696,979 posts

What is The Red Pill?

Reddit View
June 13, 2019
101 upvotes

Full article here: https://blacklabellogic.com/2019/06/12/what-is-the-red-pill/

Excerpt:

Like I said initially, I used to see “The Red Pill” as a descriptive praxeology, however, I’ve come to realize that we need to split this up a bit more. Because we do have a lot of components here.

A) The descriptive praxeology that describes the reality of intersexual dynamics.

These are the contents that seek to describe the mechanisms at play, and their given effect. For instance, describing the mechanics of hypergamy and solipsism and how they influence the mating market.

B) Various perspectives on how one should utilize the information from A.

These are those contents that seek to describe how to put yourself in an advantageous market position to exploit the core mechanics. For instance, how to deal with hypergamy in an LTR, what to do to maintain her preference for you as her chosen partner, and how it affects her mate choices.

C) Various individuals and groups that utilize A as part of their foundational material, but who have added other elements to build a full individual or group ideology.

This includes all the content that brings in philosophy not pertaining to strict epistemology and logic applied specifically to the area of intersexual dynamics, such as conservativism, liberalism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism and various religious or spiritual doctrines. (List not exhaustive)

D) Various hucksters, cult leaders, scam artists, con-men, and opportunists who utilize brand to benefit themselves only.

This includes the content that only seeks to exploit the branding side and that add components that are not related to intersexual dynamics to build a value proposition to make a sale, or to encourage a group identity where they can elevate their position to one of high status.

You should read the full post https://blacklabellogic.com/2019/06/12/what-is-the-red-pill/

My thoughts:

I've noticed the more I read the twitter personalities who hijacked our nomenclature tend to be all prescriptive in their discussions and almost none of them care about individual choice let alone the underlying theory on any of their ramblings.

They put their weight behind action plans and try to make their own lives the example and therefore cookie cutter that all should follow.

One guy comes to mind, his relentless preaching on why a good marriage is the best and how society and divorce is all just because you didn't try hard enough and we should double down on our efforts is exactly the sort of stuff we worked hard to keep out. He brags a lot and it pains me to think that he'll eventually have his AWALT moment at some point. Maybe not. But TRP's predictive power is rarely wrong.

Above all else, I am firmly in category A, however I enjoy seeing people's approaches in cat B. This is where people get confused. I've had people repeatedly ask me why we have a MGTOW tag, because it's so antithetical to getting laid. I like having opposing viewpoints on what to do with this information. Moving into the woods to be a hermit is the polar opposite of going clubbing every night to get laid. But both are decisions only you can make for yourself.

When somebody tries to steer the community by saying "this is the only right way" then we've got a problem.

We talk about spinning plates, mtgow, pickup, and even LTRs. None of these are the same goals or strategies but they all utilize the same underlying philosophy.

I personally talk about building power and tribes, which I suppose is my contribution to cat B/C on this front. I will continue to do so. Big news on this front soon...

The reason why I take a stand against many in cat C + D is because they ditch a lot of the truth and opt for comfortable lies in doing so. They enter into platitude city and you're just sticking your head in a new bucket full of blue pills. You cannot advocate marriage even if you personally decide to give it a try. Because the risk profile does not align with what we talk about here. Sure you can try it, but imagine if somebody had read a book on probability and said "you know my takeaway from this? I should invest my life savings into scratch tickets."

This isn't a moral judgement. This is a logical extrapolation on the truths we discuss here.


Post Information
Title What is The Red Pill?
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 101
Comments 91
Date 13 June 2019 03:00 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/242486
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/c06ve7/what_is_the_red_pill/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
AWALThypergamylong term relationshipplatethe red pillMGTOWsolipsism-pill
Comments

[–]Random Xpat Rantingsxsplat28 points29 points  (20 children) | Copy

"We talk about spinning plates, mtgow, pickup, and even LTRs. None of these are the same goals or strategies but they all utilize the same underlying philosophy."

More and more I'm seeing that there is no one correct view point that describes, even in the most general terms, how the sexual marketplace works.

What I'm coming to see is that there are different sexual marketplaces, depending on ones position in various hierarchies.

To be black and white about it, betas are treated differently than Chads. I find that some philosophies are built around the experience of the beta, and then assume that that world view would carry over to after a man improves his charisma and fitness and LTR skill.

The assumptions of one socio-sexual strata don't hold universally.

[–]redpill7712 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy

That's why I want more philosophical discussion here. Some major paradigms are shifting for me, I just can't believe how easy even high quality girls are. It just doesn't make sense to my intuition yet.

[–]THEimporter8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

You can start the ball rolling by telling us about an experience you’ve had.

[–]redpill772 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I went to a fashion show which included some guests dressing up too. I saw this beautiful girl in this beautiful lingerie. She looked like an angel, but in a thong. It's not often, but sometimes I'll see girl who's so hot and graceful that I feel I do not have the energy to deal with my excitement for her.

I was exhausted and had to be careful about aggravating an injury I had been working on the day before, so I chose to avoid this girl.

Then I caught my zipper on her panty hoes as I walked by (very crowded place). I honestly hoped to ignore it but I had already been pushed over by a bull-dyke earlier that night, so I knew I was among the type of crowd who loves to tell off a man. I assuaged any anger by coming back to them with a calm chill vibe, not apologizing, and telling her she looks better now. She told me she’s a perfectionist, I said I’m over that shit. I had hooked the group of 3 girls and one gay guy.

They asked me how they looked and started dancing around me. I couldn’t handle it. I was worried about getting too excited and aggravating my injury. I wanted to bark like a dog and stick my face in too many places. Two 7s and a 9 in lingerie, raping my personal space with their sensuous movements. I wanted to touch them but I thought I'd lose my chill, which could set me back with my injury and is also dangerous in a feminist friendly atmosphere.

This doesn’t seem real. It just doesn’t make sense that women are the cause of so much suffering for men, yet when they like you they’re friendlier than you can imagine.

I think one of my misconceptions is that girls who are confident in their sexuality are also really judgemental. I still think they are, until they see you have a stronger frame.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I saw this beautiful girl in this beautiful lingerie. She looked like an angel,

Don't idealize, let her beauty drive you, but don't get overwhelmed, it's an incentive to approach not to admire as an orbiter would.

Then I caught my zipper on her panty hoes

That's what a PUA would call "showing intent". Also panty-HOSE, not panty-hoes. LMAO.

She told me she’s a perfectionist, I said I’m over that shit

Good reframe.

It just doesn’t make sense that women are the cause of so much suffering for men, yet when they like you they’re friendlier than you can imagine.

It's perfectly normal behaviour, once you accept that it's how women behave normally.

It's not often, but sometimes I'll see girl who's so hot and graceful that I feel I do not have the energy to deal with my excitement for her.

Define "excitement".

[–]the_Milkweed1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Imo it's probably because you're projecting the expectations you have for yourself on the women you encounter. They are similar but different, you can not apply the same expectations. You will forever be let down.

This applies to men as well, we seem to forget that we are animals.

[–]redpill771 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I know. I have been working on this, but it's taking some time to recalibrate my expectations for so many circumstances.

For example, I ran into some acquaintances, including this girl who I used to think of as out of my league. We hung out for a while and I felt she was being rude and I failed a shit test so I kind of ignored her. I kept cordial conversation with her while having a much more engaged conversation with another girl.

When we were doing goodbyes she did the girl version of asking out "so I guess I'll see you around or...." This threw me off. Because as you said, I was using my own expectations. I assumed that since I didn't feel a vibe with her that this was a dead lead.

This illustrates one of the double standards I haven't gotten used to: when I write off a girl it's usually for a good reason (ie she's bitchy, unstable, lies) and it won't change, but girls are always forgiving of your past unattractiveness if you're attractive now.

[–]the_Milkweed1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I can tell you, that from my current perspective, its doesnt get any better. I do all of the above on purpose, because I know it works. Its that saying, I'd rather her hate me or love me than feel nothing at all.

But here is my dilemma, I am turned on by the idea that I have control over her. But thats really admiration of my own ability. I then logic my way into thinking that this individual is low on my quality scale. It was too easy to manipulate what I wanted out of the situation. So at this point I pretty much cant find myself attracted to women. I wanna fuck them, I find hot girls hot. But then I talk to them and I am immediately let down.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

But then I talk to them and I am immediately let down.

Isn't that a sign of having wrong expectations?

[–]MatrixofLe3adership1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Dude who wrote the accurate af comment in the "Eye-Contact: Making Cold Approaches Warmer" post, I would like to see a field report from you as well.

[–]party_dragon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

THe biggest problem with high-quality girls is finding them.

[–]failingtheturingtest8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's as if a market in poverty is different to a market in excess.

This is why "naturals" find some TRP concepts to be false, and holding too fast to concepts as one grows starts yielding negative results.

Then again, TRP generally suggests that one takes these tools, apply them in real situations, look for results, then recalibrate. One should be using TRP as a learning skill set, rather than a defined set of actions.

It's like lifting advice. There are a million cues to help guide your lifting form and process. You try each of those cues, notice which ones work for you, apply them. Ignore the ones that have little or negative impact. Maybe pick up a few of your own based on what you've recognised from the ones that work.

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

I see unusual flair and know people came out of hiding. 6yrs for you. What brought you back?

[–]8380atgmaildotcom6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

To be black and white about it, betas are treated differently than Chads.

Women make rules for betas break rules for alphas

Just because one is successful in dating girls doesn't make them alpha. That just makes them successful in dating

[–]Senior Contributoradam-l3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

As it is now, the Red Pill is heavily skewd towards the young, Upper Middle Class experience. If one belongs the that category, slaying pussy is doable and worth pursuing. Outside that demographic, the perspectives are much more varied.

[–]majani2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

While I agree that there are different sexual marketplaces, I'd say they vary mostly based on location. Predominantly Muslim areas for example still follow the "old social contract" where beta bucks guys are generally adored since the women are less empowered. In poorer areas you will find college age women looking for beta guys to settle with due to poverty, which is counter to the "Wall theory" that holds true in rich, non-muslim areas. Divorce court is also not so harsh against men in certain countries compared to the US and Canada.

I find it best to take red pill theory as a good basic outline of how things work, but you need to get out there and see the small variations in your location.

[–]Nicolas06312 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Even in the western world, I do find that many of TRP finding regarding of how girl behave are less accurate in the elite or say top 5% of the population that make good money, are all educated and smart. This still happen but the proportion is different (less). On the opposite I see that in the bottom of the population socially, this is much worse than on average.

I do think that both men and women at the top are more rational and do a better job as taking rational decisions while men and women at the bottom are almost not able to do that.

[–]BACONisKEWLEST2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most societal ills are perpetuated by the bottom quartile of cognitive distribution. This is also the quartile with the highest reproductive rate.

[–]destraht1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

betas are treated differently than Chads.

As a backpacker I'll add:

betas are treated differently than Chads and the difference differs between circumstances.

The assumptions of one socio-sexual strata don't hold universally.

It seems that most of the posters have been in rich Western cities. In these situations its increasingly important to be increasingly larger to positively differentiate. Many of these gigantic guys are adamant that being gigantic is close to the only thing that matters besides game. Its not bad to be gigantic but it loses much of its utility outside of these contexts.

[–]EkMard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What do you mean by gigantic?

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I see unusual flair and know people came out of hiding. 6yrs for you. What brought you back?

[–]rpsheepdog11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

I feel the urge to mention the Root in why TRP is called TRP should be noted:

In the Matrix, Neo is offered the blue and red pills. The Red Pill opens one's eyes and conscience to reality and what is actually going on. The blue pill lets him live in what he has been fed his whole life, maybe happy, but no deeper meaning.

The Matrix is almost 20 years old now and a lot of the guys here, especially the ones under 20 or so have never even seen the movie or understand where it comes from.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

The root argument here is how theredpill is double censoring itself by removing all Gen Z frequency communications and tactics. So now the subreddit is officially shoving the mainstream blue pill down Gen Z's throat. Any questioning of this narrative is responded back by actions but never explanations.

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

What the hell are you on about? We're not censoring anything. And we sure as heck aren't shoving jack shit down your throat.

You have a point you disagree with? Disagree with it. Seriously, make your point. But enough FUD. Color me unimpressed with your rhetoric.

[–]rpsheepdog1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not to mention the mainstream blue pill is also trying to censor it as well

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillcad15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy

Know what? To me this place was the toolbox. I took what I needed and built what I wanted. I left some tools untouched

Now I got bitches and money.

There is no appetite for listening to how I didn't understand some tools could be used for a purpose that was never mine

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy

Indeed. Our most efficient readers are technically the ones that read it, do it, and leave.

I stuck around for altruistic reasons, and I am not very altruistic.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

What are the tools that you left untouched?

[–]666Evo1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I said that yesterday. The "rules" of TRP are just tools.

For most people, a hammer is to hit nails. Occasionally, you'll use one to open a beer. Some people might never need to touch a hammer in their lives.

It seems like some people have taken the "rules" as commandments and are preaching the right way to use your hammer...

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil22 points23 points  (72 children) | Copy

The Red Pill has never been a Praxeology and has always from day one been an Ideology.

For those of you don't know an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

The big problem here is that there is a group of autists who don't understand that just because you are talking about specific procedure that that procedure itself doesn't originates from a specific ideology. In other words these fucking retards don't have the ability to abstract up and see the big picture.

It would be like saying that killing Jews isn't an ideology. Hey guys we are just studying the best way to kill Jews. We just pragmaticaly want to know if it's better to gass the Jews or shoot them and throw them in a pit.

Golly gee could it be possible that the desire to kill all of the Jews originates in an ideological system? Like perhaps fascism? For a lot of the dudes here this is incomprehensible because they are self absorbed autists alienated from their surroundings socially and culturally.

So yes the Red Pill is an ideology because it presupposes a lot of things like materialism, Atheism, Hedonism, Self help ideology, each of which are Ideological on their own and continue to be Ideological when combined in an ideology strew.

The big hillarius joke here is that if you opposed any of the sub ideologies that constitute the mega ideology that is the Red Pill that's when Blacklabel/Rolly/etc crew will call you ideological.

So if for example nihlist atheism is making an Arab teen depressed and you pull him out via the Koran, the Gen X Boomer krew will call you ideological. But what if not being in a depressed makes the Arab kid perform better with women. Doesn't matter, we are dealing with ideological atheist materialists. You are ideologically forbidden from using certain tools.


In conclusion Red Pill School and I discussed this issue aud nausium in many calls. He obviously posted this completely incorrect article so I could rebut it publicly.

[–]Blacklabellogics9 points10 points  (39 children) | Copy

How does the red pill as defined under A as a praxeology ( The branch of knowledge that deals with the nature of human action) presuppose:

Materialism (The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.)

Atheism ( Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. )

Hedonism (The ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life)

I couldn't find a definition for self-help ideology, hopefully you can help me out here by defining it.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil24 points25 points  (38 children) | Copy

Congratulations 🎉 you just fell into the de jure vs the de facto phallisy. This is no different than the good old Soviet days where someone would raise a criticism of what is de facto happening and then a Communist party member would point to a de jure Marxist text totally irrelevant to the situation.

Regardless of what the Red Pill says it is, it acts in a certain way. The way the Red Pill acts defines the Red Pill, not it's declarations about itself.

  • Materialism: any transcendent view about elevating your conscieness gets shouted down by the Red Pill. This is what NeoReactionSafe tried to do.

  • Atheism: The endorsed contributor team flipped the fuck out over Roosh's religiosity. Why? Why the fuck do they care?

  • Hedonism: having sex with as many women as possible is hedonism.

  • Self Help Ideology: you can do it cheerleading and positive thinking put into book form

To put it simply the way a corporation functions in reality is completely different then what it says it functions in the employee rule book. You are the kind of guy who obsesses about the rule book.

Watch what they do not what they say The Red Pill applies this to women but you can't apply it to the Red Pill.

[–]destraht5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Help me see how it is that you aren't turning the No True Scotsman gig into Every True Red Piller. Why can't praxeology be used on the subset of humans who believe they are following the red pill ideology or to any number of codified interpretations of it?

You wrote:

The Red Pill has never been a Praxeology and has always from day one been an Ideology.

For those of you don't know an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Then:

Regardless of what the Red Pill says it is, it acts in a certain way. The way the Red Pill acts defines the Red Pill, not it's declarations about itself.

How do you reconcile these statements? It appears that you are animating an ideology to the point that it has arms and legs (I'm thinking a pill mascot named Red) to the point of skipping the whole human part so that you can get around praxeology having any value.

You seem confused about there only being a finite number of ideologies. There are infinite ways to arrive at the conclusion of killing Jews but you strongly imply that its from seeing a few too many swastika graffitis or some other things that have come before. I'm fine if you are attempting to collect a bunch of ideological minions so I'll just assume that you're target audience is stupider than myself as far as that sort of thing goes. I program codes for a living. It has nothing to do with this so its unlikely that I'll have a sustained interest in interfering with those efforts. Making fatties lose weight is cool though.

[–]nattlife1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why can't praxeology be used on the subset of humans who believe they are following the red pill ideology or to any number of codified interpretations of it?

Can you rephrase this question? Its too abstract.

There are infinite ways to arrive at the conclusion of killing Jews but you strongly imply that its from seeing a few too many swastika graffitis or some other things that have come before.

How? Name 3 for example. Killing an ethnic group for reasons means you will always get labelled in 1-3 already established ideologies we have identified.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy

any transcendent view about elevating your conscieness gets shouted down

That's perhaps b/c no such thing as "elevating consciousness" exists. What does exist is having more knowledge, better understanding(and so on) which you achieve by reading very materialistic books, having very materialistic conversations. "Transcendent view about elevating consciousness" is a vague word salad designed to put the target audience into feeling (not being) wiser than they are. Sort of like you always see chicks posting lotus pose meditation pics taken at "nature" looking places. You wrote about "person who uses big words", take a hint.

The endorsed contributor team flipped the fuck out over Roosh's religiosity

I think most flipped b/c it was so absurd and complete 180 from Roosh. I flipped b/c he received "yet to be decoded" message from god while high on shrooms which basically means he is just batshit crazy.

having sex with as many women as possible is hedonism

2 things. First one is - so what? Second one - hedonism in anti-mainstream is basically a smear word used to make the reader feel bad about this or that.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

You're just labeling shit you don't agree with as bad like any totalitarian tyrant would. And you're acting like it's just objective common sense. You lack the self awareness to see that you are ideological.

Hai guis I'm not ideological however anyone who believes in God/Metaphysics I dismiss automatically. I dont understand that doing this proves how ideological I am. Herp derp

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy

You're just labeling shit you don't agree with as bad

I called NRS-like stuff crazy, b/c overwhelming majority of it doesn't really exist and/or doesn't work and doing "stuff that doesn't work based on stuff that doesn't exist" IS crazy . If I call "energy crystals" crazy, why wouldn't I call other stuff like that crazy too?

And you're acting like it's just objective common sense.

So for example I meditate. One can meditate "in the lotus pose under a waterfall when the sun rises", one can also meditate in an airplane doing barrel rolls or like RSD Tyler does, staring at a blank wall for 20 minutes. The "objective common sense" here is that the meditation works. The "crazy esoteric" part is that you think that doing it "under waterfall when the sun rises" gives better effects b/c it's consistent with other parts of your ideology but that's demonstrably not true.

You lack the self awareness to see that you are ideological.

You can make it ideological, you can also not make it ideological. I choose not to b/c once we turn TRP into formalized ideology we're gonna go into dogmatism, witchhunts and groupthink-based judgment of content.

I'm not ideological however anyone who believes in God/Metaphysics I dismiss automatically

Explain it to me, how am I supposed not to dismiss things that singular's claim to existence is "someone telling you it's real but has no proof b/c you have to believe without proof b/c that's faith". B/c once I reject that claim, it's logical to assume that the ideology based on that is as imaginary as the basic elements it consists of.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy

Sounds cool fam. Except that math exists in the transcendent dimension aka the Platonic World of forms. It definitely does work and the more of it you understand by doing math rituals aka geometry the better you can structure your life and make things that don't fall apart. Pythagorus rejected materialism, math was his religion and worked out for him just fine.

Cool so you made an elaborate straw man with NRS, a man you most definitely should have sex with at this point purely for therapeutic reasons.

once we turn TRP into formalized ideology we're gonna go into dogmatism, witchhunts and groupthink-based judgment of content.

Golly G and that isn't happening allready? Clearly it is and has been which is how we know this is an ideology.

Because math most definitely works and religion decreases suicide. That's how we know that the transcendent structures the material.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy

Except that math exists in the transcendent dimension

I can use math to count apples or to solve an equation that explains some physical experiment. Basically - math does exist in real world. Find me a way to apply metaphysics to lift more, pull more or understand more (basically do anything, related or not to TRP) and do it in a way that's comparable or superior to non-metaphysical explanations.

Platonic World of forms

Sure, math on paper is a symbolic representation of real world, but there's a difference between math symbols and metaphysical ones. In math every "symbol" is a realistic depiction of an object, number or an operator. In metaphysics there's only vagueness that basically lets you interpret it however you see fit. You can't compare tarot to math equation b/c one one hand you have symbolic but (literally) ideal precision, OTOH you have symbolic but (very) interpretable vagueness.

Cool so you made an elaborate straw man with NRS

You're the one that pulled him up, I'm using him as reference point we both know. As for the strawman, I get where you see it, what I don't get is why you don't have a problem with claims that cannot be substantiated and don't work.

Golly G and that isn't happening allready? Clearly it is and has been which is how we know this is an ideology.

(from your previous comment)Watch what they do not what they say The Red Pill applies this to women but you can't apply it to the Red Pill.

I can understand how you see TRP as ideology. I can agree with the last quote, this is a blindspot, so I can half-concede that TRP can be (but doesn't have to, hence the half) viewed as an ideology.

What I would like to ask you is, why is this so important to you and what is the plan here, assuming RPS arbitrarily decides to agree with you on the "ideology" debate?

Because math most definitely works . That's how we know that the transcendent structures the material.

You can't have the number 3 without having 1, 2 and 3 of something first to put numbers into context and give them meaning. Without actually having 3 of something, it's pointless to have symbolic number 3 b/c you can't do anything with it.

religion decreases suicide

Unless we're talking about suicide bombers, in which point it increases suicides so there's that.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil10 points11 points  (9 children) | Copy

Math doesn't exist in the real world it exists in the transcendent dimension and is only symbolized in the real world. Any mathematician will tell you this.

Did people invent math or did math always exist as a cosmic truth and was simply discovered? Most mathmeticians will say the second one.

Next religion, Islam for example can be used to motivate people to fight to the death and pull people out of depression. That's a concrete application of Metaphysics in a real quantifiable way. If Islam didn't work it would t be working.

In math every "symbol" is a realistic depiction of an object, number or an operator.

Wrong! Fucking wrong. Math has imaginary numbers and all kinds of wild abstract shit that may or may not be directly applicable. The funny thing with math is that parts of it are theoretical untill we discover ways to use it.

You can compare tarrot to math because all of those occult schools are bastardized versions of the math geometry cults of ancient Greece.

At the end of the day it should be obvious to anyone reading this that you are purposefuly confusing yourself so that you can continue to belive what you are beliving, saying incorrect things about math in the process.


At least we got you to agree that trp allready acts as an ideology. So I guess we are getting somewhere.


Admitting the Red Pill is an ideology is the first step in not looking like complete retards to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy

The TL/DR of our differences is: you think god made us in his image, I think we made up god in our image.

Let's start with the saying that "math is the language of physics". You cannot have math without having physics first b/c physics is nothing more than real world, the atoms, particles, waves, fields and so on. This stuff exists. Math is used to describe it. No physics, no math. Therefore you can say math exist in "transcendent dimension" but it's only the reflection of real world, not the driving principle that shapes it.

There is speculation (and it's more likely to be true than not, based on experimental data interpretation), that different areas of our universe can have different values of constants IOW different physics. Furthermore if there are other universes than our (of which there is some speculation based on what we learned thus far) it's possible that since we're separate it means we have entirely different physics altogether. Therefore "cosmic truth" is not the likely true, it's more like "round theses parts, currently".

Islam for example can be used to motivate people to fight to the death and pull people out of depression. That's a concrete application of Metaphysics in a real quantifiable way. If Islam didn't work it would t be working.

Many other things can do it (like TRP), but contrary to religions, most other things require you confront the problems by growing, not have solution hamstered from (literally) magical beliefs.

Math has imaginary numbers and all kinds of wild abstract shit that may or may not be directly applicable. The funny thing with math is that parts of it are theoretical untill we discover ways to use it.

No metaphysics needed here. A BP man doesn't know that he doesn't know. Same thing in your example.

You can compare tarrot to math because all of those occult schools are bastardized versions of the math geometry cults of ancient Greece.

No, you cannot. Had the principles behind tarot and "math geometry cults" actually worked we wouldn't had the need for actual math and other sciences. You argument is basically "there was no real socialism tried". Same principle, if it worked, we would have need for other, working things.

Admitting the Red Pill is an ideology is the first step in not looking like complete retards to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy.

Still don't know why is this so important yo you. Say I agree with it, even better RPS agrees it's true, what changes? B/c if we go with what your saying ("look what TRP does, not says") we've been doing ideological-TRP all along without knowing it and even with saying it's not an ideology - and it still worked, so what's the difference anyway?

[–]Blacklabellogics-1 points0 points  (20 children) | Copy

I tried to look up the "De jure vs. de facto" fallacy, there is no such logical fallacy, can you please pass me the rule-book that you're quoting it from?

Last word.

[–]MethForJesus18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy

The logical fallacy was just explained. Instead of refuting it, you're asking for citations.

[–]8380atgmaildotcom7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lol you couldn't write better satire

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

This wasn't a very good response, because it is an implied argument for authority. This is a basic logical fallacy.

You're not going to win against a guy who starts debate online for fun with fallacy.

[–]Blacklabellogics7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

When the crux of the argument is:

- Make up a fallacy then accuse the other party of comitting this fallacy (ad hominem)

- Use your own personal perception of evidence (anecdotal evidence)

- Generalize your perception of anecdotal examples to the entirety of the sample (this whole forum) which is a faulty generalization.

- Conclude that your perception equals reality

Then you are "debating" like an SJW, screaming that because you got followed by a walmart security guard once in 1998 all of America is is a horribly racist country, and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a racist.

Asking for external citations is a good exercise to make you define your terms, ensure that both parties understand each other, and that neither party commits the "I'm pulling this shit out of my ass" fallacy (See I can make up fallacies too). When the response to being asked to live in reality , follow common debating principles, and utilize empirical rather than anecdotal evidence, is ad hominem. It's not something I'll take seriously, it's one step down from SJWs screaming about "sea lioning" when they are asked to provide evidence for the shit they are making up.

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

I agree that GLO is rapidly wearing out his long acquired good will, but I make my refutation the same way I make my points - original thought.

No one was truly convinced because some journal said "this form of thought is approved". They are convinced by conviction.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRStonePT0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Community only works when people are aligned in purpose, and look out for each others welfare to some extent.

Do you see this moving in that direction?

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Good always wins in the end. I'm confident this experiment continues

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

So it's not a fallacy but the thing actually exists and has real world application that work.

[–]Blacklabellogics3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Practice vs. policy is a real thing, but the argument hinges on proving that to be the case by use of evidence, not anecdote.

"Like 8 Endorsed contributors went off on Roosh for becoming religious, therefore the whole of the red pill is atheist!" perhaps their issue isn't religion, so much as they think the Neomasculine emperor is wearing new clothes.

"Some people on this sub demand that I provide evidence instead of just making shit up, therefore the red pill is materialist!" (the correct term would be methodological naturalism)

Anecdote IS NOT evidence. Rhetoric IS NOT evidence.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Because you write McDonalds tier responses by making your entire comments a wikipedia quote. That just shows you have no originality and are not capable of independent thought, you look at the surface level and you stop there.. This De Jure/Facto topic is entry level, come on do you even have a proper education? What's the point of talking to somone whos only motive is to shove their low education level at other ppl's faces? You stop at entry level analysis and whenever questioned you make it an ego contest.

[–]GayLubeOil 3 points [recovered]  (8 children) | Copy

You are so painfully Autistic that you can't comprehend that your response proves what I am accusing you of. So congratulations you just played yourself.

Me: You quoting irrelevant books blinds you to reality

You: Show me in a book where it says that!

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Let's keep it civil no need to call each other autistic.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil14 points15 points  (6 children) | Copy

Can you give me a word for: Person who uses very big words to make himself feel important

and lacks the self awarness to understand while he's doing

while stubbornly holding frame and never fixing his mistakes.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy

Attack his ideas.

[–]NASCARnormie3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

His ideas are just that. He uses definitions and verbose language to distract himself from the fact that he can’t actually compete in the argument intellectually.

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I know everyone here isn't so stupid I have to continuously spell this out. If an argument is bad, you can say just that without calling each other names like we're in grade school.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

If you can't tell the difference between ad hominem and an actual argument, then how could anybody here think you've found the flaws in his argument?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (29 children) | Copy

So yes the Red Pill is an ideology because it presupposes a lot of things like materialism, Atheism, Hedonism, Self help ideology, each of which are Ideological on their own and continue to be Ideological when combined in an ideology strew.

At the core of it, TRP presupposes that humans act in their own selfish interest (or at least what their lizard brain tells them is in their best interest) in sometimes paradoxical ways.

What you are talking about is the prescription.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil7 points8 points  (28 children) | Copy

If at it's core the Red Pill: presupposes that humans act in their own selfish interest (or at least what their lizard brain tells them is in their best interest)

Then the Red Pill is at it's core: Biological Essentialist, Materialist and Hedonist and thus ideological. I'm glad we agree.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 8 points9 points  (27 children) | Copy

Materialist

If you're suggesting that phyiscal matter is what makes up our reality? Then yes.

If you're talking about a value system of material wealth and objectives? Then no, that does not follow.

Hedonist

Once again- you're mixing up a presupposition and a prescription. We presuppose that evolution programmed people to act in selfish ways. We do not however agree that hedonism is the prescription. It does not follow.

Biological Essentialist

Looking past that you just snuck this one in last minute, I would again take exception to this description. Would you describe me as a biological essentialist? Perhaps so. I believe that everything in existence has some level of cause and effect even if we live in a non-deterministic chaos. Would I describe myself as one? No, I think there is chaos and therefore some level of free will - even if only imaginary.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil4 points5 points  (22 children) | Copy

You are such a Materialist that you can't concieve of an understanding where physical matter doesn't make up reality. If I or anyone else start writing Platonic or Islamic Red Pill theory the butt mad would definitely flow freely.

Iv seen a lot of hedonism perscriptions on TRP specifically: Fuck more bitches bro

My issue here isn't that I have a problem with any of the ideological systems above. It's that people are proclaiming themselves nonideological while being ideological.

It's this distinct lack of self awareness that undermines the entire Red Pill message of the community. Which could be solved by simply admitting to being ideological.

Who do you trust more?

A) A guy who claims to be the most rational knowledgeable guy far greater than socrates and Aquinas, so smart that he is the ultimate pervayer of truth and knower of the way.

B) A fun guy who doesn't hide his biases and shows you interesting perspectives from time to time.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (18 children) | Copy

Iv seen a lot of hedonism perscriptions on TRP specifically: Fuck more bitches bro

You're missing the point. Of course there are people making prescrtions and many match this criteria. But one is a subset of the other, not the other way around. TRP as a foundation of ideas does not require hedonism.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men ... does not require hedonism. Makes total sense.

I'm going to quote my grandfather:

The boss isnt always right but he's always the boss.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy

Your application of your strategy might be hedonistic. But, no, understanding the nature of people is not inherently hedonistic in nature.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy

The Red Pills motive to understand female nature is hedonistic thus making the entire endevor hedonistic. Kind of like how the 9/11 hijackers motive to take flight lessons on Florida was terroristic thus making their whole flight school experience one aspect of their terror plot.

So yes flight lessons might not necessarily be terroristic in nature but if a whole bunch of angry Habibis show up they are.

Like wise understanding the female vagina isn't necessarily sexual but if the classroom is filled with sexually frustrated nerd virgins and divorced dads then yea it is.

Both you and I know who is in our classroom.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

The motive to understand biological pursuits is not fundamentally hedonistic.

You wouldn't say that a hungry man pursuing food is hedonistic in nature, the same way you wouldn't say a sex starved virgin or frustrated dad trying to get laid is hedonistic.

Alternatively a fat man, gluttonously pursuing food or a Dan Bilzerian with a boat load of women visciously pursuing more would be considered hedonistic.

[–]kymosabei4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy

The Red Pills motive to understand female nature is hedonistic thus making the entire endevor hedonistic. Kind of like how the 9/11 hijackers motive to take flight lessons on Florida was terroristic thus making their whole flight school experience one aspect of their terror plot.

Can I ask how this isn't a fallacy of composition?

[–]organicfluxx0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I agree with you on nearly everything. But one thing I don't get is how its possible to take someone out of the matrix and redpill them without them being a hedonistic materialistic atheist( such as the Muslim example)?

[–]CrimsonShiv0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The whole sub needs a solid dose of LSD.

Peels away many layers of ideology in a relatively short period. Highly Recommend.

90% of the shit on here becomes embarissigly naive and annoyingly unfortunate after a breakthrough dose.

Of course we can communicate the same, but look how that's turning out so far. Top Gs are getting sidetracked into housekeeping - and it's being taken seriously.

just my 2 dollars.

[–]Endorsed Contributoritiswr1tten6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I believe LSD and mdma can cure almost any dude with a good environment and experienced sitter.

[–]nattlife-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

It does not follow.

Mate, are we reading the same subreddit or what? You are the mod of this sub. I can literally sort this sub by 'top' for the past year and find you half a dozen posts just from casual observation that enthusiastically recommends hedonism inspired prescription as advice here that is also approved by endorsed contributors.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sure, that doesn't contradict what I've said.

I've never disagreed that there are hedonists here. I could argue that hedonism is a misnomer but that's a conversation for another day.

But it seems like a large contingency here are either purposefully or ignorantly ignoring that I'm referring to a number of different facets of TRP. Yourself included.

[–]Nicolas0631-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

I would say that TRP assume that at least women are Hedonistic and materialistic. AWALT, "Alpha fucks, beta bucks" illustrate that for me. Women want providers (so they are materialistic driven) and want to get tingle and will cheat their men for a great experience with an alpha even if that would destroy their life (hedonistic).

Also there common advices and complains related to divorse rate (losing material things) or related to how you shall get as much sex as you can (plating, ONS, abundance mentality) that are centered about men being materialistic and hedonistic.

I think that TRP really works because it does assume that people do have materialistic and hedonistic tendencies. This is why TRP is an accurate description of the world.

[–]EkMard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Look up what materialism and hedonism as ideologies mean.

[–]1campfire4511 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

What is the red pill ideology?

So yes the Red Pill is an ideology because it presupposes a lot of things like materialism, Atheism, Hedonism, Self help ideology, each of which are Ideological on their own and continue to be Ideological when combined in an ideology strew.

Is that true? For example, suppose you make a stew out of meat and vegetables. It doesn't follow that stew is a meat or a vegetable.

But even if that issue is cleared all you seem to achieve is the claim that Red Pill presupposes an ideology. It doesn't really settle the topic of whether Red Pill itself is an ideology or praxology. There's nothing that excludes a praxiology from presupposing an ideology.

[–]wertrax3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

First of all, English is not my main language and I'm drunk as fuck.

One of the underlying problems that I see with trp now, especially with the most "famous" figures in here is that the love to say "trp has become a forum full of gammas". Like, dude. Of course, that's the point of trp. Helping people that has been raised to be on the bottom of the food chain. Some of them with close to none social skills that are starting to learn basic things, from point 0. And then they come, the so called "woked ones" who now start to bully their own audience, the ones who once were like them and need help. Honestly, fuck those people. I came to learn and seek help, not to be shitted by some random who wants to do to me what some rabdom Chad did to them some time ago.

[–]Nicolas06310 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I agree, there little value to discuss thing as master of the art that have nothing to learn. This stuff is powerful because it can help people that do strugle.

[–]Blacklabellogics8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

Thank you for posting this u/redpillschool

One thing I did notice about a lot of the guys involved in the latest spats, very few if any of them ever wrote anything on A or B. At best, they touched on C and were mostly in the D category, while paying lip-service to A+B, and getting close with content creators within A+B. I include among them "self-improvement" focused guys in areas like fitness and finance, who saw that those of us who try to stay in A and B do recommend things like:

- Lifting

- Maintaining your health

- Taking care of your appearance

- Developing and building social and financial power

saw a market decided start creating content in those areas, without really familiarizing themselves with any of the sidebar, the writings of ECs or even the history of the manosphere. My favorite was a lad who wanted to write a book on the history of the manosphere, not realizing that Ian Ironwood already did so. I think this is a result of C and D getting too much attention over a fairly long period of time now in multiple public spaces, and becoming ways to build status within this extended community.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Group C gave you a mental breakdown. You remember their names.

[–]BillyRedRocks0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Nobody cares, you're just pixels on the screen, so good luck with the whole "name remembering" delusion you're having.

[–]Random Xpat Rantingsxsplat4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Also, in order to see things from a viewpoint of an experienced and skilled man, one must first go through stages of development and learning. That can't be done with philosophy or books. One would have to follow prescriptions of several kinds just to begin to learn what it is that one doesn't know yet.

[–]dulkemaru511 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This, if not before(!), is where it gets ideological:

B) Various perspectives on how one should utilize the information from A.

These are those contents that seek to describe how to put yourself in an advantageous market position to exploit the core mechanics. For instance, how to deal with hypergamy in an LTR, what to do to maintain her preference for you as her chosen partner, and how it affects her mate choices.

Not seeing how much is smuggled into this is beyond me.

And wrt this:

A) The descriptive praxeology that describes the reality of intersexual dynamics.

These are the contents that seek to describe the mechanisms at play, and their given effect. For instance, describing the mechanics of hypergamy and solipsism and how they influence the mating market.

Besides the obvious, which is that dudes want to learn this so that they can fuck and thus giving them the tools to do so stems from an entire elaborate worldview, this still should be discussed. Red Pill means Truth, and brushing off things like Taking a breath assumes a will to live and that induction (breathing works) is empirically justified, is an assumption that has no place in philosophical discussion, unless its place in it is a topic of discussion, as just that -- an assumption.

Whether we begin with an agreed cartesian recognition and stay there, or provide an alternative, if the Red Pill is to mean Truth, we have to be careful as hell in how we tread. BLL seems to be smart enough to understand this, but not sufficiently aware to employ it uncompromisingly, while other TRP big shots, in my humble assessment, would have a better chance reading Sanskrit next week than understanding this.

This subject is a fragile thing, so don't stop thinking.

And if you do decide to stop thinking, admit it. Truth seeking is overscrupulous, that's the whole point ... And if you're one of those who have no idea what I'm talking about, one of those who'd respond to this with How is still helping anyone get laid? And oh btw I'm not an ideologue, then I'll respond with something that you still won't understand, so don't worry, you can keep agreeing n amplifying and talking about pussy, my response isn't for you, but for those who don't mind / who have the capacity for thinking.

What I'm saying is that no one's stopping you from breathing, but understand all that it entails. Some BPs are tasty, others are tasteless and invisible. Acknowledge that. The toolbox model seems to be the closest thing to objectivity, but be careful, and recognize the paradox.

[–]1campfire4511 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Above all else, I am firmly in category A, however I enjoy seeing people's approaches in cat B

I agree with this. I enjoy seeing other guy's perspectives and experience and wisdom. I value the novelty even if I don't ultimately agree. Watching guys wage war over who's perspective or experience is superior just gets petty and uninteresting. It distracts from the learning and ends up in a race to the bottom flurry of insults and posturing.

C) Various individuals and groups that utilize A as part of their foundational material, but who have added other elements to build a full individual or group ideology.

I enjoy content in this category though, unless I'm misunderstanding the description. At least reflective or personally descriptive material of this type. Guys describing how they work things in their own lives based on their own priorities. Not a fan when this veers into prescriptive, though. But maybe we're describing different content.

[–]faustian_talos0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Who is the guy you are referring to?



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter