The Difference Between Sexual Strategy and Politics

October 8, 2018

I'll start off by saying that there is a lot of overlap with sex and politics. In a way, both are matters of persuasion. Both require a level of taking counter-intuitive steps to achieve your goals.

There are some very easy to remember expressions here on TRP that serve as simple mental shortcuts which help beginners when they find themselves in tough situations. Like "nexting," "hold frame," and "agree-and-amplify" for "shit tests."

These aren't hard rules, but shortcuts for those who have yet to build their own mental framework where game and frame have become second nature. The goal in embracing these ideas is that you will ultimately change the way you think, to start taking these counter-intuitive steps intuitively because you understand cause and effect and you can feel predictions of outcomes in your gut. And your gut will start to be right for the first time in your life.

In essence, what we teach here is to ignore the voice in your head that has lead you astray and slowly retrain it until you can take off your training wheels.

There is much of the same behavior in politics. But I think some of the newer faces here need to understand some of the differences.

The mental shortcuts we provide are not hard rules for life. They require some nuance.

When a young college kid approaches me and asks what to do to finally win over his oneitis crush of 5 years, the default answer is "next." Not because he couldn't win her over if he played every card right, but that it's the wrong frame of mind to be in. It comes from a position of scarcity and inevitably his feelings will leak into his behaviors and self-sabotage. This is incredibly difficult to control. When your head is in the wrong space, you make mistakes.

But sometimes I see kids preaching the very same shortcut to somebody beyond this problem.

Let's say you are past oneitis, and you have an abundance mentality. For some, there is a pleasure and challenge in achieving a particular goal. For these situations the shortcut "next" simply does not fix the problem because "next" addresses the scarcity mentality. It doesn't actually help you get laid if you've got your sights on somebody and want the challenge.

If you are beyond scarcity and oneitis, you know which consessions not to make. You can focus on an individual without your weak frame of mind leaking through and poisoning your behaviors.

Now, the truth is, it's easy to slip back into the blue pill mentality. Which is why keeping to the shortcuts rigidly will probably do very little damage but help a lot in the long run. But once you enter the right headspace, every action you take is now your choice. You can experiment with how you will interact with others around you.

Nexting should not be your copout to actual challenge.

The reason I bring this up is because I see people apply these shortcuts rigidly in their advice in non-sexual circumstances.

In a lot of cases, things like holding frame really help in a lot of scenarios- professionally, socially, and sexually.

But sometimes the advice makes absolutely no sense to somebody who is not operating from a frame of scarcity, but instead one of challenge.

Enter: The Machiavellian.

This is a topic brought up quite a bit but I rarely see anybody merge Machiavellian strategy with the worldview of our shortcuts. When you are no longer in the headspace of scarcity and oneitis, you have the tools to understand that counter-intuitive behaviors can sometimes lead to favorable outcomes. This means that you can bend or even break the rules on your own terms.

In politics (much like sex), that's known as playing the game.

The biggest difference in politics verses sexual strategy is knowing who your audience is.

Political moves (be they career or social) often involve multiple participants, unlike sexual strategy which is usually just you and her. The target of your goals may or may not be the direct target of your pursuasion. Sometimes the indirect play is convincing others of something in order to build your leverage on a topic.

Politics uses the same basis as sexual persuasion but is infinitely more complex due to the number of moving pieces. I think ultimately anybody relatively fluent in red pill technique should eventually embrace persuasion in all parts of life.

Here are some examples of political plays that are not what they appear:

  • In a political debate, each participant is not actually trying to argue or debunk the other members. Instead they are trying to speak (and pursuade) directly to their audience (the voters). This is why often times you'll notice rebuttals don't address their opponents points, sometimes not even on the same topic at all.

  • When somebody is trying to undermine the status of somebody else, even when speaking directly with the target the intended audience is onlookers. This means sometimes playing stupid to points you know clearly. Sometimes it means trying to get somebody to talk more (giving them enough rope, etc).

  • Sometimes when you're on the losing side of something, the appearance of a fight isn't to win but to strengthen their position in the eyes of fence sitters.

  • Sometimes when you want something accomplished, you must plant the idea in their head and make them think they had the idea on their own. Sometimes that means making an obvious mistake or exposing a weak spot for others to attack. (See Trump Twitter)

These are often counter-intuitive which cause one-dimensional thinkers to think what the heck is he doing?

