacrifices required of them to support marriage and patriarchy or even discuss it honestly, Western degeneracy continues apace.
While the West slides deeper into degeneracy and dysgenics, they will be blaming Jews, Muslims, immigrants, foreigners and China for their troubles whom they will attack with increasing virulence.
Because they are mostly sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder or are sociopaths, psychopaths and people who would shoot the messenger rather than accept correction with humility after submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality, minorities such as Jews should expect to be blamed, victimised, as well as verbally and physically attacked with increasing frequency and violence.
Q1. Your book which has sold nearly 2 million has struck some sort of a chord. Why do you think that is?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Because I address the issues men face.
Q2. A search for meaning - is this also appealing and reaching out to people and in particular men who are angry and who feel lost and alienated?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Yes, it has certainly struck a chord, hasn't it?
Q3. There are many books out there which talk about a meaningful life and how to live it, and you call your Rules for Life which you could characterise as a form of self-help. There are very few of those sorts of books that go into great detail about the dangers of Marxism, the history of Mao's China and Stalin's Soviet Union. There is a real political content to your book and I wonder why you are so preoccupied with reminding individuals who are searching for meaning so repeatedly and often about the dangers of totalitarian communism?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Because our dysgenic feminist state is indeed totalitarian.
Q4. You see a real danger of some renewal of neo-Marxist tendency in society.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
It is already everywhere in academia and in the media.
Q5. With your focus on what you see as the real dangers of the left and its totalitarian inclination, you have found a way of appealing to and winning the sympathies of a greater number of people who - to be crude about it - are supporters of Donald Trump, are by nature interested in populist movements we see in many parts of the world right now some of whom identify with the alt-right. I wonder how you as a psychologist and an academic feel about the nature of so many people who sympathise with you.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
I think they have a legitimate grievance. That's why they voted for Trump and why Britain voted for Brexit. They should not be dismissed and mocked because they are roughly half the population and seem to be mostly men.
Q6. Would you recognise that there is an overlap between those who find a deep resonance between your message and many of those who have turned to Donald Trump right now?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Certainly.
Q7. You can't control the way in which your words and your messages are perceived and used by others. I kind of want to know whether you are worried about it.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Are you suggesting that my message is somehow harmful? To whom and in what way?
Q8. Would it be fair to say that the core message of your book is that we underestimate the power, relevance and importance of old stories and myths including the Christian Bible and also including a host of other stories which you say have survived the test of time and tell us truths about ourselves which many people today - and you may say many people in academia today who are into constructivism and relativism - are missing the truths of old verities. Would you agree with that?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Absolutely.
Q9. You say that the Bible for better or worse in the foundational document of Western civilisation. Its careful respectful study would reveal things to us about ourselves, what we believe and how we should act more than what can be discovered in almost any other matter. The Bible is central, it seems.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Of course, the Bible is after all the primary source of our Judeo-Christian heritage and the source, let's face it, of the success of the West. The Abrahamic faiths promote and maintain patriarchy. Basically, all advanced civilisations are patriarchal - and by this I mean societies that practice marriage and family values - and all declining, primitive, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchal - and by this I mean societies with mostly unmarried parents who do not make the sacrifice of marriage for the rearing of the next generation.
Q10. This word "truth". You think the Bible contains irrefutable truth.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
The Bible does indeed contain many truths about universal human nature. I happen to know that the most successful tribe in the world - the Jews - swear by the Old Testament.
Q11. How can non-Christians relate to your 12 Rules for Life when they are so wedded to the culture and the traditions and the truths of the Bible?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
My book is addressed primarily to the fatherless beta male victims of feminism in the West. However, other religions and cultures may find this of interest since many non-Western countries are being forced to accept feminism as part of neoliberalism and the so-called nation-building" agenda https://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483 of neoconservatism. If they accept Western feminist culture, then their men will in time suffer from the same problems as Western men.
Q12. We know you fear totalitarianism. We also know you regard the Bible as the foundation stone of your thinking. Here's what a fellow Canadian philosopher Paul Thagard https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life has said about what he sees as the weakness in your argument. He says "Peterson assumes that the only alternative to religious morality is some form of totalitarianism or despondent nihilism, but secular ethics have flourished since the 18th century and before and he talks about David Hume, Emmanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham." You don't seem to give any real importance to these sorts of secular ethics.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Most people are not philosophers. The Bible gives ordinary people uninterested in the philosophical works of Hume, Kant and Bentham clear rules of behaviour. What's wrong with that?
Q13. I wonder how you conceptualise the importance of change. A lot of your work is about constancy and finding truths in the very deep past, but what about the importance of change. If one thinks about everything from the emancipation of women, equality for women - think about gay rights, think about civil rights - these are changes that we have seen in our society for the last 50 years and many people think that your philosophy actually has no real place for change and runs counter to the change.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Do many right-thinking members of society think that these changes you refer to have been changes for the better?
Q14. If I were living in the late 19th century in the UK as a man, I might well have persuaded myself that the natural order of things is for men to have the vote and for women not to. If you were living at that time having regard for tradition and long-term eternal truths, you might well side with those who oppose the emancipation of women?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
It is my view that the franchise should be narrowed to taxpayers only and all anti-discrimination legislation repealed. I also propose that the low-waged should be relieved of the burden of paying taxes and that of voting. If this means the disenfranchisement of the majority of women, so be it.
Q15. Why do you argue that society today has been overly and dangerously feminised?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Because it is.
Q16. Why is society overly feminised?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Because all political parties chase the female bloc vote and panders to their preferences by creating more laws and imposing more taxes to solve the problems created by feminism believing that this tactic enables them to win elections. What happens is that this way of chasing votes to be in office marginalises and ignores the preferences of men. This is why men are angry.
Q17. If much of the power and authority over a long historical period has lain with men, isn't it only inevitable that some men will get a little hacked off when women are given a stab at something approaching equality?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
You are right. As you say, it is inevitable. So we have a problem. It cannot be solved with more censorship and repression. It would be a grave mistake indeed to think so.
Q18. So you think men's resentment is more important than women's effort to attain equality?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
The thing to bear in mind is whether society is better now that women have taken men's jobs and that the law now allows women to compete unfairly with men and accuse them of a historic sexual offence to silence them. The question feminists should be asking themselves is whether women have been made happier by feminism. Men's resentment should be treated as more important because of men's greater capacity for violence.
Q19. You say science undoubtedly shows us that men and women have different traits and there is a lot of science to back you up on that, but you say because of that men are hardwired to achieve success and to be successful in a way that women are not.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Unlike women, men cannot rely on feminine excuses to explain their failure.
Q20. Some of the most successful societies are judged on contentment indices or indeed material success. You point out that in Scandinavia many more women choose to be health workers and engineers. Scandinavia is full of societies - one can point to Norway - where legislative effort, for example, with a quota of 40% of women on corporate boards or a quarter of women to be in Parliament. They've specifically engaged in social engineering and it seems to be working. Norway is top of the contentment index that we see across the world.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Isn't Anders Breivik Norwegian?
Q21. Do you approve of equality?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Egalitarianism is a polite fiction. Government policy should be based on more than a polite fiction.
Q22. Whether it be gay rights campaigners, civil rights campaigners or indeed women's rights campaigners. If they want to see equality deliverable in outcomes, they are damaging society, are they?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
They would certainly be damaging the patriarchy and the quality of the next generation. Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the parenting ability of both parents.
Q23. Do you think it is helpful for you to base a lot of your science about the difference between genders on lobsters? You talk about humans and lobsters behaving the same: girls aren't attracted to boys who behave the same, girls are attracted to boys who win status contests with other boys and you describe that in the same breath as you describe how male and female lobsters behave.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
The truth is always helpful and we should always submit to it however unpalatable because the truth will free you from error and disaster.
Q24. Is it a truism of evolutionary biology that what we learn from lobsters can be applied to humans?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
If it also applies to humans and in this regard it appears that it does.
Q25. It just seems to me on the face of it that it is somewhat bizarre to compare lobsters to humans given that the different sizes of their brains.
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Are you trying to suggested that women are not naturally attracted to men of high status the way men are attracted to beautiful women?
Q26. Is the study of lobsters the foundation of your belief that a mother and a father are crucially important to the raising of a child?
HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
Lobsters don't practise marriage. Marriage is however the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy, which decades of feminism have progressively undermined. I argue for the restoration of patriarchy so that the West can once again enjoy the rational and moral government that enabled its success. Everything about feminism undermines marriage and by extension the patriarchy. To undermine patriarchy is to undermine civilisation itself, not just Western civilisation, but any civilisation.
I am on the show talking about Jordan Peterson and patriarchy (between neither party having an orgasm and Human papillomavirus/HPV). Unfortunately, this is how modern Western men talk these days about women in our degraded times. https://t.co/EmyGEjUjuThttps://t.co/zocq5iCQ9H
From the 32nd minute is Pilleater who interviewed me in his video below. He asks Roosh what is a man to do when a woman says she is on the pill and he doesn't quite believe her and doesn't want to knock her up.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
I can't stand it any more. All this reminds me of how I once saw a mangy fox cub standing on a pizza box trying to get at the pizza inside. I longed to help it, but couldn't make myself understood. Don't be that mangy fox cub, white people! https://t.co/KU57CAWbUa
In my bid to be hired as Britain's leading White Advocate, I will be going through the discussion later to demonstrate how I would have better dealt with the barbs directed at Jordan Peterson if I had been in his shoes. https://t.co/72r0qLrvWT
One has to accept as an ordinary citizen that we represent the cattle on which the political classes feed. But we would still like them to practice good husbandry to make our sacrifices easier and sweeter to bear.
What is the last rule that would go if you all the other eleven had to go?
His answer was that he would have the rule that one is to take personal responsibility, which is a synthesis of the 12 rules.
Sutcliffe says Peterson doesn't believe patriarchy exists, and Peterson did not demur.
I would have said patriarchy exists as a concept, and that the West is certainly not a patriarchy, but rather a matriarchy.
A lost opportunity.
When the feminist Irishwoman says patriarchy exists because there is domestic violence and complains that not enough men are convicted for domestic violence, Peterson should have pointed out that patriarchy is primarily about whether society practises marriage, not whether men perpetrate violence on women. There will be more serial killers and rapists of women in a matriarchy, though in a patriarchy where most women are married, the preponderance of violence suffered by women would come from their husband for logistical reasons, as you would expect.
I don't think Jordan Peterson gets patriarchy. Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers, matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who badly parent their variously fathered illegitimate offspring. https://t.co/72r0qLrvWT
Sutcliffe queries the subtitle of his book THE ANTIDOTE TO CHAOS and asks why not THE MIDDLE WAY subtly suggesting that Peterson is an extremist.
My answer:
"You are presuming to tell me how to title my book, presumably because you have been instructed to suggest that I am an extremist. So how am I an extremist?"
Sutcliffe goes on to accuse Peterson of "gendering" order and chaos. Why should they be gendered at all, Sutcliffe asks.
"Because feminism has gone too far and we now live in a matriarchy, which is chaotic," I would have said.
He instead talks about Mother Nature being destructive and plenipotential and says order is patriarchal.
Sutcliffe immediately says: " I thought you didn't believe in the patriarchy!"
Peterson says "Patriarchy in one sense has become synonymous with arbitrary tyranny and oppression and I don't regard our culture as being arbitrarily tyrannical and oppressive, and I don't believe in the narrative that pits women against men or men against women as the core narrative of our culture which is absurd."
Sutcliffe also asks Peterson why he thinks consciousness is masculine.
Peterson says it is symbolic.
Sutcliffe quotes from Peterson:
"It is certain that a woman needs consciousness to be rescued and as noted above, consciousness is symbolically masculine and has been since the beginning of time."
He points out to Peterson "But consciousness is an intellectual concept. It doesn't have a gender."
Peterson: "Consciousness isn't an intellectual concept, it is a phenomenon."
Sutcliffe: "It is a thing in the world."
Peterson: "The conceptualisation of it is an intellectual construct."
Sutcliffe: "In what sense is it masculine?"
Peterson: "It is masculine symbolically. It is a core element of fundamental mythology. It has been a principle of metaphorical cognition forever. It is not an arbitrary decision by any stretch of the imagination."
Sutcliffe: "It is an inherited decision, but I am curious about the way you treat some cultures. You write:
'We learn to live together and organise our complex societies slowly and incrementally over vast stretches of time and we do not understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works.'
It seems to me that begs a very large question, which is: works for whom? A lot of people think it doesn't work, which is why social change is about. That's why societies and civilisations alter over time. Works for whom?"
Peterson: "It might be better to ask 'Works compared to what?' There's a handful of society in the world - perhaps 30 or 40 - that are functioning at a pretty high level. Those are the countries that everyone wants to immigrate to. There's inequality within those cultures, but you can't lay that at the feet of those cultures. Inequality is a much deeper problem than what you can lay at the feet of a political or economic system, so works by historical standards including works for the past 150 years."
Sutcliffe: "I assume you agree with female suffrage and that women should have a vote."
Peterson: "Sure." [Not a word about narrowing the franchise to taxpayers only if he is too frightened to go the whole hog of saying that female suffrage was probably a terrible mistake.]
Sutcliffe: "120 years ago, that would have been a radical and disruptive idea to have. People would have advanced exactly the same arguments you advanced about inherited social traditions, about the way things have been done. Scientists would have advanced information, a phrenologist would have come along and said 'Women's bump of electoral selection is smaller than men ... "
Instead of going down this blind alley, Peterson should just have said
"Men are more rational than women on the whole, and have a more developed sense of justice as well as being generally more forgiving"
and invited them to disprove it. He probably would have enjoyed a scene of the feminist Irishwoman having a fit of the vapours with Tom Sutcliffe running off to fetch her smelling salts.
Sutcliffe then suggests he is trying to incite fascism by saying that the more society feminises men, the more likely they are to embrace fascist ideologies.
Peterson says that is obviously true.
Sutcliffe calls it a classic abuser's exculpation. It is a withdrawal from responsibility: you made me hit you.
Peterson: "It is not a justification, it is an observation of what's likely to happen if you push people too far in a particular direction. It is a warning, not a justification."
Sutcliffe: "The solution to that is not to worry about feminising men, but to worry about them joining fascist organisations."
The only reason why the alt-right cling to Jordan Peterson so desperately is because he is the only mainstream white male in academia whose views explain their predicament. Peterson will disappoint them because he is only interested in selling books, not in being a revolutionary.
Peterson: "No, I think it is to worry that steep unequal hierarchies will produce desperate young men and that is a critique of hierarchy, by the way."
My answer would have been:
"It is about social justice, gender justice and a warning that if enough people get angry enough about the unfairness of the rules, they will want to change them. Allow them the means to change them peacefully, or they will use violence."
How disappointing that @tds153 never once thought to ask @hm_hashi how a 9 year old refugee from Somalia who didn't do very well at the British state schools he attended managed to go to Oxford and speaking the way he does. https://t.co/YhZLwjTTh4
I think Hashi Mohamed had certain racial advantages when he applied for a job with Peter Baron, and he knew how to talk properly. He did not have a fucking bloody awful regional accent dropping his atiches all over the place like an incontinent kitten. https://t.co/mxzidTA9TKhttps://t.co/aCshxQeT4B
Hashi Mohamed must have had elocution lessons. Mind you, I know people who had elocution lessons and that didn't help them in their career, because they had an attitude problem. https://t.co/SVeNPAB5d9
Hashi Mohamed caught the eye of the *female* Chief Executive of a barristers' chambers who took a maternal interest in him. She even took him to a Prom featuring the very modern and cacophonous Prokofiev and was amused by his comment about classical music in general. https://t.co/MKu6QPD2sS
These days one does not enjoy patronage but matronage. White women in positions of influence and power tend to rather despise men from a lower social strata of their own race. I noticed this with Harriet Sergeant. https://t.co/3KooBBbgDDhttps://t.co/31YIhyZee7
I think it is almost a natural inclination of women to find men of another race more interesting than men of their own race. Familiarity breeds contempt. Not for nothing does the psychologist Simon Sheppard say "Men are endogamous, women are exogamous." https://t.co/4J3wOe3ytk
You watched the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson interview. What did you think?
Feminine Compassionate Fragile Woman "FCFW":
My body contracted [hand touching heart] and I felt so sad for womanhood [nodding earnestly]. I felt disappointed and I could see how the shadow part of womanhood was acting out, I could see how the collective rage was acting through Cathy Newman and this is what happens is that when that is unowned [she waggles a finger at the camera] it is projected blindly to whatever [her whole body moves dramatically in a waggle] it sticks, and it was already clear that she had an agenda and she already had a projection that she was just looking to stick. She was just looking to have that confirmed, and she was trying so hard and I felt that this was just a classical example of feminine manipulation [nodding sagaciously], of the deep shadow manipulation, control, abuse [waggling her head in a circle]. So I felt on behalf of women, I feel sad and disappointed [nodding sadly and in a disappointed way] because we need to have intelligent conversations [inexplicably making motions of twisting something in her hand] that is aligned with the evolutionary dream, that is aligned with creating a future not destroying but finding those values. Have an intelligent conversation. In that sense I would have loved to see Jordan Peterson become present with that in that moment and say OK, I want a time out from the debate that we are having and I want to explore exactly what's going on right here because I can feel you're coming with a lot of anger and I think it's important that that anger gets acknowledged, but that we become real with what's going on and say "It's a projection, I understand why it's there, I would like us to find a way to move through it. This is what we need as men and women instead of blindly projecting our rage on to whoever man shows up for it."
DF:
You said she came in as a victim but under the surface was abuse?
FCFW:
I felt it was abusive that she was manipulating everything that he was saying. She was manipulating into the image she had in her head and she would just twist [her hands demonstrate a twist in case we didn't get what she meant] what he was saying and she would not listen, so it was not a conversation, it was a power game [she nods emphatically and seriously at this revelation], and she was the abuser. I felt cringey on behalf of women that this is not an empowerment, this is not the empowered feminine, this is the underbelly of feminism, this is when feminism goes wrong. This is not the future. This is not the future to blame and project and to persecute.
DF:
Can you explain a bit more about what you mean when feminism goes wrong?
FCFW:
When feminism goes wrong we allow the collective rage to act out through us. [She makes sweeping stroking motions over her body as if inviting her interviewer to think of stroking her body to calm her down.] So we see every situation, we see every man, we see every encounter with the lens of the victim and we are so angry about it and it's boiling in every woman right under the surface and [snaps her fingers dramatically] so she will quickly snap if there is a reason or an apparent reason because it's so strong it hasn't discharged, it's in the collective and that rage needs to discharge but it needs to discharge in an intelligent way, not in an unconscious way.
DF:
And you said before that that rage is often directed at men not showing up [for dates?]?
FCFW:
I'd say it's two way because yes it's targeted at men not showing up [for dates?] or they are causing but it's very often projected out to men that are trying to show up, that is actually engaging with women and actually talking about these things so that's when we bring up this topic and it's so easy for women to tap into that collective pool of rage and it just comes out.
DF:
And it's also difficult as well because one imagines that combative attitude is something that has served her well in the past and something that maybe she felt forced into because of the nature of the society that she is operating in, so it's a kind of Catch 22 situation for many successful women because they are pushed to be more masculine and then when they are more masculine they get judged for being more masculine.
FCFW:
It's very sad and I can see that dynamics being played out absolutely but the only thing we can do is to take responsibility and say OK, I'm doing that. Do I really want to compromise my femininity? [makes gestures and posture suggesting femininity] Do I really want to compromise my integrity? [makes gestures and posture suggesting integrity with a pained expression] Do I really want to compromise my gender? Is there another way I can be powerful without being aggressive, without playing a power game but resting in my natural power [her eyes dart across the room as if trying to locate her natural power], resting in my natural dignity, resting in that deep-rootedness that we both have in our genders that when we are at peace with it and when we acknowledge it in our selves [very emphatically], it's there as a natural thing. I don't want to make this personal about Cathy Newman because that potential is in every woman but it is because we are persecuting our own femininity. What's being played out there we are doing to ourselves because we don't trust that it's good enough to be a woman. We don't trust that it is good enough to have conversations that come from a felt embodied perspective, we don't trust that we are connected to truth because these masculine ways have been very strong and women have been denying their own power.
DF:
This is not specific to Cathy Newman. The fact that that interview has resonated with so many people, that it's been so popular, shows that something archetypal was going on in that interaction and I think as well why it's gone viral is that a lot of people watching it recognise the dynamics. I've been in conversations like that. I've been in this conversation when nothing I say works, when nothing I say gets through so there's something fundamental about the masculine feminine dynamic going on in there. What do you think that is?
FCFW:
I think Jordan Peterson. he's everyman. Cathy Newman, she's everywoman. I can tap into this rage like this [making a motion of snapping her fingers without snapping them]. I know it in myself and women who say they don't are denying this because it is in the collective. So in that sense it just highlighted what's there. It's wonderful because here we really get to look at why this is so important, [making a gesture that suggests that she is holding a new born infant that she is about to sacrifice to the deity of feminism] why it is so important to really listen to a thinker like Jordan Peterson and take it seriously and say "What can we do with it?" It's just so obvious that it's needed [looking down at the infant she is about to sacrifice on the altar of feminism], because if this is where we are, if this is society, if this is our ability to have an intelligent conversation, we are in trouble.
DF:
In the interview I had with Jordan Peterson he said the animus-possessed woman, which is the woman in our masculine side. the kind of defence for the feminine side sees every man or projects on to every man the patriarchy
Cut to Jordan Peterson spewing psychobabble.
and the way of out that is to see it from a Jungian perspective that the masculine archetype has both sides. The masculine archetype is both the tyrannical senile king and the benevolent father at the same time, and so they are multi-layered and see either side in any man [seems to suggest by his hand gestures that he is holding a transparent ball containing a man who is both a tyrannical senile king and a benevolent father and looking at him from different angles] but the animus-possessed woman sees only one side, and that is patriarchy and that is the tyrannical system, that is something that just needs to be destroyed. Does that make a lot of sense to you?
FCFW:
[As if receiving an expensive gift from him] I feel that that is precisely what's going on, it's a blind projection that makes every man and situation, it makes it into an image, and that image is where all the rage can go, so I would absolutely agree with that, but another thing I want to say is that that rage that is waiting for an outlet also is important information in the sense that it needs to be heard, it needs to be acknowledged and it is also there because women haven't found a way to be in our power which is not necessarily the way of the mind and the way of having an intellectual conversation about something. It's about coming back to the body and about coming back to feeling the energy of what's going on and really trust that we know in our body a deep truth that cannot necessarily be met or acknowledged in an intellectual conversation and because women have not been able to articulate that deep truth, that deep wisdom, that deep power, that's also where the rage comes because we know that deep down there's something that hasn't been seen or acknowledged by men and we're so angry about that and just forget that we have to start with ourselves, and to say "OK, I feel something is going on here. How can we address this is an intelligent way that is not just pure philosophy and not just a pure intellectual conversation, but it's in touch with what's real, it's in touch with life, it's in touch with co-creating illusion, co-creating consciousness and we can't do that only in an intellectual conversation where we are just arguing against each other's shadows [shaking head sadly], it's not real.
DF:
It's a disembodied ideological conflict. That reminds of something I've heard before, that men test ideas and women teste men, and there's some truth in that from what you're saying because women know on a deeper level than men [as if holding his heart and offering it to her] and women know when men are out of alignment on a deeper level than men often do and so there is something about women's embodied way of knowing and a genuine [as if making a grab for her breast with his right hand] ... It's essential for women to test men, so how aligned are you? [his hand darts out again as if to grab her breast] and that is what I think is playing out on the wider culture. The excesses of feminism you could say are men being tested on an epic cultural level to show up, to grow up, to acknowledge our shadows and be present, and that the evolutionary step that we need to see also but then you're saying women also need to acknowledge their shadows as well.
FCFW:
[All the while she is nodding earnestly and rhythmically in response to his words and gestures as if they were two birds conducting an elaborate dance or mating ritual with their words] But I think that was playing up perfectly in the interview in the sense that Cathy she just got more and more angry and the reason why, what was missing out was the masculine being present with her and feeling her [she says the last two words in a husky whisper as if in invitation to DF to feel her] instead of meeting her with the mind because that is only going to feel overpowering if you're in your motions and in your body, instead of being really present and saying "I feel your rage, I understand it" so that's where we can start moving on because the feminine will feel seen, it will feel respected in that embodied truth, because, yes, women have something to be enraged about, for sure, and we need that to become real and not just to become a power battle, so, yes, women test men to call them into presence and embodiment and just an intellectual conversation is not enough, it's going to keep stirring up the rage, so we need to find a way to have that conversation where both the body, the deeper wisdom, the deeper intelligence and the mind is there present on both sides. That's what I mean about having an intelligent conversation. It's not just a conversation of the mind, it's a conversation about what's real, what's aligned with life, and that's a whole different conversation. It's a different way of communicating. [She seems to be saying that Jordan Peterson could have either turned Cathy Newman on to him either by making her want to have sex with him or by agreeing with her to stop her from becoming upset at him by winning the argument.]
DF:
So what Jordan Peterson could have done better in that interview was to have said "I can feel where you're coming from"?
FCFW:
I think that could have changed the whole energy and dynamic and it could have moved it forward, but it's impossible to move it forward when we're both in battle mode and so, yes, I really feel that there is this collective subconscious rage [slowing down and emphasising with hand gestures the last three words and even looking a little angry in case we miss the point] that is just boiling in women and it's coming up in so many ways we see in the media and what's going on is this unknown rage that comes up in many different ways. On the one hand, it needs to come out, we need to clear it, it needs to be expressed, it needs to be acknowledged. On the other hand, it's not enough. This is only breaking the ice so that the next step of evolution can, you know, consciousness can start coming through, and that's what lacking in women. We need to take responsibility for what we do as women in our manipulation, in our seduction, in our control, and it's so easy for women to say "But that's just because we're angry and men did this and patriarchy", but that's such a lack of responsibility, and this women really need to know.
DF:
Because we could say look at me too which has been kind of ongoing for a long time and still a massive force and we can say it's brought up a lot of male shadows, it's shown up a lot of male behaviour that is just inexcusable, should not happen and it certainly started as a positive thing but then there is perhaps a danger of it flipping into a very simplistic narrative of men as only aggressors and women as only victims. Is that something you are worried about?
FCFW:
I am very worried about that because what it feels like is because it has displayed the male shadow, but who talks about the female shadow, the rage that women are expressing blindly and projecting on to whichever situation and whichever man that they can. This is where women need to step up and take responsibility and stop blaming men, it's pointless. We need to transcend this, we can't solve this problem from the same level [makes levelling motions with her hands] and look at how I am adding to this dynamic as a woman because we are, we are co-creating it in perfect harmony. If women are angry, we absolutely need to take responsibility for getting ourselves to another place.
DF:
I mean, that's the kind of shadow work, the acceptance that we all have shadows that men certainly have a shadow, there is a shadow around masculinity, but there's also a shadow around femininity while part of the cultural conversation now is toxic masculinity and everyone knows what you mean by toxic masculinity, if you talk about toxic femininity, everyone still knows what you mean, but you can't have that conversation. It's interesting what's allowed to be said and what's allowed not to be said at the moment and that I think is very dangerous that certain topics, certain conversations are off limits.
FCFW:
And this is where we see the victim persecutor dynamics activated [makes twisting motions with her hand]. Women become the victims, we make ourselves the victims and we persecute men but in that aggression, in that rage and when we are the victims, we are in perfect control [sic]. We become the persecutors because we say ... it's all about blame. [nonsensically] Men did this and men need to take responsibility, but in that we become the persecutors.
DF:
It's also a problem with the media because the short attention span of the media wants to polarise things. It's a very straightforward narrative - victim perpetrator - and yet the true dynamics needs something more than just the short analysis or a soundbite. It needs to be unpacked over time and it's easily taken out of context, which is why it is such a hot potato for the media to handle.
FCFW:
[Nodding vigorously in sympathy] It's also a very old story about you cannot say to a woman in a public debate take responsibility for what you are doing, take responsibility for the role you're playing into and I want to talk for a moment about the Presidents Club. I don't know very much about the details, but I think women in this country when we enter the room we have an absolute right to put up a boundary [her eyes dart around as if looking for this boundary] and the ability to put a boundary and say "I'm not going to play this game, I'm not going to co-create this antagonism between men and women and I'm not going to co-create this patriarchal structure and be a victim if I work in a bar somewhere and someone is groping me, [looking at her own body as if to imagining where she might be groped], I have the responsibility to say "Stop it right now" or to my manage "Have that person kicked out" or walk out of the room. No one needs to be a victim and this is what women just simply don't want to hear. They don't want to take responsibility for we are co-creating it, we like being the victims, we like blaming men instead of doing our own work and say "What am I getting from this whole seduction control manipulation?" I get power - the power of the victim - and it's the easy power, it's the cheap power and it's not long-lasting. We really need to have this conversation in a balanced way.
DF:
Cos I started teaching men's work maybe a year ago or so and the biggest reason for that was that I could see a need for it individually and among a lot of the men I know but because also culturally it felt like a time when men are being challenged to step up to evolve as men, to integrate our shadows and be confronted with negative traits in masculinity and to integrate them and move forward, but some people might look at men's work and say "It's divisive. What you're doing is perpetuating the patriarchy" for example. What do you think of that as a criticism?
FCFW:
It's a really good question because in my experience when I work with men and women, for me it's very obvious that women really relate to self-development and to going deep emotionally in themselves where I feel men are more vague or not as on it and it might be that I am a woman and men want more kind of safe environments where there's only men to do that, but I feel that men have been somehow lacking in really engaging with their own personal development, really taking personal responsibility for their belief patterns, for their emotions for how they show up in the world, and in my work I feel I am going deep in womanhood. What does it mean to be a woman? This is what interests me. This is what I am passionate about. It's about the deep feminine and women are drawn to that, so many women come to me and say "Thank you for showing up in the world like this now" I'm getting a sense of something that hasn't ... I haven't had it modelled. You know, in my therapy practice we talk a lot about childhood and how were your parents and so few women have modelled a healthy feminine, so that's what I'm passionate about, but in that work I feel I have gotten to a point in my life where I am thinking "Where's the men?" I don't know about men [waggling her body dramatically to signify ignorance], I don't know what's going on with men, I don't feel them, I don't feel they are showing up, and I'm talking very general but this is what I feel, it's a lack of willingness to show up with a woman that is present, and this is what I'm missing, this is why I feel men's work is so important because women are trying to do their work and there's a lot to do still - I really want to admit that - but men need to show up and right now there's one man here [pointing to an imaginary man in the room] and there's one man there [pointing to another imaginary man in the room] but most men out there are boys still, and I'm sad to say this but that's what I feel, and most women are girls, so on both sides we have so much work to do.
DF:
I always found men's work really helpful. I've done a lot of self-development work and really found that the men's work was that landing in my masculinity, landing with other men [makes hand gestures indicating he means his sex organs], feeling comfortable in myself around other men healing those wounds then really allowed me to meet women [dramatic big hand gestures suggesting that he was embracing the women he met big time] from a much more grounded place and I found my relationships with women improving with the amount of men's work that I had been doing and so I wanted to start leading men's work and bring that kind of work to other men [and thereby get more pussy] and then my background as a journalist because I have always been interested in following the media and then I saw the same dynamics playing out in the political sphere. The Trump/Hillary election was just so clearly from my perspective that we're so clearly desperate for genuine masculine values and so missing them that somehow some strange caricature and facsimile of genuine masculine values people are voting for and suddenly this guy who's a boy pretending to be a man is the most powerful man in the world so these dynamics are playing out in all of our lives and then on the wider scale. It's quite astonishing to see that. [As you can see, David Fuller is not a Trump supporter.]
FCFW:
I think that was perfectly highlighting the sickness of Postmodernism [the Disease of the Mind that is Feminism?]. We needed to smash the values so Postmodernism is a good thing, but we cannot stay there. We've smashed the values. No one knows what it is to be a man and no one knows what it is to be a woman. And we see these caricatures. We seem someone stepping up and doing something and "Oh let's go that way" because we have lost ground. Men have lost ground, women have lost ground. We're calling for a more empowered feminine that's all in the world and old patriarchy, now we need to call in the deep feminine, but what about the masculine? We seen an absolute caricature of a man being so powerful in the world because it's exactly where we are. If we don't change, this is what we get so it's a very very healthy lesson for the world to see if we don't start changing this is our future, we've arrived to our future. What are we going to do about that? [The more feminazi the feminazis get, the Trumpier Trump and his supporters will become.]
DF:
And also I think it is important to say that what I'm talking about and tell me if you think this is what you're talking about as well about going back to the old masculine feminine dynamics. It's not saying men have to be stereotypically masculine, women have to be stereotypically feminine. It's going through this kind of gender neutral space and re-embracing the sort of our masculine and feminine essence and playing those roles out more consciously. For me, it's like an evolutionary step.
FCFW:
I absolutely agree. We need to go through this, we need to pull everything apart, but we need to put it together again and say we never have the truth. Where is the truth? The truth is always changing. We are in a stream of evolution. We never arrive at that place, but we need to keep questioning and we need to put together those pieces that create solid ground for us that creates these [making snakelike movements] maps, so that we know where to go, so we have role models, we have people, we have values that we resonate with so we are not just lost, and we see that - I'm from Scandinavia. Scandinavia is one of the places in the world where we have the highest amount of gender equality, but what also happens is that we see a somehow gender neutral space where men and women are the same and it's so important to move through that, but especially ...
DF:
[interjecting inexplicably] Great friends and bad sex!
FCFW:
[equally inexplicably] Yes, exactly! Men are completely losing their identity and losing their power and losing the essence of their masculinity and women are somehow taking that over and getting bitter and resentful about it, so at the surface it looks like a really equal society but in terms of relationships [makes shimmying motions with her shoulders] and in terms of polarity, it's not working very well.
