And we're live. I'm Anthony Johnson, Founder and CEO of 21 Studios, hosting today's episode of 21 Live, a discussion on the red pill, the blue pill, and the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. Today I'm joined by the red pill mafia and 21 Studios mafia, including Carl from Black Labelogic, Roland Tomasi, Alumni Speaker of the 21st Convention, Ryan Stone, Alumni Speaker of the 21st Convention and Richard Cooper from Entrepreneurs in Cars and Alumni Speaker of the 21st Convention. Gentlemen, thanks for joining me today. Thanks for having us. Hell yeah. Thanks for having us. So this whole discussion, I think I put this idea maybe a week or two ago to Rollo, and then we kind of brought in these other people along the way too, people from Twitter and other speakers. We want to talk about the Jordan Peterson, well, person and phenomenon going on right now. And each one of us has their own ideas on it. Rollo in particular had a kind of bullet point list of things that we really wanted to hit into.  Yeah, first I'd like to start out by saying that, for me to have any, to say anything critical about someone in the sphere is always going to put a target on me because everyone's going to say, well, Rollo's insecure or Rollo is, he has some professional jealousy or something like that. I got the same story when the whole, when my issues went down with Roosh. And I just want to say right now that I don't want this to end up being like the Bash Jordan Peterson show or anything like that. It's just like, I think that, nobody's infallible, including myself. And I've always had an unmoderated, an unmoderated comment section on the rational mail.   And as long as you've got something to back it up, that's fine. But I just want to say right now that, personally, I like Jordan Peterson. I've said this on a dozen different times that I think that if I disagree with him about anything or if I have any sort of, I don't have a beef with him, but I say if there's issues that he brings up that I have a disagreement with, I would say it's maybe five to 10% of what he's talking about. Because I mean, obviously the guy is not, the internet cultural phenomenon that he's become in a very short time, because he doesn't know what he's talking about a lot of people when I've applied the red pill or him being woke and definitely is, most definitely is. Well, let's talk about that because a lot of people on the internet and in the manosphere look at Jordan Peterson, they're like red pill, red pill, red pill, he's red-pilled. And that's accurate in some ways, but not in others. And I think a lot of men miss that. So let's talk about that for a second. Is Jordan Peterson red-pill or is he, is it more complicated than that for him? Honestly, gonna disagree with the premise of that. I think, Rola, was it your thing that you said, it's not a, alpha is not a demographic, it's this behavior set or how do you frame it? It's very eloquent. It's a state of mind. Alpha is not a demographic, it's a state of mind. So is beta.  And I'm like, well, yeah. It's not an archetype. Yeah, it's, well, you know, they're placeholder terms. They're alpha and beta to me from a red-pill perspective is a placeholder term. It's an abstraction of something like, you know it when you see it kind of thing. So yeah, of course not. No, I don't think that at all. But yeah, I get what you're saying as far as alpha is a mindset. Yeah, if he is or not, it's just, he has some behaviors that would be and then some that aren't.  Like I'm whole point of identity politics is that it's ridiculous beyond comprehension. So why you would want to make your own? It's just lost on me. Well, men also swap like alpha for red-pill and beta for blue-pill. But you can definitely do blue-pill alpha and vice versa. So I mean, Jordan Peterson's personal history with his marriage and like that part of his life and dating I think is very blue-pill from meeting his wife when he was eight years old and then waiting like 20 something years, over 20 years to then finally date her and stuff like that. I think she even, if I'm not mistaken, she even almost explicitly identified him as beta or something like that. I mean, Jordan, you guys have seen the video I'm talking about, right? Like the way he talks about it, it's very clear. No, I don't watch the personal life stuff. I usually just watch the lectures. No, I think this is why Rolla says that his life experience for Jordan, it colors his discussion of like, intersexual dynamics and feminism and all these things. And some of it comes out very good, but some of it's just totally screwy. Well, the video that you're- I'll go ahead, Carl. No, I was going to say, since this is a red-pill sort of angle on it, we don't know that there are military men, for instance, who are extremely alpha when they're with their guys or the team, but they're extremely beta at home. And George Peterson, not just a lot of alpha behaviors when he's lecturing on stage or when he's debating, but in his personal life, I suspect it's very different. It's just the changing of the social contexts affect the underlying behavioral variables. Nope. Yeah, I was still, before we came on, I was just saying that one of the points I wanted to sort of cover here was that he is very much against egalitarianism when it comes to social and political issues and when it comes to like intersexual dynamics on the outside. But then when you look at his relationship with his wife and his family and everything else, he seems to be very, very egalitarian when it comes to his relationships. And that is something that I noticed. Like just what Carl's saying, it can be very, very alpha on the outside. I know so many guys who are very business owners who are like multi-million dollar guys who make split second decisions and can be just as ruthless as they can be in the boardroom. But then when they get to, when they get home, it's yes, dear, sorry, dear, and they completely become a different person. Paper alpha. Yeah, so, Rolo, let's hit on this. What are some of the biggest objections you have to Jordan Peterson talking about intersexual dynamics, talking about men and women? And in particular, the men and particularly the men that are of the age, like millennials and stuff, that see him now as like his father figure. Well, I think that real end, this will probably go to what Ryan's talking about here is that I think that we are in a state right now, socially where men are sort of rudderless. I mean, they don't know what to do with themselves. We call them the lost generation.  And that's that stereotype. I really think that that has been exaggerated beyond all reason right now, but you get what I'm talking about. There is a definite generation of young men right now who are, you know, underemployed or unemployed. And we have another generation of women who are out there. You know, if you look at the statistics for college and you look at the statistics for employment and you look at the statistics, you know, just the gender statistics for basic involvement of women versus men right now. There's an article or a book, I believe, it's called The End of Men. I think it was written by Hannah Rosen. And this was back in like 2012 and she was predicting exactly where we're at right now as far as, you know, men in society, it's the end of men and men are becoming obsolete.  And as men, that's kind of what we need. We're problem solvers. We need to be out there building things and creating things and doing stuff. But we're, you know, at every opportunity, we're told that we're evil for wanting to do that. We're evil for being men. And so not only are we... You know men today, you were like the first generation like completely raised by feminism. Exactly. Like multiple generations in a row now is where we're at. Yeah, we're talking, yeah. We're four or five generations in from the sexual revolution right now. And I think that the appeal that Jordan Peterson has is to these guys, because he's giving them a direction, he's saying, go make your bed. Go, you know, pick yourself up and stand up and stick your chest out. And you've probably got the book right there.  And I agree with that. I think that's great. That's probably the most, that's probably one of the most threatening aspects of Jordan Peterson that there is because it's telling men, it's empowering men to go up and stand up and, you know, become men really. And I think that's great. But I also think that we need to also sort of look at the underlying latent purpose of that too. Is he telling us to be men because he wants us to be, like I say, our mental point of origin or does he want us to be better slaves? Well, at the bar, yeah. The manipulated men, essentially. Exactly. And the number, going through some of these issues here, I think the number one issue that I have with Peterson right now is that he, in every single video I've ever seen him live, or seen him talk in, he's constantly repeats that life is suffering and life is sacrifice. And those are the two most driving principles Jordan Peterson always comes back to you. And it could be any topic really, but it's always life is a struggle. The best men can do is find ways to minimize that suffering. It's a very like Zen prospect. I mean, that's really what the Buddhist teaches that life is suffering and you're suffering because you have desires. And I don't think he quite goes that far where it's like you're expecting them to be desireless Zen Buddhists or anything like that. But I wanna say that the combination between suffering and sacrifice, it seems like his, since the sacrificial side of everything is like, what are we sacrificing for? Are we sacrificing for a greater purpose or are we sacrificing for ourselves? Exactly. If I'm not mistaken, I think what, I could be mistaken, but I think what he does with the suffering is he links it to character building. So he thinks that character building absolutely requires, or in majority requires suffering, suffering, suffering, suffering, suffering, which is probably why he keeps harping on it, harping on it. I just agree with that. Maybe it can be useful. It can be useful, definitely. But it's not like- Yeah, I kind of do, but that's only because that's exactly how I kind of came up. Well, I'll throw this out there. This is one of the topics there. This is one of the articles I wanted to discuss. It says men and it's never women for some reason must sacrifice part or all of themselves in order to be, quote unquote, men. The degree of self-sacrifice is relative to how high a status men can achieve. So for instance, when he goes into his biblical series and he's talking about Jesus Christ, Jesus is the ultimate man because his sacrifice is the archetypal total sacrifice. His torture of death in exchange for eternal life and of all mankind.  None of us are Christ, okay? So what are we sacrificing for? Are we sacrificing for the greater good of humanity and what does that really entail? I really think that the sacrifice aspect and the suffering aspect sort of, I don't know, I really think that that's sort of the root of my problem, I think, with a much of what he talks about. What about this phrasing of that? It's that, well, he is fiercely opposed to feminism, but he's still serving feminine imperative. That's what the sufferance for, it's at BFI.  Yeah, and then how do you find- Well, how familiar are you with- Go ahead. Go ahead, Carl. I was gonna ask, how familiar are you with Nietzsche? Because Nietzsche has this great quote, to live is to suffer and to survive is to find meaning in the suffering. And that's the ethos of Jordan Peterson in a sentence. It's also in Marx, if you know his opiate of the people, quote, what it means is that people need religion because there is suffering. Without suffering, you don't need religion because religion serves as an anesthetic, so to speak, to give meaning to why you're suffering. And once you have that position that if you're alive, you're suffering, then the only thing you can do is to find a reason for why you're suffering. Like there was a group of monks who used to flagellate themselves because they thought in their pain, they would be closer to Christ. Flagellate? They're sacrificed. Flagellate. Ah, yeah. Damn you and your book learning. Look ahead, Carl. No, the point of it is if your position is that, yeah, the point is if your position is that you're gonna suffer no matter what, you may as well do something to make your sacrifice mean something.  But what is a meaningful death? And this leads kind of into my biggest issue, which you touched on earlier in a conversation we had about the Sam Harris in truth position. Right. Because me, if you say that the numbers one, two, 10 exist, those are reality. This is an analogy. And you say that, okay, the odd numbers, one, three, five, seven and nine are morally rights. And the even numbers, two, four, six, eight and 10 are not morally rights. And you say that since only one, three, five, seven and nine are morally right, we should ignore all the other numbers. Yeah. Yeah, I think that- You're gonna confirm that best of a lot. Oh, well, what are you and I were talking about? We should probably recap what we were talking about. It's like when I was watching the, I watched the Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Yeah, I don't even really wanna call it a debate because really more or less they were agreeing with each other. But I think that the first exchange that they got into was really kind of got bogged down in the idea of what is truth. And so- Oh, look.  Right. And they're looking for a common definition of truth, which neither of them really share. So they're trying to find some sort of common ground between the two of that. And it's exactly what Carl was just saying is that you can't, just because there's an objective truth, you can't ignore the objective truth because you think that there's something morally incorrect about it. And I think that that was sort of Sam Harris's, you know, I mean, they were supposed to have this really long, you know, involved discussion and debate and really their very first, you know, one hour or two hours of their talk was really dedicated to just trying to find this, you know, universal truth that they could both, you know, agree upon and then they could move on from there. And I think that, you know, what Carl's not saying here is that it really comes down to a debate between what is truth and what is meaningful. And I think that Jordan Peterson is more of a guy who's leaning towards meaning or as like someone like such as myself or Sam Harris or whatever, we're looking for more for truth and then what you do with that truth is kind of like you applying your own meaning to it. So if there is, you know, if life is sacrificed or life is suffering, we can argue whether or not that's true or not, but from a meaningful sense, from a meaning, you know, finding meaning within that, you know, we can build a religion on that. We have many, many religions we can build on that. Let's bring Richard Cooper on this a bit for a second. Richard, you run a pretty big and very active YouTube channel. Has there been like chatter on your channel about getting Jordan Peterson or like what men think who follow your channel pretty closely? Yeah, a lot of guys that watch my stuff do mention his name in the comments. I run a private Facebook community as well and his names come up a few times. I link his videos a lot. And I tell them the same thing often is, you know, take it with a grain of salt. You know, the guy's got some good ideas, some good points, there's some value there. I don't find him to, I don't think he's the best version of himself.  He gets the dynamics of politics. Like he's a clinical psychologist and I got a lot of respect for guys like that, but he's also the kind of person that'll take two hours to talk about something that might take 50 minutes and he always uses big words like arithmetic instead of math, right?  You know, there's this massive audience of men. I think he said on one of his interviews with somebody that about 80% of his audience is men. And he had no idea why. Well, it's not that I don't have any idea why. I mean- No, he did. He had no idea why. Yeah, yeah, yeah, like he makes valid points and he's filling, you know, he's filling a void. But I mean, if you look at the comments in his videos, people never say to him, Jordan, you're like the father I never had, right? You can get into conversations that kind of opened that Pandora's box, whereas that's probably the most common comment that I get in my videos when I'm talking about like a really deep subject that I spent time to research. It's, you know, he's a fascinating guy. And I just wanted to kind of hop in to like hear you guys talk about it because I know that it was about in a lot of my audience talked about it, but you're kind of approaching it from a philosophical kind of point of view. And I was kind of interested on your take on his impact on the sexual marketplace today when it has to do with, you know, men becoming more masculine, men becoming a better version of themselves, men honoring their masculinity. And I don't know that he completely fills that void for me anyway. I mean, I haven't read his book yet. I've watched a lot of his videos, but I find myself turning them off after about 15, 20 minutes, because it's like, dude, just get to the point, right? It sounds like Richard Cooper.  Yeah, I don't think he has any effect on the sexual marketplace at all, I think. And it's, I have a term, I call it container words. And when you talk about suffering all the time, that's a container word. You fill it up with whatever you want, and then you throw it at somebody because they have a separate emotional, and it's all the same emotions, but nobody really cares what you feel. Like for example, what is suffering? If I go to the gym and I work and I, you know, get sore, that's suffering, and it made me better from it. But suffering is also if I sit at home and read books on game, but never approach a girl too. So that's the problem is that, yeah, that's the theory that makes sense, but people completely don't apply it. What they do is they justify what they're already doing within that framework so they can feel noble in their head is some alpha. Yeah, like I have a bit of an issue that I've started to recognize with myself is I tend to look at people's results that they get out of life. And then I take a look at their choices because their results come from the choices they make which tells me what their belief system is. He's a guy that suffers himself, right? Like he's a guy that, I remember he mentioned on one conversation, I think he was talking to, I don't know if it's certainly Victor who it was. Anyway, he said something along the lines of the University of Toronto has a petition that's being signed and 200 people signed it because they wanna get him thrown out of the school. And he was really upset about it. Like he was visibly hurt and very upset about it. And his son comes along and says to him, well, that's only 200 people pops. Why do you care sort of thing? Like you got 75,000 or 85,000 people that are your patrons right now. So there's like small things in life that I notice really derail him from his focus. And I find it kind of interesting. Like he's a really fascinating character. Like I'd love to have a conversation with him. I don't know that I could sit there and listen to him for two hours though. Well, I'm gonna try to get him to the 21 convention again. You guys don't know this, but he almost, I was talking to his team last year and we're working on that. So if it'll happen this year, I have no idea yet. But you might just hang out with him in Orlando. I think that's great. I think that as far as what Rich was saying about the sexual marketplace right now, I think that probably it goes back to sort of self-improvement because I think that a lot of guys when they find the red pill, once they take the red pill and they become red pill aware and they understand a little bit better about intersexual dynamics and they unplug from their old blue pill conditioning. Their next step is generally self-improvement. They want to better themselves and make themselves into the best person that they can be. And that's where I have always come in and said, hey, look, I think that this day and age, kids, young men, young boys are taught to hate their own sex and to hate their own gender because it's sort of this social conditioning or social engineering so that we have like the next generation of betas to be these perfect sacrificing beta men to empower and lift up the next generation of women right now. And I think that... Who are all strong and independent and don't need that. Yeah, exactly. What was he saying? At the same time. Yeah, so they're taught from a very early age to not put themselves as their mental point of origin, which I think is probably the biggest sin or the biggest part of the blue pill, I think for men when they are taught at a very early age to put themselves second and to put women on top. And I don't mean just a woman, that later that becomes a woman. Later it becomes the wife. Later it becomes the girlfriend. But in general, it's woman kind. It's the sisterhood, Uber Alice is what I call it. And it's like it's people kind now. Yeah, people kind, right? Yeah, but I think that in a way, I kind of am a little bit concerned about the message that Jordan is sort of putting out there. It's like he expects sacrifice.  And that sounds revolutionary to guys these days because it's something that they've never really had any, like I said, the rudder list. They're sort of personality rudder lists right now.  It's also a plea for greater sacrifice. And I think this sort of goes back to what Rich was saying is that you're sacrificing, but what are you sacrificing for? Are you sacrificing because you want to improve yourself and be the best person or best man that you can be? Or is it because are you sacrificing so that you can be more acceptable and more appropriate for woman kind, just like you've been taught from as early as five years old? And like I said, it's a plea for greater sacrifice because if a man is less valuable, his sacrifice is less meaningful.  And do you think it's actually gonna be appreciated because you've made yourself into somebody that much better? A fattening of the pig for slaughter.  Is that where it's going?  And he even talks about that. It's like when it comes to like harmless men versus harmful men, and a harmless man is always gonna be less valuable or socially, intersectionally than a harmful man or somebody who has the potential for harm, but he doesn't use that harm. He has all of this confidence and he has all this capacity and this agency, but yet he doesn't do anything with it. He sacrifices that. And expecting, I mean, what is he expecting to happen from that? To be appreciated. Jordan Peterson, well to me, Jordan Peterson is about building a better beta there. That's what he said. Building a better beta, yeah. Yeah, he totally nailed it with that. Well, one of the concepts too that I haven't seen, go ahead, Carl. Well, I wrote two essays recently where I use some of his terms such as conscientiousness and the big five factors. And one thing few people don't know is that Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez, and Ted Bundy got love letters and naked pictures from women left and right while either charged with or convicted of multiple murders. And what Jordan Peterson is doing, he's trying to plug the gap because right now we have a lot of highly educated, highly ambitious, strong independent women who are not going to be able to find husbands. Because women don't marry down. A college educated woman rarely marries a non-college educated man. Relationships between men who, where men make less than women don't last. So he needs the men to step up. Otherwise, we're gonna have a shortfall of not of men, but of appropriate level men for these women to marry. So it's like a grand-scale Captain Xeva-ho kind of thing. Yeah, like when you say build a better Peter, it's almost like he wants to carbon copy his own life, right? Yeah. Well, he does. Because what Jordan Peterson says, his major thing is order and chaos. If you listen to his Bible series, the chaos is the id in Freudian terms. It knows how to do four things.  Those are the four things. Then you have the superego, which is telling you, okay, you need to behave correctly. You need to get an education. You need to be a productive member of society, et cetera.  If you earn $100,000 this year, you can go buy a high-class escort or if you do this job, you are entitled to a wife. And this is a negotiation that goes on within all of us. But when you blow this up to a societal scale, what happens is if you have a lot of superego heavy guys, they're never gonna get laid ever. And the id-driven guys are gonna get laid. And if the big five heritable traits that get those guys laid like assertiveness and dominance are the antithesis of those traits that society needs, which is conscientiousness more than anything, then order will lose the battle to chaos and we'll end up with tribes of warlords everywhere. Dogs and cats utter mad chaos. Well, here's something I wanted to interject into your injecting of the conversation. Based on conversations with Rolo I've had in private and then Ryan a little bit with tweets he was talking about earlier. We had a speaker a couple of years ago, you guys don't know an alumnus speaker a couple of times and he talked about what he called father hunger. And I think that father hunger I think is the niche that Rolo mentioned that Jordan Peterson has so incredibly fit himself into very rapidly and surprisingly I think to himself and everyone else.  Cause yeah, all these young men are my age anyway and they're on this age are like super, super father hungry and that's why everybody's freaking out with your make your bed and they're like, oh my God, amazing. Like just my mother, my mother told me for 30 years. Yeah.   And to expose many of the lost generation of boys, right? And the lost boys to, to, you know, something as, it seems very trivial, but it's actually very important. Yeah, I can understand how that would seem very, very revolutionary. Yeah. Having said that, when I deployed, I was the guy with the absolute shitty rack. So once you're out of basic training and on your three scores is they don't really check anymore. Well, I just, I just wanted to say that, like, I think, like I said, it's, it's really hard to criticize the guy in any substantial way.  If you have anything, if you have anything critical to really, to bring up about it. We're all committing high treason right now. Yeah. Being critical in any way, shape, or form about Jordan, who I think is, I like him. Like, I think this guy's awesome. All right. But isn't that just a sign of the times of like the society that we live in, that we've got this, this massive audience of men and even some women that look up to a guy that sounds like Kermit the Frog, when he goes on a rant. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a step closer to, you know, being better, being more masculine, being, you know, being the best version of yourself than where they were before that, obviously. But it just shows how far behind, you know, if you've come as a society, I think. But are they as a version of themselves though? Like, are they? Like, I really think about this and you watch them and guys talk about self and self improvements in other container where totally, don't worry about chicks, bro, it's self improvement. And you're like, well, self improvement, how? Like, what are you improving for? If you just sit there and think you're getting better, but there's nothing to, there's nothing real that you can test it against, then you're just larping. Yeah. There's a lot of talk. There's a large echo chamber. You had, I've actually, one of the things that prompted me to, you know, to try to organize this with you, Ryan, is that you had that one post or that one, gosh, it was up to like 300 some odd comments last I looked at it, but it was about, you weren't even, yeah, you weren't even like critical so much of Jordan Peterson, just so much of about the, I don't want to call it a cult, but they certainly the, you know, zealous following that he has right now and just by just, you know, being in some way, marginally critical. I mean, can you talk about that, Ferdin? That was hilarious. Yeah, we have a gay Lou Boyle and Guy Whisper who did the thing was essentially had the idea that these guys are treating him like dad 2.0. So just sent a little jab out. We call him like, and all it was just, he's not your friend. He has his own thing he likes to do. He has his own agenda.  