When you don't understand what the purpose of a political move is, ask yourself: Who is the real audience for this? What might be the hidden agenda of this move (what side effects might happen from this move)?

As always, make sure you register on our site for future updates.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title The Difference Between Sexual Strategy and Politics
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 77
Comments 16
Date October 8, 2018 3:11 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link
Original Link
Similar Posts

[–]HumanSockPuppet 34 points35 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The situational use of a technique is the correct application of "The Red Pill as a tool box". And the only way to select the correct technique for the situation is to know your goal and know what stands between you and that goal.

Too few men here, even among our intermediate or long-time readers, have a real sense of what they want.

Until you figure out what you want, you will always use RP techniques the way a religious person uses prayer - devoutly, mechanically, and in vain hope of a specific outcome.

Instead, you must wield RP techniques the way a priest uses sermons to move a congregation. Know your agenda and know your audience.

[–]SKRedPill 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Since you mentioned politics, politics at a macroscopic level is in many ways a giant extension of our sexual principles at work - no avoiding it. Look at any society where women tend to concentrate into leadership and correlate that with their policies -- it's basically a welfare state with low birthrates of the native population and open to immigration. Feminized countries commit hypergamy at a national level.

Masculine societies tend to expand and conquer, and they can explode and burn out in the process. Feminized societies tend to implode and surrender and get taken over. Nowhere did this become more clear than in the latest US presidential election. It's now clear that right and left have essentially become bigger versions of masculine and feminine principles at work more or less, and the polarity has never been as extreme as it is now.

[–]NeverLace 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Low birthrate and open to migration. Feminized countries commit hypergamy at a national level.

Dont you think this is because generally women, or effeminate people in general are higher in the character aspect of agreeableness, and thus are more compassionate from people in dire need? That they want to help people out of dictatorship and wars, rather than want to import chad cock from the middle east? Of course not a 1 factor explanation but i think this is part of it.

[–]SKRedPill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the hamster talking. Compassion is true no doubt, that's what they all tell themselves, but there's no escaping nature, so it won't be very long before hypergamy takes over.

Germany's Angela Merkel admitted that Germany is need of immigrants and she has to keep the doors open.

In other words, we are far more influenced by our subconscious far more than we realize, or like to admit. Our conscious mind is a more superficial layer, it likes to believe it's own ideas, but really, it's just like building taller and taller buildings is really a giant dick measuring contest.

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

I'll admit that I applied RP principles quite robotically in the beginning of my journey and it served to keep me on the right track. Gradually though I've begun to develop a confidence in my own intuition and dare I say a competence in how I approach life. My actions and opinions are formed around RP principles but I'm no longer ruled by them.

[–]KeffirLime 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both sexual endeavours and politics require a certain strategy. The need for it to be tactical however varies a great deal.

As far as sexual strategy is concerned, you can comfortably be the thing you appear to be. Have Alpha Traits, be confident, abundance etc. As a beginner you can fake this to some degree, but preferably one would internalize it.

We are appealing to a biological nature, not a logical train of thought. More so in a female, who is somewhat enslaved to how she feels: Alpha traits=Attraction

Politics deals similarly in projecting an image to your target audience, however requires a different strategy. One can not simply be what they appear to be, that would simply be too predictable. Your opponent is not a slave to emotion, they too deal in logic. What you project is of vital importance.

Our Quarantine is game of politics, understand it accordingly.

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

Love this post. Hoping to see more content on Machiavellianism from people after this, I think only Illimitable Man has covered it in some depth on his blog.

[–]DareyFathom 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

At least in my experiences, the audiences aren't even remotely the same. Motivations of my workplace politics are directly transparent with almost zero unpredictable barriers to outcome. Completely different with chasing biddies.

[–]DoneScannedIt 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What industry?

[–]Zeparic 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Early on, one of the most useful things I picked up on this site was Rollos "Your friend menstruation" post. Women run like clockwork, just by their mennstrual cycle you can predict weeks in advance how a lapse in your frame will affect her behavior.

I just want to add that while Machiavellian principles are important, unless you have well developed social skills they are difficult to employ. Reading the prince and the 48 laws was good for understanding but reading how to win friends and influence people gave a framework that was easier to work with.

[–]EdmondDaunts 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

From reading TRP and other things, the major concept I keep coming back to is that a key skill for a successful life is developing and maintaining contingency. It’s a broad subject and can often come over as cold in certain circumstances. However it is fundamental for any progress in anything.

