Does Jordan Peterson have the right idea?

[GoodMan32]

In a nutshell, Jordan Peterson's mantra is: For the sake of societal stability, we should return to the days when just about every man got one woman for life. Jordan Peterson claims a lot of the societal ills in the 21st century are the result of sexually frustrated men.

There's evidence to suggest he has a point.

Elliott Rodger and Alek Minassian? Virgins.

The El Paso Wal Mart massacre? Committed by a virgin.

The Charleston church massacre? Committed by a virgin.

The Virginia Tech massacre? Committed by a virgin (the perp even admitted his v-card was part of his motivation for the shooting)

The Sandy Hook massacre? Committed by a virgin.

There have also been shootings committed by non-virgin men who were upset because they hardly ever got laid (George Sodini and Scott Paul Beierle)

Were all of these men ultimately responsible for their own actions? Absolutely.

Did all of these men have deeper issues? Absolutely. But the sexual frustration might have been the tipping point that pushed them over the edge.

Even though the vast majority of incels/borderline incels will luckily never go on a rampage, think of all the victims from the aforementioned massacres who would (in all likelihood) still be alive if society operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

We didn't have all these massacres back when the USA/Canada operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Elliott Rodger and Alek Minassian? Virgins.
The El Paso Wal Mart massacre? Committed by a virgin.
The Charleston church massacre? Committed by a virgin.
The Virginia Tech massacre? Committed by a virgin (the perp even admitted his v-card was part of his motivation for the shooting)
The Sandy Hook massacre? Committed by a virgin.

So, in order to curb these type of acts against society, we should just shoot all virgins over 20 years old or just put them in camps? I heard the guy in Sandy Hook was not just a virgin but autistic to boot. Just like the Minassian guy. So any virgin autists should be the first in the extermination queue, right?

There have also been shootings committed by non-virgin men who were upset because they hardly ever got laid (George Sodini and Scott Paul Beierle)

Damn, all men under twenty-five with a notch count under 5? We could get Anton Chigurh to euthanise them...

We didn't have all these massacres back when the USA/Canada operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

There never was a Jordan Peterson model.

Even though the vast majority of incels/borderline incels will luckily never go on a rampage, think of all the victims from the aforementioned massacres who would (in all likelihood) still be alive if society operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

I think that you shouldn't wish for a more convenient way for you to get rid of your pent-up sexual frustration. The majority of men have no problem finding someone to have sex with, why would they have to return to the Victorian Age just because you think you would be less of a pathetic dweeb in those times. Times were much harder back then, dude, you probably would've died before you knew your penis could be used for anything other than peeing.
If we really wanted to curb incel rampages, it would be easier to just execute them than to turn back the clock to when they think life would be more accommodating to their aberrations. Don't wish for easy solutions, there are easier ones.

 

[GoodMan32]

So, in order to curb these type of acts against society, we should just shoot all virgins over 20 years old or just put them in camps? I heard the guy in Sandy Hook was not just a virgin but autistic to boot. Just like the Minassian guy. So any virgin autists should be the first in the extermination queue, right?


Damn, all men under twenty-five with a notch count under 5? We could get Anton Chigurh to euthanise them...


There never was a Jordan Peterson model.


I think that you shouldn't wish for a more convenient way for you to get rid of your pent-up sexual frustration. The majority of men have no problem finding someone to have sex with, why would they have to return to the Victorian Age just because you think you would be less of a pathetic dweeb in those times. Times were much harder back then, dude, you probably would've died before you knew your penis could be used for anything other than peeing.
If we really wanted to curb incel rampages, it would be easier to just execute them than to turn back the clock to when they think life would be more accommodating to their aberrations. Don't wish for easy solutions, there are easier ones.

You're right, the Sandy Hook guy was on the spectrum, as was Minassian. Some (possibly even all) of the others were on the spectrum too.

Guess what? Autists existed in the old days too. There are some well-known historical figures who were on the spectrum.

Did every man on the spectrum get a woman in the old days? No. Nikola Tesla, for example, never married (which was highly unusual back then). His womanless status was his own choice though (as a woman would have gotten in the way of his work)

A lot of womanless men on the spectrum in the 21st century are involuntarily womanless.

And yeah, there was most certainly a time when society operated under the Jordan Peterson model. We don't have to go all the way back to Victorian times (which ended in 1901) either. As recently as the 1950s (which is living memory for a lot of folks), society operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

I'm pretty sure it was @SW15 who recently posted statistics on the forum about the rise of datelessness and sexlessness among young men (and said a lot of Boomers would be incels had they been born Millennials or Gen Zers). Modern young men are having less sex than young men from Gen X and earlier did. That's a fact. Even a lot of neurotypical young men are struggling.

Lastly, I'm going to say it's sickening how socially acceptable it is to call for the killing of autists in the name of safety. If anyone proposed killing any other group to reduce crime (like killing all men for example; after all, most crime is committed by men), they'd be condemned.

 

[SW15]

I'm pretty sure it was @SW15 who recently posted statistics on the forum about the rise of datelessness and sexlessness among young men (and said a lot of Boomers would be incels had they been born Millennials or Gen Zers). Modern young men are having less sex than young men from Gen X and earlier did. That's a fact. Even a lot of neurotypical young men are struggling.

Sexless and dateless men have grown so much since some point in the 2000s. It's not just low tier men and men who are on the autism spectrum who are struggling now. Plenty of younger neurotypical men are struggling too.

A very large portion of unmarried men are incel/borderline incel. These men aren't all obese, deformed, or have major issues. The percentage of men is so large now that it has to include the middle of the bell curve men.

Boomers were fortunate to be born when they were in so many ways. Even Gen X got some advantages living off of the fumes of Boomers. The fumes of Boomer advantage had evaporated by the time the earliest Millennials came of age. This is why the Millennials have been referred to as a 'Lost Generation' (see below). The last 2 generations (Gen Y/Millennials and Gen Z) have had unimpressive outcomes in a lot of areas of life.

Millennials Don’t Stand a Chance

They’re facing a second once-in-a-lifetime downturn at a crucial moment.

www.theatlantic.com

Generation Screwed

Why millennials are facing the scariest financial future of any generation since the Great Depression.

highline.huffingtonpost.com

there was most certainly a time when society operated under the Jordan Peterson model. We don't have to go all the way back to Victorian times (which ended in 1901) either. As recently as the 1950s (which is living memory for a lot of folks), society operated under the Jordan Peterson model.

It wasn't called the "Jordan Peterson model" then because Jordan Peterson wasn't alive.

There was a more equitable sexual marketplace model prior to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The effects of the Sexual Revolution that started in the 1960s were fully felt until the 1990s-2000s.

In the more equitable sexual marketplace (think about the 1800s-1960s USA), the majority of people did pair off. The top tier men had some advantages but most people found a match near their own level. In recent times, women have not been lacking for sex and shorter term relationships (though some women have failed in getting commitment). The problem is that a lot of middle and lower tier men have been mostly to completely shut out of the market in recent times. In the past, a lot of these men would have found pairings. A male 4 and a female 4 would have paired off. Less of that is happening now with Gen Y/Millennials and Gen Z in the USA and likely all Western countries.

There would have to be some sort of massive societal shift for a more equitable sexual marketplace to re-emerge. It's unclear what that could be at this time.

 

[kavi]

The 'correct' and elite system is basically a 'free for all' where there are no limiations on how many partners a single guy can have. This type of 'free' system normally comes into a type of stable equilibrium where a few guys have more partners, some have less, and some have none. Now you have to remember an important thing, not all guys even high value guys will want to be a in a relationship all the time, so everyone can get 'something'. In truth no man is 'entitled' to sex from a female, but perhaps all men need a basic level of affection, interaction, fun, opportunities etc.

Its important to remember the bigger problem in our current system is not lack of sex but lack interactions, socialization with females etc. Most guys including myself just want to be in a world where there are more meaningful social opportunities where females behave with some amount of integrity and then we can take it from there.

The biggest problem today is that females are not engaging with men socially or imporving their behaviours nor doing anything to solve THEIR own problems which include a harsh work environment, stress, loneliness, anxiety etc. The reason why men are so pissed off today is that female behaviour is super negative, toxic and a major waste of energy. This is because most women really want to win at relationships which for them ultimately means 'tying' down a high value guy into marriage. The female truly believes her goal is use 'female game' to try and manipulate a high value guy into being 'b*tch' provider. The problem is not that we have to go back, but that we need to go further forward and females need to let go of any respect or glory attached to marriage and all that societal value assocaited with it and just need to be able to interact with men at higher level with more stability and honesty and less female game, which at the moment has descended into just using the most basic and pathetic physycological manipulation to ensnare a man into being a husband provider when tbh most women only need that for a few years at most when raising young children.

 

[Clockwerk50]

The 'correct' and elite system is basically a 'free for all' where there are no limiations on how many partners a single guy can have. This type of 'free' system normally comes into a type of stable equilibrium where a few guys have more partners, some have less, and some have none. Now you have to remember an important thing, not all guys even high value guys will want to be a in a relationship all the time, so everyone can get 'something'. In truth no man is 'entitled' to sex from a female, but perhaps all men need a basic level of affection, interaction, fun, opportunities etc.

Its important to remember the bigger problem in our current system is not lack of sex but lack interactions, socialization with females etc. Most guys including myself just want to be in a world where there are more meaningful social opportunities where females behave with some amount of integrity and then we can take it from there.

The biggest problem today is that females are not engaging with men socially or imporving their behaviours nor doing anything to solve THEIR own problems which include a harsh work environment, stress, loneliness, anxiety etc. The reason why men are so pissed off today is that female behaviour is super negative, toxic and a major waste of energy. This is because most women really want to win at relationships which for them ultimately means 'tying' down a high value guy into marriage. The female truly believes her goal is use 'female game' to try and manipulate a high value guy into being 'b*tch' provider. The problem is not that we have to go back, but that we need to go further forward and females need to let go of any respect or glory attached to marriage and all that societal value assocaited with it and just need to be able to interact with men at higher level with more stability and honesty and less female game, which at the moment has descended into just using the most basic and pathetic physycological manipulation to ensnare a man into being a husband provider when tbh most women only need that for a few years at most when raising young children.

You don’t see the regimes of Putin, Maduro, Xi or Kim Jong Un relinquishing power just because a few of their citizens are unhappy with their dictatorship.

Not sure why you would think it would be different in other areas of our lives.

 

[kavi]

You don’t see the regimes of Putin, Maduro, Xi or Kim Jong Un relinquishing power just because a few of their citizens are unhappy with their dictatorship.

Not sure why you would think it would be different in other areas of our lives.

Look man I aint got time for long debates. JP talks a lot of ****. its straightforward, wat do most guys want, what is the starting right now thats most important.

Are most guys right now asking for a 1900 trad housewive or are most guys asking to just have some decent opportunities to socialise with stable and available females at a comparable level of personality.

JP is not addressing these current problems he is just talking nonensense about going back to 1900.

Get people. Put them together. Make them behave. Make some rules. Most guys today are spending most of their time alone and chasing women around trying to get the type of social interaction that is expected for a stable society. The females dont really care about all this because they have had it drummed into them that t be successful and gain social validation they should hav a husband so the women are not seeing the negativity and loneliness even in themselves but all they ever see and thinkabout in terms of relationships is to lock some guy down and get a ring, a house and some kids but they dont give a **** how they behave towards men until they get that. infact women think men being depressed and hurt and psychologically broken benefits them cos its makes men easier to manipulate into marriage.

The marriage system just makes everything a negotitaion, something to gain, etc. and when you have those scenarios you also get scamming, misrepresentation etc. When people want something really bad they dont care about other stuff and they can do evil and sick things to get it.

 

[GoodMan32]

Sexless and dateless men have grown so much since some point in the 2000s. It's not just low tier men and men who are on the autism spectrum who are struggling now. Plenty of younger neurotypical men are struggling too.

A very large portion of unmarried men are incel/borderline incel. These men aren't all obese, deformed, or have major issues. The percentage of men is so large now that it has to include the middle of the bell curve men.

Boomers were fortunate to be born when they were in so many ways. Even Gen X got some advantages living off of the fumes of Boomers. The fumes of Boomer advantage had evaporated by the time the earliest Millennials came of age. This is why the Millennials have been referred to as a 'Lost Generation' (see below). The last 2 generations (Gen Y/Millennials and Gen Z) have had unimpressive outcomes in a lot of areas of life.

Millennials Don’t Stand a Chance

They’re facing a second once-in-a-lifetime downturn at a crucial moment.

www.theatlantic.com

Generation Screwed

Why millennials are facing the scariest financial future of any generation since the Great Depression.

highline.huffingtonpost.com

It wasn't called the "Jordan Peterson model" then because Jordan Peterson wasn't alive.

There was a more equitable sexual marketplace model prior to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The effects of the Sexual Revolution that started in the 1960s were fully felt until the 1990s-2000s.

In the more equitable sexual marketplace (think about the 1800s-1960s USA), the majority of people did pair off. The top tier men had some advantages but most people found a match near their own level. In recent times, women have not been lacking for sex and shorter term relationships (though some women have failed in getting commitment). The problem is that a lot of middle and lower tier men have been mostly to completely shut out of the market in recent times. In the past, a lot of these men would have found pairings. A male 4 and a female 4 would have paired off. Less of that is happening now with Gen Y/Millennials and Gen Z in the USA and likely all Western countries.

There would have to be some sort of massive societal shift for a more equitable sexual marketplace to re-emerge. It's unclear what that could be at this time.

You're damn right, it isn't only autists who are struggling today. I don't know how some of the posters on here can deny the fact a lot of young men (compared to previous generations) are shut out of the dating/sex marketplace.

It's also true that the bedroom struggles Millennials and Gen Z are facing are indicative of a larger problem (Millennials and Gen Z, as you pointed out, are getting the short end of the stick in other areas too)

Even though Jordan Peterson wasn't alive yet in the 1950s, his general point still stands: The sex marketplace was more equitable back then.

To address your closing line, Jordan Peterson's idea isn't to force a woman to get with a man. He just wants there to be social/cultural consequences for a woman riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel. If there were social/cultural consequences to riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel, Jordan Peterson believes his vision of society would largely fall into place all on its own.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

The main issue I have is that you're not looking to adapt to society, but think society should adapt to you. And provide you with easy access to women because you're unable to learn how to interact with them.

Lastly, I'm going to say it's sickening how socially acceptable it is to call for the killing of autists in the name of safety.

Elliott Rodger should've been put down like a rabid dog for posing a lethal threat to society. Same goes for Lanza, Minassian and all the hopeless 'virgins' in your list.
You wanted my opinion what should be done about 'virgins' committing mass murder. It's not the virgins. It's the sexually frustrated virgins who aim to take revenge on society for not getting laid.
And you're not happy with my answer, because it hits too close to home for you. "But I'm an autistic incel..." If you were a sexually frustrated virgin and about to go on a rampage, I'd give a merit badge to anyone who'd eliminate you before you can live out your sick fantasies of killing innocent people.
And if that opinion hurts your feelings, suck it up. Life's unfair, yada yada.

If anyone proposed killing any other group to reduce crime (like killing all men for example; after all, most crime is committed by men), they'd be condemned.

You tell me that these deadly dweebs would not have existed in whatever time would've made it easier to force some poor woman to marry this scum. I'd say, we shoot rabid dogs. Not all dogs are bad, but some turn bad and have to be put down.

Of course, since you're being autistic about this as usual, I will be more specific: you're talking about mass shootings and you claim these were all performed by virgins. Virgins who cannot get laid because they have severe mental issues. Those virgins are special virgins, we call them incels. That's why I said:

So, in order to curb these type of acts against society, we should just shoot all virgins over 20 years old or just put them in camps? I heard the guy in Sandy Hook was not just a virgin but autistic to boot. Just like the Minassian guy. So any virgin autists should be the first in the extermination queue, right?

I'm protesting the fact that you call the perps of these mass shootings simply 'virgins' and not 'frustrated incel'. That's why I ask you what you think the solution should be. The asking is in the ? question marks, okay? So I'm not saying 'we should kill all virgins'. I'm posing a question. But you come back with:

If anyone proposed killing any other group to reduce crime (like killing all men for example; after all, most crime is committed by men), they'd be condemned.

Which really shows that you have no idea how to argue a point.
You start on how society would condemn anyone who proposed killing 'any other group' and then you suggest 'men'. That's your idea of a group? Half the planet? One part of the human race without which the human race would quickly cease to exist?
Even if you narrow it down to just 'white men', the group is still too big and maybe 1% deserves to be put down for posing a threat to society, like White Supremacists.
And, weirdly, apart from the White Supremacists and people who'd defend mosquitoes killing millions of people year for just 'doing their job according to their nature' would be upset about a proposal to eradicate White Supremacy by killing all white supremacists.

But I can disprove your 'theory' that someone who proposes to kill a specific group of people would be condemned:

Here, Bill Burr proposes to sink cruise ships to kill 'useless people' who consider 'cruises to be travelling'. Not because they're evil malignant cancers on society like Elliot Rodger, but because they are merely annoying. And it would bring down the overpopulation. I can hear nobody condemning Burr for proposing this. And apart from the incels themselves, I don't think too many people would be interested to condemn someone for getting rid of rabid dogs. Not all dogs, just the ones that pose a threat.

Now, to tell you the truth, if I think about groups to kill to save innocent people from dying, killing incels wouldn't be my priority (there are far more evil twisted people deserving a torturously slow death) but I don't think these violent incels can be redeemed, so taking them out would merely be taking out the garbage. No big loss for humanity.

 

[eli77]

You're damn right, it isn't only autists who are struggling today. I don't know how some of the posters on here can deny the fact a lot of young men (compared to previous generations) are shut out of the dating/sex marketplace.

It's also true that the bedroom struggles Millennials and Gen Z are facing are indicative of a larger problem (Millennials and Gen Z, as you pointed out, are getting the short end of the stick in other areas too)

Even though Jordan Peterson wasn't alive yet in the 1950s, his general point still stands: The sex marketplace was more equitable back then.

To address your closing line, Jordan Peterson's idea isn't to force a woman to get with a man. He just wants there to be social/cultural consequences for a woman riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel. If there were social/cultural consequences to riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel, Jordan Peterson believes his vision of society would largely fall into place all on its own.

I thought their was!!

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

To address your closing line, Jordan Peterson's idea isn't to force a woman to get with a man. He just wants there to be social/cultural consequences for a woman riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel. If there were social/cultural consequences to riding the Chad/Tyrone carousel, Jordan Peterson believes his vision of society would largely fall into place all on its own.

So, Peterson wants to go back to when women were shamed into behaving like devout Christians (like Peterson himself) virgins to be wedded to suitors chosen by her father, who would be mainly interested in the size of the dowry.

So, dude, how high do you think the dowry would have to be to convince a father to marry his daughter to you...

 

[Clockwerk50]

Look man I aint got time for long debates.

Then why start something you can’t finish?

Are most guys right now asking for a 1900 trad housewive or are most guys asking to just have some decent opportunities to socialise with stable and available females at a comparable level of personality.

JP is not addressing these current problems he is just talking nonensense about going back to 1900.

Get people. Put them together. Make them behave. Make some rules. Most guys today are spending most of their time alone and chasing women around trying to get the type of social interaction that is expected for a stable society. The females dont really care about all this because they have had it drummed into them that t be successful and gain social validation they should hav a husband so the women are not seeing the negativity and loneliness even in themselves but all they ever see and thinkabout in terms of relationships is to lock some guy down and get a ring, a house and some kids but they dont give a **** how they behave towards men until they get that. infact women think men being depressed and hurt and psychologically broken benefits them cos its makes men easier to manipulate into marriage.

The marriage system just makes everything a negotitaion, something to gain, etc. and when you have those scenarios you also get scamming, misrepresentation etc. When people want something really bad they dont care about other stuff and they can do evil and sick things to get it.

Most guys DO have opportunities to socialize with decent women.

 

[GoodMan32]

So, Peterson wants to go back to when women were shamed into behaving like devout Christians (like Peterson himself) virgins to be wedded to suitors chosen by her father, who would be mainly interested in the size of the dowry.

So, dude, how high do you think the dowry would have to be to convince a father to marry his daughter to you...

I'm somewhat unique in the sense that even though I'm a fan of Jordan Peterson, I don't want to get married.

Needless to say, I don't want a woman to get married to me (dowry or not).

If broads started getting shamed for riding the alpha male carousel, however, there would inevitably be broads on my level (looks-wise) who would be more likely to go for me (as they wouldn't get to focus solely on the alpha males anymore). That's the core problem here: Modern society has allowed Plain Janes to get with the top alpha males.

Even in the actual 1950s, there was casual sex. Obviously there would be casual sex in a recreated version of the 1950s too. The difference is (whether we're talking about the actual 1950s or the 1950s I'd like to recreate) the 1950s casual sex wasn't solely about the top alpha males. I'd be down for a monogamous casual sex relationship with a looksmatch (Or on 2nd thought, for that matter, with my age preference, I'd likely be the better looking one. It's insane that under the current societal model, I can't even get a woman who's significantly older than me and has worse looks than me)

 

[BaronOfHair]

If broads started getting shamed for riding the alpha male carousel, however, there would inevitably be broads on my level (looks-wise) who would be more likely to go for me (as they wouldn't get to focus solely on the alpha males anymore). That's the core problem here: Modern society has allowed Plain Janes to get with the top alpha males.

That's the way to promote liberty... Revamp society to cater solely to the every whim of a minute subculture

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

That's the core problem here: Modern society has allowed Plain Janes to get with the top alpha males.

No, the core problem is that you believe in 'Alpha Males' taking away women who would otherwise bone your autistic penis, but let's be honest, 'Alpha Males', if they would exist, wouldn't be likely to boink post-menopausal women. The 'Plain Janes' that are 'allowed to get with the top alpha males' would most likely still be fertile enough to wither your pregnancy-anxious penile appendage.

You seem to forget that you're not fishing in the pool where normal men throw out their bait.

 

[GoodMan32]

That's the way to promote liberty... Revamp society to cater solely to the every whim of a minute subculture

Yet a society whose sex marketplace caters only to the top 10-20% of smooth alpha males is somehow a good thing?

 

[GoodMan32]

No, the core problem is that you believe in 'Alpha Males' taking away women who would otherwise bone your autistic penis, but let's be honest, 'Alpha Males', if they would exist, wouldn't be likely to boink post-menopausal women. The 'Plain Janes' that are 'allowed to get with the top alpha males' would most likely still be fertile enough to wither your pregnancy-anxious penile appendage.

You seem to forget that you're not fishing in the pool where normal men throw out their bait.

Ok, you make a good point about the age thing (most alpha males...and yeah, they exist...are going for young broads)

If anything, that makes the situation even more dire. I'm going after a less sought after demographic, yet I still haven't had free sex in 3 and a half years (with a then-42 year old...risky but not super risky)

The fact I haven't had free sex in 3 and a half years would suggest even the oldies I'd like to bang would rather bang some other man than bang me (which is a sign of a lopsided sex marketplace...a 7/10 man who's 33 should easily be able to drop the panties of a woman who's past her prime)

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Ok, you make a good point about the age thing (most alpha males...and yeah, they exist...are going for young broads)

There are no young broads. Your Private Eye terminology is out of whack. Broads are the old women you're attracted to.

If anything, that makes the situation even more dire. I'm going after a less sought after demographic, yet I still haven't had free sex in 3 and a half years (with a then-42 year old...risky but not super risky)
The fact I haven't had free sex in 3 and a half years would suggest even the oldies I'd like to bang would rather bang some other man than bang me (which is a sign of a lopsided sex marketplace...a 7/10 man who's 33 should easily be able to drop the panties of a woman who's past her prime)

So, of course the fault lies with those pesky women having standards. Imagine that.

 

[GoodMan32]

There are no young broads. Your Private Eye terminology is out of whack. Broads are the old women you're attracted to.


So, of course the fault lies with those pesky women having standards. Imagine that.

Umm, unless the older woman is a total MILF, I'm the better option (looks-wise).

Obviously a 7/10 man who's 33 will have better looks than most 50 year old broads.

If an old broad thinks a 33 year old 7/10 man is beneath her, that means her standards are unrealistic.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Yet a society whose sex marketplace caters only to the top 10-20% of smooth alpha males is somehow a good thing?

Guys who do well with women overwhelmingly aren't particularly "smooth". That's a puerile delusion the Bond franchise(movies which I quite enjoy)injected into the atmosphere back in The 1950s, which hasn't quite left us yet https://www.commentary.org/articles/mordecai-richler/james-bond-unmasked/