And then people lashed out thinking we were ragging on Peterson and it wasn't, it was on people that are following him unconditionally. It's like, no, that's not how it works. That's exactly what the nail on the head there. It's a conditional following at this point, a lot of it. Like you're not supposed to have a dad. You're supposed to take that risk that you are now like on your own. There is no, there is no safety net for you. Dad's not going to bail you out. Peterson's not your dad. He's not your best friend. He's a guy who's a clinical psychologist who studied a bit of young and had some Bible stories he told for a Patreon fund. And if you watch it, you see it too. Cause it's like, his critical psychology stuff's awesome. Very red pill information. His Bible stuff completely different. We just got a great comment.  Mm-hmm. Such as? You know, I have to say this, I will say this cause I do got to bounce in a few minutes. I got about two feet of snow to get off my driveway before I can get out of here. But one of the biggest values and one of the biggest takeaways that I've had from Peterson's work is he's got a self authoring suite. I don't know if any of you guys have done it or seen it. I'm familiar with that. Yes, you've got past authoring and future and so on and so forth. And I did one of these self authoring suites. It was about a year ago. It was around the time that I read Rollo's book, you know, the first version of the rational male. And I got a lot of value out of it. Like it took me almost a day and a half to go through the exercise. So he's got a lot of good pieces of content out there. But again, I think that guys specifically need to be selective and adapt it. And especially after that, plug it in and use it, man.  It's like apply it to your life, man, and start acting. Yeah, pretty much. Anyway, guys, I got to bounce. I want to thank you for doing this. I'm going to watch the recording later. I want to get back to you guys later, right? Peace. Thanks for hopping on, man. See you. Oh, cool. It's an AA. It's self authoring suites.  So you can reach there. Oh, all right. The big major difference is that when you're doing a Scientology audit, you're basically telling the story of your life down to the minute details while holding on to some tin cans with another person. Mm-hmm. Yeah, but they're squint cans. And figure out your ingrowns. Well, everyone loves having their hands something good cans, but. Yeah. That's besides the point. Well, I think. The point here is that what? Go ahead, Carl. I think the key to self authoring is it allows you to familiarize yourself with parts of your history that you haven't really learned the lesson from. Like everyone has bad experiences that kind of follows them. And by writing them down and thinking about them, you can usually get past them. It's a very classic psychological technique when you're trying to heal trauma in people. Yeah, we even talked about that on his first Joe Rogan podcast is that if you're still having an emotional reaction to a memory, that means you can't articulate it. And the part of all writing that's good is that it allows you to articulate it. And we see it all the time.   Other men ping off of them and then yeah, they come to terms with it and then it's just kind of, it doesn't really emotionally sway you anymore.  We have a question by the way from the audience, the live audience here. It's a good one. I think we already hit on a little bit but it's worth going over again. So Steele Sharpens is his name and he said, So thoughts if you guys think that Jordan Peterson is actively looking to be a father figure or did guys just latch on to him because of his message? 100% latched on. Yeah, I think so too. And that he is what they've been looking for and that's one of the reasons I think that guys in red, in the atmosphere, I don't even want to say so much red pill community because red pill has the term red pill has sort of been bastardized. When I talk about red pill, I talk about it from an intersexual dynamics perspective but I think that from a manosphere perspective, I think he is the champion that these guys have been looking for for a long time.   And it's great.  And I just watched the part of the Vice interview. The Vice and HBO just did this documentary on him and I haven't seen the whole thing but I've seen clips and bits and pieces of it where I think probably the meat of the whole thing was him being interviewed by this.  I don't know, cause I don't watch Vice. Knock at all the boxes in there.  I mean, the guy doing the interview can't be more than 24, 25 years old, probably fresh out of college, probably fresh out of learning his gender indoctrination and learning all that and trying to catch, trying to catch somebody like Jordan Peterson. And Peterson's just there ripping him a new one. It's not even really a fair fight but people like that. They like that WWF fighting that goes on between somebody from one ideological perspective and then the polar opposite of that. And we like to see that. That's why the videos of him on campus where transsexuals come up to him and wanna put him on the spot and he either dodges them effortlessly or he puts it back on them and they have nothing to talk about. And that is the guy that the man's fear has been wanting for a long time.  So do he want to be that? I don't know. I don't think he set out to do that. And I think that Carl and I were talking about this not too long ago and also I'm a limitable man. He's the perfect guy in the perfect place at the perfect time right now. And whether or not he wants to be a father figure makes no difference. There's still gonna be guys who are gonna wanna to put that on him because he's the perfect intellectual guy to fill that void, to feel that he's the champion that they want. Even if he's not a father, at least he's a fighter and he goes out there and he has skin in the game. I mean he has got a lot of skin in the game because he's probably gonna lose his tenure. And I think he knows that. And I think right now Peterson is preparing for a life post tenured professorship. And he's doing a great job of it. I mean the guy can, I was just talking with Pat Campbell on his show just this week saying that he can go and put 2,000 asses in the seats or 3,000 asses in the seats and talk about the Bible and everything. And yet pastors are completely confused as to why they can't get men, more and more enough men or any men into the church for free on a Sunday. And they brought, yeah, exactly. And then what I was gonna say is that they, these pastors are really upset because they think that he's like heretical or he's not religious enough for them, which I can understand because he sort of has a very, I wanna say, objectivist way of looking at religion right now. He's never really said, yes, well, I shouldn't say that. He has said that he doesn't go to church and he's kind of anti-going to church because it really grates on him for some reason. But yet he's still a biblical scholar.  And it's like he's giving men or he's giving young men something that they're not getting in church that they probably used to get in church but they're not getting that anymore. And so where do these guys go? They go to the Manisphere. They go to Jordan Peterson. They go to whatever ideological or maybe they go to white nationalism. Maybe they go to something that's a little more along their political ideological lines but they're looking for something. Now, whether he's that father or not, I don't think that's really sort of relevant now. He is, that's who he is right now and he's got to figure out what he's gonna do in that persona. All right. I go ahead and read those, any of the questions there. I was just gonna say one more thing here is that I'm just sort of on my list is, I don't know if you guys have seen this as well but he's got a quick hit video for Prager University right now where he goes in and it's pretty much everything he's always said. He's not really going against anything. He's not being a hypocrite or anything by doing that but I think that it's interesting that for him to go and align himself with Prager University is it's kind of telling as far as where he wants where he wants to be ideologically right now because I don't know if you know anything about Prager U or what's- Nobody does. Yeah, nobody knows anything about Prager U. I was gonna say he's definitely aligning himself with the Tradcon agenda by doing so and maybe there's some crossover that he thinks is beneficial but I don't know. I don't know what's going on as far as that's concerned but I think there's probably some people who are in the live chat right now are saying, well, I love Tradcon or whatever but I think that it sort of shows the alignment as far as ideologically his concerns is where he fits. Let's talk about this and I think the one, go ahead, Carl. Yeah, Carl. No, I was just looking at the chat here and there's a guy named Sidarth Tanwar who just said that they are looking for order. Yeah, I know. I probably butchered that name. But these guys, you know. Steel for the deal, I know. No, I was just watching the chat ask you. No, I was looking at the chat while we're talking and I think that's a very valid point because one of the things I've noticed with the Tradcons is they want a predictable cost and effect. They want to know if I do A, I get B. They want to bubble round like... That's kind of the... Well, it's essentially the old 1950s put into a time capsule because they want to be able to know that if I graduate high school, I can get a predictable job that I can have for 35 years. I'll get a girl who's maybe not a 10 but she'll be a five to seven and be loyal to me. She'll bring me children. I won't have to worry and it has to do with elimination of risk because alpha men accept a higher level of risk and have a higher level of tolerance. But beta men want to eliminate the volatility of this actual marketplace. That's why I called it reproductive communism on a lot of occasions because what they want to do is whenever you have a free market, you will have losers, you'll have winners and you'll have a lot of people in the middle doing all right. So you have the alpha who banks 100 women, you have the beta who hits an Ash count of five and you have the, let's call them the in-cell crowd that hits zero. But in reproductive communism, you basically assign one men to one woman and then it goes from there because you take all the natural variables in a market that cannot be predicted and you organize them in a way that's predictable, understandable and where there's a clear bullet point checklist to what you have to do to get laid. Where's the fun in any of that? Yeah. Well, I was gonna say it's, yeah. You have so much more fun with a little bit of risk and danger in life that makes you more interesting, gets you a better character, it's cleaning your room. I don't know, I just don't get why you'd want to bubble wrap your life like that and then you think you're winning when all you're essentially doing is just, you're turning food into waste. Well, it kind of makes you fly. No, it's not about you thinking you're winning, it's about nobody losing. Yeah. Because for a guy who accepts risk, he's willing to say, okay, I'm willing to take an 80% chance that I'll lose in exchange for a 20% chance that I'll win. A guy who's at risk is gonna do the opposite. He's gonna do the opposite thing and he's gonna say, I'm willing to avoid, I'm willing to say, I'll have a 99% chance I'll lose and I'll take the back over the 1% that I'll win. You could give a guy who's risk averse a 99% chance of winning and he'll still not take it because that 1% is more significant to him. Yeah. And that's why they want Father Peterson because that's the risk mitigation right there. Well, it's a reason my dad, he's got this. Well, I think one of the other things that's here is like we're looking at sort of this political, insertion of a political ideological bent into what we know as Red Pill. And I think that what I'm seeing right now recently in my Twitter feeds and my comments and stuff like that is I see a definite, well, certainly on the Red Pill sub, there's a certain faction of guys who want to save the world or they wanna save Western culture by getting married, by having kids and I just did. I just did a podcast with Hunter Drew and Craig James about being a Red Pill parent and being a Red Pill husband. I'm not saying that's not necessarily an endorsement for guys to run out there and go get married right away because I'm certainly not gonna endorse that. Man up and marry those sluts, hurry up boys. Marry those sluts and that's, I think that's one of the dangers really of taking too much Jordan Peterson is that it gets you wrapped up into this, well, I'm gonna go get married, I'm gonna save the world because what do we need? We need the nuclear family. We need one man, one woman and two kids and that's going to put us back, we need to get back to our positive reproduction rates. And if we don't do that, well, or if you're not working towards that or if you're not willing to sacrifice, that's where the sacrifice comes back in again. If you're not willing to sacrifice yourself for that, well, there's something wrong with you or that's the direction that you shouldn't be going in. And I think that, like I have, I'll tell you this right now, I have a really, really good marriage, okay? I have a fantastic marriage. I'm telling you right now, don't get married, okay? And if I'm telling you that, I'm telling you that because the state of marriage right now is such that it is so dangerous, economically, familiarly, family-wise, there's just legislation, we live in such a feminine primary social order right now that to- Go upside. I mean, is that what we're sacrificing for? And that's kind of what I wanted to get back to on the sacrifice issue. Is am I expected to go and take that chance no matter what, am I expected to go and put my freaking nuts on the anvil and give the hammer to the woman? Because is that going to, am I supposed to do that as a sacrifice that I think is gonna be appreciated in the future? Or is it because it won't be appreciated that it's even that much greater a sacrifice? And I think that the parallel between guys who are saying, you need to man up and you need to get married and you need, I mean, how is that any different from what somebody like Mark, a pastor Mark Driscoll is saying, and trying to shame guys into marrying single mothers and giving women, always giving women the best benefit of the doubt and putting them so like saying, you know what guys, I know it's risky.  I know that, it's everything big tout so you're not to do. I know it's risky.  Eventually for mankind, it's gonna be worth it. That reminds me of something you pointed out. I think it was you with the other day roll that pointed it out. There was a video that Jordan put out or someone did of Jordan talking to somebody.  And then for the women, it's like one or two things. So men have like 57,000 things we have to do. And then it's a big disconnect I think from what he pretends to preach otherwise or maybe not pretends, but is otherwise putting out. So you kind of hit on that like a blank spot or somebody. So how is that different from that old joke that why is a woman who sleeps with a lot of men as luck but a man who sleeps with a lot of women a player? And the thing is, in order to be a player, you have to be in shape. You have to have your game on point. You have to have some love. Yeah, well, I think what you have to do in order to sleep with a lot of men, you have to be available.  Well, like what Carl was saying just a minute ago is, you know, as far as he's got a great book. If anybody hasn't read this, Gendernomics, fantastic. Please pick that up.  Really good book, but it wasn't gonna say is that from an economic from a marketplace standpoint, like what we were just saying, isn't, and let me just a question for all of you guys, isn't monogamy and marriage, is that not sort of a balancing of the market? Is that not, you know, being with one man and one woman and then opening up, you know, that much more for other guys? I mean, I really think that, you know, marriage in the Judeo-Christian modern Western way that we think of it is really sort of a balancing or sort of an evening of that market as opposed to, I mean, as much as it can be.  That's part of hypergamy, it's always gonna be that. If they can't get the best of both worlds, they're gonna try to get, they're gonna try to balance it in some particular way. It's part of evolution, it's happened forever. But like I have, I got a post right now and it was, I think it was the last part of the creeps poster was one of these posts, just basically saying that we've come to a point right now where hypergamy has become so unfettered and so unleashed right now that we're sort of going back to that polygamous attitude because women's, the beta provider, the parental investment, the security needs of hypergamy are being met either directly or indirectly through men themselves or through the state or through some sort of anything that women could vote for legislatively to ensure that that security side of hypergamy is made up and they don't have to worry about that.  And so in a society where hypergamy pretty much dictates what's going on in a social sense, we talk about women being single mothers, 42% of women having children out of wedlock. We look at the state of abortion right now. All of this stuff that's happened since the sexual revolution is indicative, I think, of the switch that we have in unfettering hypergamy and it's sort of freed women up to just focus on the alpha seed side of things. And I think that marriage and monogamy in sort of in the post agrarian sense, that really, like I said, even the market at it, settle the market down so that one man can have one chick, whereas in a post hypergamous society, women are going to look for as many guys as they can. That's why we get something like the Sandberg plan for hypergamy, right?   I think that in today, I think one of the reasons that we're seeing such a drop in marriage rates and we're looking at marriage ages getting older and older is a direct result of that right now. But I think what we're doing is we're sort of coming back to the polygamy side of things through hypergamy. Well, at the same time, if I'm not mistaken, maybe Carl knows more about this, millennials are having like, or A, it's easier to hook up technologically than it ever has been. Tinder is in, I have like right now, my Tinder like 400 matches.  If I'm not mistaken on that. And it's hard to say exactly.  I think- Why have I cleaned your room? Because I said by just like, go to the gym. Right there, you're just giving a clear roadmap and have all the options in the world. Be that top 20 guy. And it's not hard because half the guys have just dropped out. Well, that's what I'm saying. It's not even top. I think like 20 years ago, it was like top 20 and now it's like top 10 or top five. It's like that window, the Pareto window is like closing.  Every year that goes by. Yeah, but most guys double down on that. They're cleaning their room right now and looking for dads online. Yeah. Actually, Rallo just went on kind of a thing that there were multiple things I wanna touch on in there. Number one is the question, monogamy, one man, one woman. Yes, in theory, you'll have a market clearing meaning that supply matches demand because population birth rates are roughly 51% women, 49% men.  But once you start accounting for divorce rates, widows and widowers, et cetera, you have a market where you have a certain proportion of the total group returned to the free market at all times. And one of the things very few people realize about capitalism is capitalism inherently wants monopolies because the one who is the best at competition will eventually have 100% of the market. That's why we have antitrust laws to say that, okay, you know what, we accept that you have the absolute best product in the market, but we cannot allow you to have an 80% market share because that throws off competition and that means you can realize above average profits for a below average product. So what happens is, at present, you're handling to 80% of the female markets. A fun, okay, Cupid statistic, if I remember it correctly, is that the top 78% of women are going after the top 20% of men on that platform and the bottom 20% of the bottom 80% of men are going after the bottom 20% of women, which is the Prieta principle in action. And what this means is simply that women's needs other than high quality genetics is gone because you can have everything else covered by either yourself or the states. Well, either it's gone or the illusion is gone. Like it's a pretend like it's not there.  If zero awareness of it. Yeah, but the thing, yeah, but people don't realize how fragile a modern grand scale economy and state actually are. So they think this is the way people always tend to project the future based on what they've experienced. So if you've never experienced a depression or a riot or any form of real danger, you tend to project, okay, this is how the world is now. This is how it's always going to be and you act in the moments. You remember that saying, it can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. What was that? You can't understand. Yeah, well, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Just the way, and honestly, that's the thing. The big part of the Peterson followership that I'm not a fan of, and it's a general like beta behavior across everything is that people keep complaining that, well, it should be this. Well, it's not that.  Be that top 20% guy because everybody else is dropping off the radar like flies.  And right now the government and other organizations have taken all your need for provision off the table. So you don't have to focus on being a great plow horse. It's like right there for the taking. And all you have to do is be willing to accept.  I had a girl in Tinder the other day say that I am the definition of a tender fuckboy. It's like it harps on what you're saying. Like that it is a successful strategy at this point. It's what you should be doing to at least some big extent assuming you're not hyper-cultured for some very specific set of behaviors in life. Like you got like a great business going on right now. You're making a decent amount of money. You'd be a great husband material for anybody but you just, that's for you. So now you don't have to worry about offering that up to other people. Tinder fuckboy to the max. Yeah. What I was gonna say is that is, I mean, just look at Tinder itself. We're gonna make an app to facilitate hypergamy. That's what we're gonna do. I mean, we're gonna find some way that we can have women just simply go no, no, no. Yes, no, no, no. And that's all it's boiling down to at this day. I wanted to talk with about what Carl was saying is that when I was writing that one article it was really in response to me reading this other one about polygamy and poly, I guess poly, polygamy would be the best word for it but now it's polyandry, I guess. But if you look at the countries that have a social order that's built around polygamy, those are always the most depressed third world hellhole, shithole countries that you would ever want to go to. So you're looking at like places like Somalia or you're looking at places like that where they're trading cows for women. And we're looking, most of these are, like I said, shithole countries but they base their social order around having multiple wives and the way that a guy can be higher status is to simply have more wives because that means he's got more money to go and do that. And like really, what does ISIS offer these guys to join up? They offer them wives. They can't find any other way to pay these guys up because what are they gonna do? Offer them cows so they can go buy wives. And so anyways, this article was talking about how like say the Arab Spring, the Arab Spring, are you reading something? No, I'm laughing at you're just the cow thing. I gotta mute for a minute. Well, it was the Arab Spring, they were saying that as a result of young men being unemployed and being really where we're out right now sort of in a sense here in the United States right now young men between the ages of say 18 and 26, 27 years old unmarried, no prospects for married, being married. Most of them are, I'd say here, are either educated, certainly better educated than most other countries but like in the Arab Spring these guys were pretty educated guys but had no prospects at life. So why not ride in the streets? Why not join ISIS? Why not try to overthrow the government because you've got nothing to lose for doing that and probably everything to gain. And I think what that really comes back to you again is what we're saying in this country is we have another situation that's very similar to that. We've got the lost boys generation who were just discussing earlier and what do they latch onto? They latch onto the Jordan Peterson, they latch onto guys in the Manisphere, they latch onto whatever ideology that sort of gives them hope or gives them a prospect. It's a lot of big YouTubers, it's not just Peterson, it's like Stephen Molyneux, I think it's another good one. His channel is also about the same size. Scott Adams, yeah? Yeah, you look at guys even look at a Cernovich or you look at, there's, yeah, Rogan's another good one. Rollo, you're just bitter and jealous. I'm just bitter and jealous. I'm just professional at the... You're just angry, but I'm not. Yeah, all I was going to say is that I think... What almost talks about the polygamy is actually very interesting because what I thought was CEO salaries versus worker salaries because there was always a huge outrage when a CEO is making 100 times what an average worker makes. And that's the same situation you have in those countries because you have one person or a small group of people who are making a lot of wives and you have some that don't get any. But the work of, if you can get, let's say 60% of your population to invest in and work to build value within your civilization. Then you have a really great outcome because you have a hell of a lot of workers creating value. If you have maybe 10 guys working and creating value, you have a lot less. So in a shithole situation, we borrow our term from Trump, you find yourself that only really 10% of men have any reason whatsoever to invest in your civilization. And the other 90% may just as well sit down, collect something from the government, play video games, smoke weed and watch porn. There's really no point to that, point for them to invest. If you can get 60% of men a wife, then 60% of men will have a mortgage. Then 60% of men will have to pay that mortgage. And if they have kids, then they'll have to pay for those kids. So they have to work a hell of a lot more to have a decent life than if they were single men. You can get on at about $25,000 a year as a man if you're single. If you're married, that jumps to about 60, 70 grand a year. And I don't think that's gonna change that too. Yeah. I'm good. Well, I was gonna say is that I think that even when you get to that state of marriage, and I really think that's sort of one fault I have with Peterson is that everything is about getting into this perfect, and I think he promotes egalitarianism within his marriage, but I think he thinks getting into this perfect marriage where the woman is going to be your perfect helpmate, or at least you're equal, very similar to what Cheryl Sandberg was talking about, how there's nothing sexier than the guy who wants to pull his own weight. And I think that when you look at the incentives for marriage right now, I can understand why guys are resisting that. So it's just like what Carl was saying here.  You got that generation who have no real prospect, and you're gonna try to tell them to give that up, man up, and then put themselves into a sacrificial position of marriage where in all likelihood, 50% of marriages are gonna end up in divorce, and they're gonna be in a worse position, post marriage than they were when they were in that marriage. And that's just statistically, across the board, an unfortunate truth about what's your marriage? We need to point out that that bad position after marriage could be so severe, it could include suicide. Exactly.   So it goes pretty bad. I'm not gonna say that marriage hasn't been in the past and couldn't be in the future a good means to build a society upon, because obviously that's what we've done here. And I'm not into nation building or anything, but I will say that the nuclear family and everything that we've had up until probably the sexual revolution, at least as far as I'm concerned, has been at least some, I mean, we can see the achievements and everything all around us. I still think hypergamy has been a big part of that, but right now there's no incentive for men to get married because it's all risk and it's all downside.   So yeah, who's gonna sign up for that? It's the same thing that I think Helen, Dr. Helen, Dr. Hannah, can't remember last name, but she has Helen Smith talking about the marriage strike. So strike, it's just guys being pragmatic. I mean, it's just deductive reasons. Rational. Well, here's a question for all of you. We all have seen a lot of Jordan Peterson videos together. Who knows how many dozens of or hundreds of hours, right? He has to be aware of these dangers to at least some extent with marriage in the West. Has anyone ever seen him criticize or warn men about those dangers, Jordan Peterson? I never have. I don't think he knows them. I don't think he knows them at all. I would put that question out to the people in the chat right now because I haven't. I haven't either. Yeah, it just occurred to me.  In fact, if anything, he has always been very, very shaming of men and very, you know, beneficial and very praising of women. I don't think I've ever heard him. I mean, he's talked, it's just sort of as a side. He'll say, yeah, well, the nature of women X, Y, and Z, if he's always focused on the man, it's always focused on getting that guy to, you know, go make his bed and shame the guy and some to a greater respect. And maybe that's what they need. Maybe that's what they were looking for.  But yeah, I don't think I've ever seen him even address the dangers of marriage because why would he? He married his eight year old sweetheart. You know, that's, I've said this before and I'll put, I'll throw this out there right now to anybody here in the live chat. I've said that he is still, when it comes to women, he's still that eight year old kid. He's still that eight year old boy who fell in love with that girl and told his father, I'm gonna marry that girl. And whoa, we have this nice, you know, high school sweetheart teenage years, you know, miracle story of this great marriage.  And well, she married him too, right before hitting the wall, I think, right? 28, 29. You know what, I wish I don't know that for fact, but I think so. I think that's how it lines up from my recollection of that video. So I could be wrong, but I think that's how it actually played out. 100% rational. It was one of those funny things that, I've joked around a few times that, you know, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, but in order to swallow the red pill, someone really has to kick you in the balls. Because if you've never had to, like I know a lot of blue-colled guys who married a girl while they were fairly young and they'd kept that marriage together for, you know, 30, 40, 50 years. And if you're in that situation, you've never been exposed to the downside because you've never had to think about them.  Carl, is something someone put in the chat here that I wanted to ask you about because I've seen you write about it and I've talked to you about it in person, or not person, but privately, that I think you really hit the nail in the head with. We have Sidharth Tenwar is back in the chat and he says that Jordan Peterson's go-to trope is to accept as much responsibility as possible, which kind of reminds me of the Jesus Complex you were talking about and how men are prone to that, to just maximize responsibility, to point and then sacrifice and all that goes along with it. Can you talk about the problems? I think about two or three weeks ago that there seems to be a false dichotomy going around where men either take absolutely no responsibility or they take on way too much responsibility.  Like you can have a near perfect, you can have solid control of frame, you can no game, you can be a millionaire and a top 1% guy and your woman may still cheat on you or divorce you. I mean, if you look at Hollywood divorces, you have guys where in many ways in the top 0.01% of men and they still get cheated on, they still get divorced. So the idea that you can control the behavior, well, the idea that you can, this is my biggest issue with, you know, a lot of the more conservative use is that you are not Jesus or God, you are not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So to think that you can control everything is just setting yourself up for either a delusion where you think you can actually control everything or an illusion where you think you control everything and then everything falls out from under you. And it's, you can control yourself and yourself only and you cannot control the world only your reactions to it. And that was a butchering of a Marcus Aurelius quote, but it gets to the point. I would be, I had some people who are asking me some questions before I came on, on my comment threads, on my blog, but one of them I thought was really interesting is like one of the questions I think that I would probably put to Peterson is does a family constitute a dominance hierarchy? And maybe that's something you wanna answer, but it's, you know, he goes into a lot about hypergamy being, you know, the source of male dominance hierarchies. And I agree with him. I think he's absolutely correct about that. I think that it is women who actually create the patriarchy themselves. Really, because they were evolved to do that way. They were evolved to seek out the best sperm and the best providership. But how does that transfer over that dominance hierarchy? Does that transfer over into a married relationship? Should the man be the head of the household and be the one that is looked up to and makes the decisions?  But what is the exchange? You know, Dalrock would say that that marriage today is nothing but responsibility for men with zero authority and all that authority goes over to the woman and she's the one that's always making the decisions whereas he's the one who is responsible for anything that goes wrong in that, in that, you know, it's the perfect buffer.  Right, so my question to Jordan Peterson was does a family constitute a dominance hierarchy? Should the man still be at the top of that list? Because from what I can see, from some of his videos that I've seen where he was talking about how he settles disagreements and conflicts in his marriage it seems like his first, you know, his first premise is to seek fault in himself.   And only she can do that. And from what I hear, Peterson doesn't disagree with that so much. He wants to think that men find fault in themselves first. No, he encourages it. As far as I can tell, he encourages that behavior. It's not as explicit maybe as other parts of the culture but it's definitely there. And I'm looking at the chat. Go ahead, Carl. No, no, I just got accused of being a nihilist. So I thought I'd put it out here that nihilism and now the rejection of all religious and moral principles often in the belief that life is meaningless. Saying you don't have control over everything isn't the same as saying life is meaningless. It's the same because control is different from meaning and control is different from principle. Accepting reality, part of that is accepting that you cannot control reality. If you look at all new technology to use an analogy here, there is technology that is very new to us and that we cannot make it to sort of work but we cannot control it.  This isn't saying that you shouldn't try to make nuclear energy work. It's just saying that be aware of the risks and the limits of your control when you design them. Like if you're designing a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone and the average earthquake has been 7.21 to Richter scale, you may wanna take into account, okay, we should proof it up until 1.9 just to be on the safe side. If you don't mind, just quick one here too. I saw James Walker on the chat. Yeah, I was just gonna mention it. Yeah, I don't get what they hope to gain for promoting a negative image on Peterson. Would they prefer men not speak about feminism? And I think that's missing the point. Yes. I know, and I think everybody agrees with me on this one is that Peterson's just like any other resource, you take useful stuff and then discard the things that aren't useful. So the whole point of these talks is to sort out which is which. Right. So it's not about making him look bad so that he shuts up and goes away so Rolo can become Kathy Newman's vice or whatever. That's how you decide what you wanna do to start it out amongst other men. And that's all Red Pill is, you're swapping notes with other men. What worked, what didn't. That's what, and I think that's important to also understand too is that I think that, and I've just been recently locking horns with guys about this, people wanna say that Red Pill is an ideology. Red Pill is not an ideology. Red Pill is a praxeology. And what I mean by that is it's a study of behavior in that, from the perspective that behavior has some sort of meaning. So what we do, pretty much what we've been doing for a long time, we don't even realize that we're doing it, but the Red Pill as far as I've been involved since back in the early 2000s has been an aggregate of men coming together and sharing their experiences, comparing notes, and then coming to predictable generalities about women and life in general as it is. So. Well, it's also specific because it developed in parallel to the PUA community, which was never as widespread and kind of deep. The Red Pill seems to have always been kind of harping on that. Well, I've got a post called The Evolution of Game, and I think it's in the first book as well. And it goes and sort of outlines how we've gone from the early 90s and the players and the mystery method and RSD and all that kind of stuff from the early and sort of how it's evolved into where it's become right now, because there's so much more of the Red Pill right now than just Pickup Artistry.  Well, no, there's some things that I agree with MRA, and sometimes I might write about those, where they'll say you're a pickup artist and it's just about getting pussy for you. No, I agree with a lot of the game. I think game is a necessary aspect. I think game informs Red Pill informs game, but I'm not Pickup Artistry. And then people say, well, you're MiGtower.  I know. I think that if you are Red Pill and you have come unplugged from the matrix, and you will have no other recourse, but to cut yourself away from that and live in a different way. So does that make you go in your own way? I think so, but does that mean you're gonna stop?  No, last time I said no. This means you're gonna give up, but it's just, I don't, but just getting to what this guy's question is, it's like, should we not, should we all just shut up and let this whole thing run out? And I think that a lot of misconception is, I'm gonna say some things that people are gonna disagree with. And Jordan Peterson is gonna say things that people are gonna disagree with. And Roush and Cernovich and whoever else you look and you have in your constant daily Twitter feed. Does that mean what their entire message in their entire direction is wrong? No, but I think that you should have a capacity to critically think about those things and you should not be held back from expressing any kind of criticism about that. So it's like saying, what is it? No press is bad press? No, sometimes bad press is bad press. And you don't believe me just ask a subway about Jared as their spokesman, okay? That's bad press, okay? Ask Robert Fisher. Yeah, yeah. So I think that when we get to the point where we have somebody who's above reproach and above criticism, that's when I start to open my eyes and I go, well, wait a minute. Go ahead, Carl. No, I think of a change of pace here, but there was a guy in chat who actually had a really good comment called the Watcher Johnny, who says, I think you're missing an important point about Peterson. He's offering alienated young men a path to what they instinctually desire and are already conditioned to accept. Yeah, and I think that as a starting point, that's definitely a good thing. I mean, it's good. I mean, when people criticize me or I was given like the Red Pill movie with Cassie J, I called that from a year and a half before. I said, this movie is going to be all about her. It's gonna, she's just using the MRAs as a vehicle to further her, it's further advance her career and it's gonna be about her journey of self-discovery and it's gonna have nothing to do or very little to do with the topic on hand. And sure as shit, that's what happened. But you know what? People criticized me out at that time. They said, well, it's getting the message out. At least more people will come and try to discover what the Red Pill is. And they said the same thing about when Ruch went on with Dr. Oz. Well, you know, it's a pretty damning episode of Dr. Oz, but at least people will come and find the Red Pill. Well, they said the same thing about that CNN document, I don't even really document it, it was just basically a hit piece that was just around like probably about a month or two ago and people said, well, at least it's bringing people into, okay, great, but from there, from once you're in, then what?  Well, clearly you keep all of your Blue Pill beliefs and you find Red Pill solutions to those Blue Pill beliefs and you just live happily ever after. Exactly, and fantasy, man. Yeah, it blows up. I wanted to ask you, I wrote it down earlier in my notes, Rollo, what is your comparison and contrast? This is open to anyone on stream, but Rollo, you first, your comparison and contrast of someone like Stefan Molyneux to Jordan Peterson, how do those two compare in terms of Red Pill Red Pill? I just went on with Stefan last week and I have to say, I listened to Stefan and I like him well enough, but he's really kind of not in my wheelhouse. He is more politically and ideologically in sort of a different space than I am. We talked about the Red Pill, we talked about my book, we talked about hypergamy and I think that in one respect, he is very much Purple Pill because he's very pro marriage and very pro, and I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, but I was just saying that that's where he's at right now. And I think that if I were to ever lock horns with him, it would be over pretty much what we've been talking about here, which is, you know, what's the end result? Are we trying to save humanity by convincing men to, you know, put themselves out there, sacrifice themselves on the altar of what marriage really is today? And I think that in some respects, he's Purple Pill in that way, but like in other ways, he's very, very Red Pill. I was actually surprised. I expected there to be a little bit more conflict in our discussion, but it wasn't, he's more in tune I think with the MRAs, and I think he's more along their lines. And if I had disagreements with him, it would probably be the same disagreements I have with the men's rights. Good. So looking at some of the comments going on here, there's so many shits on those weird ones too. That's all right. More like that one on the stress how generational theory. Yeah, I don't even, I'm not even familiar with that, maybe Carlos or some of you guys. So what is the group's opinion on the stress how generational theory? It's a theory. I'm not familiar with it. I wish I could. Me neither. Carl? Carl? Come on, nerd. Give him something. He's looking it up. I'm not intimately familiar with it. I'm surprised. Yeah, but in essence, it's a theory device where you describe a theoretical, generational cycle in the United States that tends to repeat. Oh, this is like the, what is that thing? That book that Bannon was a huge fan of, that thing? The fourth turning. Yeah, okay. So I don't know. I don't see how it's applicable. How can you give us a... But there was something I actually walked in. Not to interrupt, but there was actually one thing that struck me with what Roller was saying that I thought was very interesting and is, are you familiar with the is-ought problem? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and that was one of the things that struck me about marriage is what marriage is today versus what marriage has been and what people think marriage ought to be. Because I think that's a major sticking point for men that they only think of marriage as being one thing. It's kind of being a man, part of it for two of them is growing up. And if you're not married, then you haven't grown up. You haven't become a man fully. And that's marriage as sort of a metaphysical concept, I guess, but then you have marriage as it is, which is marriage surrounded by all these laws, regulations and state influence, which is what screws men over.  They're retirement from the sexual marketplace, someone who loves them unconditionally, someone who was saving the best for them, something that they wanted to be waiting for. And I'm just throwing a couple of Roller references there. Well, I was gonna say is that that sort of comes back to what I talked about in the Mail Catch 22, it's a post call, it's a chapter as well, it's called The Honor System. And it's pretty much the man up or shut up dynamic where it's as long as masculinity and manhood is something that can be useful to women or the feminine imperative or woman kind, then that's an okay, that's an approved aspect of masculinity, but anything else that would conflict with the feminine imperative, anything that would conflict with empowering women, anything that is an all in any way contradictory that is an aspect of masculinity or being a man, that is restricted. And so what we were just saying a little while ago is like, if you're not married, then you're not a real man, right? The only path to manhood is to prepare yourself for marriage and then after marriage, that's what gives you, that's what grants you manhood status, right? And so it's like holding hostage what manhood really is. And I really think that what you're doing at that point is you're only affirming the truth of somebody else. And in this case, since we're talking about Peterson and I can also throw Dennis Prager in here because he's now aligning himself with Prager U, it's that same dynamic. It's man up and marry those sluts. And if there's anything that detrimental to yourself that happens after that, well, that's on you. And like I said, when Dalrock was talking about how marriage is really 100% responsibility for men with 0% authority for men, nobody's gonna sign up for that. People, guys are instinctually deductive problem solvers and they're gonna see that before they move into making a sacrifice such as that. And an opt-in problem, yeah. Yeah. In fact, all of this kind of ties to your, I think I got it from you where you have to be your own judge, all these things you're saying where men have to be judged like the feminine paradigms as this, the feminine paradigms as that, only if you accept it. If you don't get married, you're not gonna have the problems of marriage. That's your own masculine, and that's how I interpreted your masculine center, the way you talk about it. Well, it's like the sacrifice of men is, you know, when Prager or- Do for me and don't worry about you. Exactly, when the sacrifice for men, it's really a parallel to men being disposable. We're talking about the disposability of men.  And I think that, you know, men will blow themselves up so that they can get pussy. Okay, so I mean, we're talking about that, that degree of sacrifice, you know, that I will sacrifice myself for a greater cause because I think I'm gonna get 70 versions when I arrive at heaven. Okay. Which is kind of like a weird validation seeking behavior when you think about it. Well, and then- You're gonna have to win her over. It's the Disney fantasy with a ball drop to your chest. Exactly. Here I come, Ariel. And it's the one part where I like, we call them first generation make-towel because the second generation is just, I don't even wanna play, but just don't opt in. Yeah. You do these things, you have your own center. And yeah, you're right.  They're a monopoly like a restaurant. You can eat at a restaurant, they tell you what you're eating, but you can always just go to another one. There's what, three and a half billion women. There'll always be one more. There always gonna be another one. So if it- There's a lot, there's a lot more than one. There's plenty of them. Well, that's the thing. If the deal gets untenable, if it's due for me or else, you're not a real man, right? Take care. So this one over here, we'll think a little bit different and go for that. That's the whole point of like not being the provider that cleans up your room, instead of being the hot guy who lifts weights, looks hot, does well, smells nice, because then you have those options. And so then all you need is one girl out of all these ones or however many girls that don't brow beach you into being the plow horse for them. And you can be their company for as long as your turn is. And then when it's over, it's over.    So he's telling you all this stuff and it's just like- Yeah, it's not practical. Oh, let me tell you something else here. Sorry, Carl, let me get back to you a bit. I've seen videos where Peterson is talking about how women aren't really into bad boys.  It's real like, again, like what we were talking about before with the lean in with the Cheryl Sandbergs. You know, ultimately at the end of the day, nothing sexier than these guys, right?   I've seen his video on hypergamy and almost to the exclusion of everything else, it's all about the beta need, beta provisioning, parental investment side of hypergamy.  In a very binary way. I mean, it's literally left, right, left, right. Alpha, beta, alpha, beta. I don't think I have ever seen him be critical of women in their selection of that other than when he brings up the 50 Shades of Grey.  You don't want that great employee call because you can have breakfast the next morning. Yeah, and again, that sort of comes back to, in a way that sort of shames women in a sense because it says, well, I know you want to follow the Sandberg plan for hypergamy, but in the end, you're going to want to marry the guy who's got a steady job in a clean room, right? Well, the fact of the matter is there's plenty of post-divorced women who turn into cougars because that's simply not true. Yep. Hey guys, I want to hit on something that I think is pretty simple, but really important for the guys watching to understand. And I don't know if it was Ryan that posted together the day or Rolo or someone else on the red pill, so I read it, but basically someone said that feminism is not the blue pill. And I think that's what a lot of guys that really love Jordan Peterson miss, that are also familiar with the manister in the red pill, because he rejects a huge majority of feminism fiercely and in public to the tune of millions of people, and yet he still has these blue pill ideas. So, can Rolo or Ryan or Karl, can you guys talk a little bit about what exactly the blue pill is and why it's not just feminism? Why being anti-feminist doesn't make you red pill automatically? Because I think it's helped. Yeah, go ahead. To expand, I guess it's the whole point of a red pill blue pill is the red pill side is you're getting what you want. You have a goal, then for a 21 year old guy, his goal is to see as much as he can possibly get. So if he's cleaning his room, he's not getting it. So that's what it means by blue pill. It's not an ideological camp. It's not an identity. It's not a clubhouse. It's just, are you actually getting what you're going for? If you're a 30 year old guy and you want to raise a family, then maybe getting some long term provision thing going is your plan in which case that's also red pill. If you're doing it via a marriage that's probably gonna blow up in your face and it's not red pill at all because you're not getting what you want. You're giving a girl a divorce settlement and a baby. It's not at all what you wanted. Well, the way I look at blue pill and I've written about this for some time now is I see blue pill as sort of a societal social engineering that's really, I think started taking place right around the time of the sexual revolution. And once we had freed up hypergamy and we have systematically since that time have systematically made efforts socially to feminize men and to masculinize women. And in the beginning that was because we wanted to have some sort of some notion of equality between the sexes. So we had to like disempower men and then fend power men women. And I think that the blue pill has so many different manifestations in that sense. I think the easiest one to see is like I was talking about before and in positive masculinity is I talk about how it takes a village to raise a child. Well, that village is the blue pill. That village of your teachers, your the society itself, social media, popular media, popular psychology, just basically all of the outside influences that are working on in this instance, young men who will soon be young men, five-year-old boy and conditioning them to be that perfect beta provider when they get to be, when a woman hits her epiphany phase at 29 to 31 years old, like what Carl was saying, I've got a post called betas and waiting that pretty much outlines that. And I think that the blue pill is everywhere really. That's why we call it blue pill and red pill because it's like the matrix. It's the reality that you're growing up in right now.  And it's this systematic conditioning of men to be these perfect providers just like what Carl was saying is like, how do you condition generation after generation to be that perfect provider and be that engine of society? And yet it's 80% of men are beta and 20% of men, I would say are on the alpha side of things and it's the alphas that are still getting laid but how do you convince those blue pill, beta men to stick with it, to not go their own way, to stay on the plantation, to do what it is that they've been raised to do, how do you do that? Well, it takes a village and it takes a long time to do that which is why we see kids getting indoctrinated earlier and earlier.  And that's blue pill right there. And cutting yourself away from that, cutting yourself away from the Disney fantasy of being, having the perfect girl or having your one-eyedest girl or your soulmate. I think a soulmate position is, soulmate myth is definitely a big part of that. But why is that? What's the functional purpose of the soulmate myth? Well, it's to say that there's one person for it, there's one person for everyone, right? And so what does that do? That goes back to what Karl was saying about monogamy and keeping that market balance there. So we have social conventions that are blue pill that keep men locked into that matrix so that they become the 45-year-old suicide because they're zeroed out later on because they followed that path from most of their lives. So when I come out there and I talk about open high programming or I talk about what I do, I'm a threat to that system. And I think Jordan Peterson is definitely a threat to that system as well. So in that respect, yes, he's very much red pill because he's breaking men away from their teaching, from their early childhood education in the blue pill. So yeah, if he's doing something very, very positive, that's the thing. If he brings guys to a greater understanding of red pill awareness, then that's great too. But like again, the whole reason for this talk is a critique of where is he going with that? So if all I ever knew, if I broke myself away from the blue pill, I broke my unplug myself from the matrix and all I ever knew was Jordan Peterson, where do I end at the end of that? Where am I at the, what decisions am I supposed to make to get me to the idealized life? What decisions am I gonna make that will be in line with being a Jordan Peterson guy? This is exactly why I don't do prescriptions. Guys always hit me up and say, well, how come you don't do a 12-step to be a red pill guy, Rolo? What's the secret to manning up in the red pill? In fact, I got a post coming up about that. I don't do that.  So I can tell you how to be Rolo Tossi and probably Carl and Anthony can tell you how to be Carl and Anthony, but they're not gonna tell you how to be the best you. You have to make those decisions because I'm this 49-year-old white guy in the United States. I can't tell some dude in South Africa what he should be doing or some guy in India or some guy in China, because I don't know that culture. There's so many different variables, but what I do know is I do know hypergamy and I do know red pill awareness and I do know intersexual dynamics very well and those things don't change culturally or from culture to culture or from racial to racial. Because they're based in biology. Yeah, because they're based on biology. Men and women have been dealing with each other since the dawn of time, okay?  Here's an open question that I have for all of you guys. Let Carl go.  No, I was going to get it. This is one of the points that surprised me and Rolo disagree a little bit on, but I define the blue pill somewhat broader because I like to define the blue pill as any indoctrination or ideology that actively seeks to put individual men into a servant role in society, in fact, turning them into means to an end for their society rather than their society treating them as ends in itself. And that might sound a little bit complicated, but what I mean by that is if you're indoctrinated, you need to get the college degree. You need to be a loyal employee. You need to be risk averse as these are all different things you are told by society in order to make you into a better citizen. And this was a major topic in my last essay, where I say that things that make you into a good beta husband are the exact same thing that make you into a great employee in a factory or in a cubicle. You're there every day, they can rely on, yeah. And that's the blue pill side of it. The red pill side of it is saying that, there's an alternative to being a plow horse or to be a means. You need to actually say that, do you even want the life they're offering you?  And the kids might not even be yours. Only half of them are. And you'll still be paying for it. That's kind of the thing that Freud has this amazing way of putting it in a future of an illusion where he says, if you want someone to work to put away their base instincts in order to build a civilization or a society, you can either reward them for acting the way you want, which is the soulmate myth. You're told that if you do everything we tell you, you will get what you want in the end.    Because we have to remember that the one thing that this society is driven by is GDP growth.  And if your society goes down in wealth, that means you suddenly have a lot of kids, a lot of women and a lot of dependents on that society that instead of relying on their family are relying on the collective.  We'll just collectivize the plow horses and we'll split their work evenly among all of you. So it takes away the risk of relying on one man and it just, yeah, it takes away the risk. It's really that simple. And that's the blue pill to me. It's just turning men into commodities rather than individuals. Yeah, it's like dehumanizing us as slaves. What is it? I think, I don't know if it was Rolo that said it. Thank you.  I have a post called, I actually wrote an essay about that too. I think that, I'm looking at the comments here and I think that there's one saying, well, this sounds like it's loneliness or if it's redpilled and I don't want to have anything to do with it or I think that it's possible to have good marriages and yeah, it is possible to have good marriages. And I will tell you right now that, I get this all the time and say, if I am in any way critical of marriage, it must be because I have some horrible marriage and I just really, I'm just venting or projecting and no, I have a great marriage. I've been married for 21 years and we're doing good, but I also know that there's countless other guys who are exactly in the same position that I have been in and they say, I can't believe she did this to me, she turned on me, I can't. So I'm not ever going to say that a woman can't go feral on you or can't change, but just because a couple stays together does not necessarily mean that that is a great healthy functioning marriage and just because a family gets together on Thanksgiving and Christmas does not mean that they are not a dysfunctional family. And I really think that if you are married or if you are considering getting married and like again, I will advise against doing that, but if you are, I would say that the only rational real way to go about that is to make sure that you are red pill aware and you understand just what Carl was just talking about. I don't think I would disagree with you, Carl. I think you just approach it from a more sociological level than I do. I look at things from intergender dynamics before I look at anything, but I think that yeah, can you have a successful good marriage? Yeah, you can. And you know what? It's still a risk. It's still, the risks are still there.  And I'm like, no, I mean, it's a lifestyle. It's a lifestyle. The guy who's probably never lived with a girl. They are cheap. We should also say to him that Rolo brought his wife to the 21 convention and lots of speakers and attendees met her over the course of like a week. So this is all like, this is all verified. Like this is a hundred percent. Like people are very happy to meet her. Guys on the plane were meeting her. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Well, I would like to say too that the whole idea of cheaper to keep her, that bothers me on some level because let's say you've been had 30 to 40 years of good life left and you have the choice between you can have 40 years of total misery or you can have 40 years of having a reasonably happy life with a little less money. I'd say number two is the better choice. Yeah, but it's not even that. I have a couple. Go ahead. I'll finish your thoughts, sorry.  An eternity, yeah. Cause there's the thing too, you're right. It's actually not cheaper to keep her. We've had not a large amount out of the 10,000 or so guys in married red pill. It's maybe half a dozen guys who are divorced. And the one thing they're unanimously coming back is my disposable income has gone up even after I have to pay for her to leave me. And it's just one of those things they realized I was so worried about losing half my stuff but I realized I was losing half my stuff within the marriage now that I'm out, like I have to give her however much gross from the alimony payments but now that I got all this money that's mine, I don't have to waste it. So it's not even that it's cheaper to keep her and I think that's just an excuse guys use because change sucks, risk sucks. Cause if you leave her, that's the chance that might be the last girl you ever meet which is ridiculous on its face but guys believe that. And if they would just embrace that you're going to be fine either way. Like there's some horrible stories.  Oh God.  But then even that now that he's single on his own he's doing way better than he would have been there in that life of quiet desperation. Right. Yeah, half a hundred percent of divorce but half of those other ones are quiet desperation in man caves. I just got, I just like, I just did a, like Thursday night I did an interview with Craig James and Hunter from the 21 convention as well. And as you might guess, we talk about, you know marriage and parenting and stuff and from a red pill perspective. And I think it was either, I think it was Dean Abbott had some guy hit him up about how he was in this relationship or is in this long-term marriage, I guess essentially what it boiled down to and Hunter to his credit called this out is that this guy was trying to sacrifice his way into a good marriage. And meaning that he was giving up as much of himself as he possibly could was trying to be the perfect endlessly trying to be this perfect guy and trying to give her more and trying to buy her something or buy her things, sacrifice, do more chores, do whatever else any way he could possibly sacrifice himself and Hunter call it sacrificing your way to a good marriage. And I'll tell you right now that that's not the way to get to a good, if there's nothing left of you polarity is the key to a good relationship. You need to have that separation between the man and the woman. And if you start turning into a woman that's gonna be the key to you getting put away by that woman. But again, the reason I bring this up is because again, it goes sort of back to what Peterson was saying about sacrifice. Where do you end? When you become a Peterson guy, where does that end? Does that end in you being in this marriage? And if so, when you're in this marriage are you constantly sacrificing your own identity to be in this perfect marriage? I mean, how far are you willing to go? What do you think is gonna be appreciated? And what degree of sacrifice is acceptable for you? You know, I wanna say something pretty controversial. At least as if you're ultimate archetype then apparently crucifixionism where it adds. Yeah, well, that's what I wanted to ask that question is like, is there a dominance hierarchy inside of a marriage? That'd be the first question I would have for Peterson. Well, here's something that you said, Rollo, a minute ago. What's making me think of this anyway? And it's based on a comment too that someone left in the live chat maybe 20, 30 minutes ago. From my understanding of the red pill and particularly your work, Rollo, as well as Carl, blackdivologic.com. If anything ever happened to Jordan Peterson's marriage at this point, like a substantive infidelity, I'm not saying it would, it may or may not. It can happen to anyone. But if it did, his blue bill conditioning related to that would just destroy him. That's what the comment said from just one of the comments watching this video. I mean, do you guys think that's accurate based on what, I believe it's accurate based on what I've seen of him, but does that make sense to you guys? It's always Trump's logos, always. Him being that archetype that they're looking for, the TreadCon hero, if he loses that, of course he does. So he's in a very fragile position. I think people are reading young now at record rates because of Peterson, no. They're looking at this, they see a guy who's married, has the job, the kids, the white picket fence, likes memes, oh, that could be me. Yeah, well, I also think that, yeah, I agree with that assessment. I think that probably he would, he would definitely have a blow to his identity and his ego. Simply, let's just say for sake of argument that his wife were to leave him. I think he is in the prime, he'd be a prime candidate for what I write about in being zeroed out. And maybe he wouldn't be completely zeroed out, but he fits an archetype. And that's what I wrote about in that. And I also had another essay called Male Suicide or Men in Suicide. And that actually, that post was the result of an argument I had with a feminist who was trying to tell me that it's men's fault that they are killing themselves in record numbers. So that's five times the rate of women. And I said, well, what do you think about the fact that it's men between the ages of 45 and 65 who are killing themselves in the highest proportions that they've ever done? And it's no longer teenage suicide anymore. It's all about those guys. And she didn't have any answer for that, but I did. And my answer is that these guys get zeroed out. They go and they build their lives around a blue pill, like just what Karl was saying, a blue pill paradigm. And they do everything right. They do everything by the book. Like I was saying in the second set of books, that guy who set himself on fire in front of the city courthouse to basically do the self-immolation and left this manifesto why he had done it. And it was pretty much the fact that, there are two sets of books. There's the books that you learn when you're a kid, your blue pill books that you learn when you're good. And they're all about the old social contract and things that you're supposed to do and the rules you're supposed to play by.  And it seems like a pretty good deal. But then later on in life, you understand that nobody is playing by those rules. And it's the new set of books that are, that everyone is really playing by and you're gonna be a victim and a consequence of that new set of books if you don't come to the realization of the fact that you're not playing by those rules. Now I'm not saying that all men are victims, blah, blah, blah. No, I'm not saying that I'm saying that you can be. You can certainly be a casualty of the old set of books if you are living your life according to that old social contract that those rules that nobody are playing by right now.  You are the sum total of what your experiences are up to this point.  And you no longer have any of the stuff that you built yourself up. And guess what?  Guess what? That's gone too.  Well, think about all the other things that you invest your identity into. And then think about having all of that stripped away when you're 45, 55, 65 years old, when you're supposed to be, you know, being rewarded and enjoying the fruits of your labor, so to speak, and all of that stripped away and gone and to add insult to injury, now you've still got to pay the price for all of that, you know, you not really getting that and not really understanding that. You got to pay the price for that for the rest of your life.  Yeah, that's the way it works.    Or shoot up a gym or Elliot Rogers or whatever or some variation of that. Again, it goes back to that, what I call the myth of relational equity and that we build all of this, you know, our wives will never leave us because we're the perfect guy, right? We're exactly who Jordan Peterson told us that we should be, right? We're this perfect dude who makes our bed and does the right things and makes the right choices and defers authority to our wives and, you know, does all of this, this stuff by the old set of books and the old social contract and yet here I am, you know, completely zeroed out at 45 years old. What? Well, I kind of have two choices. Great covert contract. Yeah, I have two choices. I can rebuild myself from scratch at 45 years old or I can just put it down in my head and call it good. Yep. Guys, we're, it's getting pretty long or past three o'clock so I think we'll start winding down. I did want to end this though on a question I thought was pretty positive and pretty interesting. I think positive. What do each of you think, if anything, about Jordan Peterson's effect on the Overton window? So the window of like acceptable discourse and discussion kind of on a wide scale for any, not just feminism, you know, and criticizing it and blasting it for the shit it is but also things like the Red Pill community which I think it's a lot more, it's not just more pure but it's more intense and more hardcore than what Jordan's talking about. And it's only, it's still small. It's like what, a quarter million strong, you know, on the Red Pill subreddit. So what do you think? Yeah, so what do you think his effect is on opening that window discussion by destroying feminists on Vice News and Kathy Newman and all that? Is it opening it up? I think the good thing, go ahead, go. I think the good thing about Jordan Peterson is that he's a bit like Stephen Pinker when it came to the blank slate. He's kind of a non-threatening guy who's very well-spoken, very calm and collected who can bring some of these facts that are politically incorrect into the common discourse. What I think the problem is, is with both Pinker and Peterson you have like a broader part of the explanatory framework that they would not, will not touch. Like Pinker won't touch, for instance, IQ in the way that, and what the data says on IQ. And Jordan Peterson is sticking with just the odd numbers when it comes to intersectional dynamics because he knows the entire data set, but he's only using the part that confirms this ideology. But I think- And it's personal life history too. Yeah, I think Jordan Peterson is a great gateway drug for the red pill because I think a lot of the people who find Jordan Peterson are going to end putting a search term into a search engine that will lead them deeper down the rabbit hole. I think that's a good thing because, well, it's one of those things that society is not lacking people who are sheep who follow the narratives and conform to social expectations. It's lacking critical thinkers.  Mm-hmm. Here, here. And- Okay. Sorry, Rolla, go ahead. I was just gonna say, because I just a touch on what Karl was just saying a minute ago. I feel you, I would add to that list. I would certainly say Pinker is one of these guys that really frustrates me.  I actually attribute Warren Farrell to my sort of unplugging back in the like mid-90s, way back when I read why men are the way they are. But he's very frustrating to me in the same way that Pinker is and the same way that Peterson is, is because they have this information and they have this truth that's just like sitting there that they've been instrumental in not just exposing, but just sort of thinking about and developing. And yet they are not willing to go make that next step. Like Pinker self-describes as a feminist. You know, I'm very much a feminist, but yet he pretty much destroys egalitarian equalism and the blank slate. The guy like Dr. Warren Farrell very much is extraordinarily red pill when it comes to intersexual dynamics, but just still falls into the same trap that MRAs do, which is they still think that they can be perfected feminists. Like we can still have this egalitarian, perfect egalitarian equalism across the board, which I just firmly disagree with because simply there is biological and psychological differences between men. You know, cats aren't dogs. But it's like, again, he won't make that step. He won't go and renounce feminism. He wants to still try to, you know, we can all collectively come to the table and work together. He wants to negotiate real desire. Well, guess what? Men don't want to negotiate real desire. They just want to have organic desire for you. I think that if Jordan Peterson has a very positive effect on anything, it is definitely his opening the eyes of a lot of guys. And that's why I've always been kind of reluctant to even be all that critical of him because it's opening, you know, like I said, it's opening guys' eyes and it's bringing them into a different discussion that they've never heard before. And then definitely I agree with Carl when he says that it's drawing a huge target on him. And I think that, you know, going from being a professor at University of what Toronto is, to being this internationally known intellectual, you know, and having that sort of instant, it's strange to me to say that he's like, almost like a rock star right now. He's just sort of come up in the last, you know, two years and then having to deal with that. And I know that he suffers from depression. I know that he takes medication for depression. And I think that he's going to at some stage, you know, he always says, in fact, and just in the vice interview, he says that his greatest fear, his greatest worry is that he's gonna say something wrong to a guy in an interview.  But, you know, I think that if that's his greatest fear, you know, there's something more going on, I think, behind the scenes with him because he's got it all down, you know. I think he's gonna, overall, I think Jordan Peterson is a net positive. I just think that guys need to be a little bit more aware just some of the things that he's, the direction that he's leading. You know, where do you end up as a Jordan Peterson guy? Yeah. 100%. And the best thing about, and I wish people, more people would take this lesson, he is the smart man's Corey Worthington. And I think that, that Kathy Newman interview should teach guys exactly what Chateau was talking about. I think in 2014 is that game is not just gonna be about getting women anymore. It's a life skill that every man's gonna have. And if you read that, we have a theory that he actually has studied mystery method or some kind of pickup. You see him doing pressure flips, amuse mastery, agreeing and amplifying, and you're seeing it right there where for example, Robert Fisher, the creator of the Red Pill subreddit got put on that spotlight and he just crumbled. But you watch Peterson put the same way he would, if Newman was a chick that he met at a bar and he was surging his way through it, that's exactly how that would have gone. And you see right there how that, picking up a chick at the bar is completely applicable to handling yourself in the public sphere. And I think if more men learn game, all this stuff's kinda gonna go away because they're gonna naturally just fit that role. Like everything is game. And I think we're gonna take it.  I think that that's a risk that Peterson is gonna run into. And I don't think he's gonna do that right now because he's got nothing to lose. But once he has something to lose, once he has some investment and some equity in being Jordan Peterson, the internet persona, once he has something to lose, I mean, he's completely anti-fragile right now. I mean, he could say pretty much anything he wants but that's because he doesn't have anything to lose at this state. And I think that that's gonna be something that in the future he's gonna have to really deal with. But does he need to have something to lose? No, I mean, it doesn't need to, but like at what point does he say something wrong? You know, at what point does he say something that alienates his audience, his following?   It's gonna be the people that made him dead 2.0. They built their God and they're gonna tear him down. It will come from inside. Kill the father. Well, not too, not because it's any other analogy here but one of the interesting things, I read a book recently by a guy called Steve Hassan on cult behavior. And one of the things he pointed out that was so interesting to me is he was a member of the moon cult, Rallo, you're probably familiar with it.   And they didn't put the same kind of critical, they couldn't recognize the symptoms in themselves. And I think that's what might happen with Peter's and as well, but he's gonna get to a point like Rallo says, recess something that alienates a large part of his base. Right, well if he sticks with his base, he's anti-fragile. Well, if you look at, we were discussing very in the earliest part of this, we're talking about how men are sort of primed right now for guys like Peterson, but you should also, Peterson is one of many right now.  You gotta look at guys like the guys from RSD who are trying to be the pickup artist version of Tony Robbins. You're looking at a rise of this, for lack of a better term, a cult-like mentality where guys are gonna go there and because they're getting that need met, that Tony Robbins meets a lot of the same needs that Peterson hits on, it gives them direction, gives them some sort of purpose, because they're purposeless.  And that's what's going on with those guys. All right. There's a dog. I should call, I should get my dogs in here right now. Every Red Pill man needs a sight out at some point in his life. I hear him fooling around out there right now. Yeah. All right, guys. One of the things I had a quick note about here, one of the things I had a quick note about was the idea of explanatory frameworks, because the way many men find the Red Pill and find Peterson, et cetera, is that they've been told a certain narrative of how things are gonna go that explains if you do something, then this follows. And a lot of guys find the Red Pill or Peterson because they do something and it does not follow. Like you Anthony, you're a great example because you become more Red Pill because you observe the fact that the remnants of Blue Pill thinking were just simply not correct. Yeah, absolutely. Your work and Rola's work were instrumental in that too. It's like just bit by bit, minute by minute, going through it. Well, this has been good, man. I thought we should probably do this again. Yeah. Yeah, thank you very much for the invite. This is a blast. 100%. Carl, would you say? I would actually. Second. Okay. No, I was gonna go on a digression that might take us forever, but it's just a case of no, it was just dealing with the fact that it's becoming extremely visible in our culture, the fact that what men have been told and what's happening are two different things because you get the match.com data, you get the OKCupid data, you have books like Data Nomics and you have Tinder, the Asagini coefficient. That's a distribution of likes that's worse than any country on the planet. So it's becoming very visible and very objective to men that what you've been told, even if the framework explains some of what you observe, it doesn't explain all of it. And men being deductive problem solvers will want to figure that out. It's almost like the cognitive dissonance that the blue pill generates in men today is this, it's going over like a dam or a threshold.  Yeah, it's like crossing that line now, I think. When I was talking with Pat Campbell, we were talking about that CNN article about open cuckoldry and I'm like, this is not something that I wasn't predictable. I actually wrote a post about that open cuckoldry would be the next step in open hypergamy.  It's gonna be women. It's gonna be TV commercials. It's gonna be Super Bowl commercials where it's all about fempowerment and everything else or it's gonna be like active open in-your-face examples of hypergamy. All right, I think we should kind of wrap up any last words gentlemen before we kind of head out. No, but I think we need to do this again.   Everyone, thanks for tuning in and joining in of course, Carl from blacklabelogic.com. Rola Tomasi from therationalmail.com. Ryan Stone, you can follow on Twitter. Not sure of the exact handle, but if you type in Ryan Stone, R-I-A-N, you'll find them. Also Ryan, underscore Stone. Okay, there you go. Also actually in the video description underneath this video, all the links are there right now to the website. Our website's all of them, so guys are good to go. Appreciate everybody hopping on, tuning in. We had over a thousand viewers tune in over the past two hours, one of the most ever.  All right, man. All right, stay on the call guys, I'm gonna end the live stream. Everyone else, see you next time. Peace. Yep.