It’s grounded in Contingency of Thought. Which appears to be relevant to this post.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]redpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You and others are trying to push The Red Pill from a movement into a brand.

My core goal is to keep the conversation going and facilitating a place that's free to do so.

given most new guys coming in are broken and/or high chance to be in the Beta Bucks category, it's only going to polarize them because it rolls the perception of objectivity. It becomes it's own unspoken shit test. They'll stop seeing women as the only threatpoint and eventually will start to see the vanguard as a threatpoint as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Abundance is not something we can discuss into being. The world is not going to change for us. Men need a dual sexual strategy of their own. To honor our biological imperative to provide and protect and to procreate. "Enjoy the decline" is going to sound like stick your dick in a pumped out emotional terrorist who is waiting to shit down your throat to most of these young guys. They need a methodology where the game they employ is hard, but the goalposts won't move on them.

Many of us are in long-term relationships for just this reason. We even have a flair to discuss this strategy.

[–]RedDespair 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing doesn't quite demonstrate machiavellism as one of the best techniques that the old pickup industry used to teach in order to defuse the AMOG (Alpha among the group).

Whatever he says you just counter it by saying how cool and impressive he is. Once you understand how this works, everything else will make sense,

[–]Tripletag 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think a lot of guys conflate sexual strategy and politics in several ways.

For one, they assume that they need to 'win her over'. Though this is true to some degree, it mistakingly often becomes a bland rattling off of qualifications that in his mind make him an ideal sexual partner. In truth, much like with politicians, credentials are only a small part of what I think boils down to 'seeing' the other person or audience for what they are. Individuals and audiences want to be heard, understood and represented.

If credentials were what mattered to people, there's no way in Hell Trump would have gotten elected, Obama neither. In both cases, attempts were made to discredit them based on their lack of experience in the field but to no avail. Its about feels.

In the same light, having an epic profession and pulling in 100k or more accompanied by all the toys you could ever want does not make you a desireable long-term sexual partner by default. Wearing a 5k suit does not make you good at game, as that homeless guy at the Occupy movement who pulled tail like a madman ought to demonstrate.

Both in sexual strategy and politics, mastering your emotions and understanding those of others is the key. Thats what I think, at least.

[–]SirKolbath 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If credentials were what mattered to people, there’s no way in Hell Trump would have gotten elected, Obama neither. In both cases, attempts were made to discredit them based on their lack of experience in the field but to no avail. Its about feels.

I am so sick of this nonsense. Trump has forty years of executive experience. Obama never held a job that wasn’t paid from taxes. Obama was a one term senator who authored no legislation and voted “present” over one hundred times. Out of more than nine hundred businesses, Trump had just nine failures, all of which were companies he specifically bought as loss leaders to legitimately asset strip. Obama was an academic who authored not a single paper— and I’ve been looking since 2007 and haven’t found a single person he actually taught as an adjunct professor. Not one single person has come forward in the last ten years to proudly claim they were taught constitutional law by the President of the United States. Given his feels over facts cult status and the fact that his jug eared face is on everything from tee shirts to coffee mugs, it’s a little astonishing that I cant find anyone who has come forward to brag on how well he did the only job he ever had before he started rabble rousing community organizing. (Actually, most of the faculty dont even remember Obama and those who do don’t think very highly of him. Apparently he was mouthy and lazy— pretty much the same as when he was in office.)

There is absolutely no comparison between the two, and it is incredibly sloppy thinking to attempt to pretend that not wasting time in public office is somehow indicative of a lack of experience. Trump has a wealth of actual hands on experience and the lowest unemployment rate since 1968, trade deals with Mexico and Canada and the EU, and even the peace talks that have all but ended the Korean War after seven decades of failure reflect this.

I apologize for diverging into a purely political comment, but I felt it necessary to head off that fuzzy thinking. As a political writer I’ve been combatting that preposterous lack of experience claim since long before I even supported Trump. Experience was supposed to be Hillary’s strongest point, if you recall, except that her experience was largely failure after failure, from her DOA Hillarycare attempt to the way she ducked responsibility for Benghazi, Clinton reeled from self-made crisis to self-made crisis like a drunken sailor outside a brothel.

I suppose if we want to return to sexual strategy, I’d rather fuck Trump’s wife than Obama’s any day.

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter