The Red Pill, You & Morality

The Red Pill, Morality & You
“Morality is judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, and integrity to stand by it at any price.”Ayn Rand

Contents:
1.) Preface
2.) Philosophical, Metaphysical & Anthropological Arguments
3.) Bro-Knighting
4.) Strategy and Fact is Amoral, Human Behaviour Isn’t
5.) Confusion Between Amorality & Delusion
6.) Trust
7.) The Rationalism of Morality
8.) Sex & Civilization
9.) Incentive v. Principle – A Balancing Act
10.) In Closing
11.) Relevant Reading

1.) Preface:

You can opt not to betray a man you respect if you are a man of principles. You can choose not to fuck another man’s girl, whether he’s a close friend, or not; purely on matter of principle. For example, perhaps one of the principles you follow in your life is the golden rule:

“I wouldn’t want a guy fucking my girl, so I won’t fuck another guy’s girl.”

Or

“Do unto others as they do unto you.”

Moral principles aren’t blue pill. Thinking that everyone has the same principles as you, and that most people don’t succumb (or even value) incentive over principle, is.

Modern men who prioritise sex and utilitarianism above principles; men who prioritise incentive over the innate sense of justice that we all possess do not want to hear this though. They don’t want to observe another man’s moral code, one that holds that man to a higher standard of behaviour than he subjects himself to. Because for the ruthless Machiavellian, the most emphatic pragmatist, justice is an obstruction to such an individual’s desires. Unless it’s assuaging his own need for justice, naturally.

Such an individual thinks “Does this guy think he’s better than me? Why is he trying to preach his principles like religion or something? The best way is the way that works, he’s naive for having principles. Period.”

These people, the “amoral bandwagon” as I call them, like to prioritise incentive over justice. These people make for poor friends and business partners. Incentive cares about what you get out of it. Justice cares about “what the right thing to do is.” These people violate justice because there is an incentive to do so. That doesn’t make them evil in the satanic meaning of the word, but it does make them prone to immorality. These people know what they’re doing will hurt others, they just don’t care.

“Doesn’t matter, had sex.”

And then without a hint of irony, the same guy who said “doesn’t matter, had sex,” is going to be vexed when he finds out his baby mother just sucked off a guy behind a dumpster. He wants other people to respect his dignity and not violate him, but he doesn’t give a shit if he violates others.

Humans are an emotional people, emotional people follow principles and have certain codes of behaviour they follow. Having one guiding policy “do whatever, and fuck whoever to get what you need” is destructive. Some people are like that. There were always people like that. Fuck it, whatever. That’s their choice. In some situations, we advise that. But do these people really have a moral pedestal to say “you have principles and therefore you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand red pill theory?” – No. They don’t.

You can understand the game of life that we all play and keep your principles if you want to. Just realise that to live up to your principles, you will forego incentives. If you have a particularly strong sense of justice, you will never live red pill philosophy fully. And you’re not meant to, you take what works for you and discard what doesn’t. This isn’t a movement or a religion, it’s a way of seeing the world for what it is. A way of undressing social pleasantries, peeling back the curtain, and operating from a position of knowledge. A position which grants you social advantages that those not in the know otherwise lack.

To fully live all the aspects of red pill philosophy in your life, you’d have to be incredibly immoral. Immoral to a degree that the vast majority of people are incapable of becoming without severely damaging themselves. Be that their mental health, physical health (drug usage) or both. To be amoral is to be psychopathic, because amorality is neutrality, it is factual, it is devoid of human emotion. Human action and intent is not amoral, only strategy/knowledge itself is. Do you see the disconnect there? If humans are emotional and amorality focuses on the realm devoid of emotion, then amorality is quite simply not a realm you operate in.

The world is not a fair place. Sometimes you may need to be immoral simply to survive, but there’s no need to glorify that. If it’s necessary, and you’re not simply indulging yourself, then so be it. There’s a difference between stealing to eat, and stealing because “well, who’s gonna stop me?” Guys who get the game but choose not to steal other people’s girls, or scam people out of money in manipulative sales pitches aren’t blue pillers. They simply have stronger moral principles than you do. Maybe they can afford to have those principles and live well, and you can’t. Maybe they enjoy being altruistic more than they enjoy being sadistic, and for you, that phenomenon is the reverse. It is what it is.

Red pill philosophy is here to show you how the game works, not to tell you how to live your life. We give advice when asked, sure, but you live the way that suits you best. You own your choices.

The red pill philosophy is amoral in the sense that it says “it is what it is.”:

Hypergamy? It is what it is.
Branch swinging to the next best thing? It is what it is.
Alpha fucks, beta bucks? It is what it is.
Women have innate value whilst men don’t? It is what it is.

You can’t change these things, you can build a culture designed to subvert these things, but they’re not going anywhere. The reason the modern west is falling apart socially is because we don’t subjugate these things like we used to.

Peel back all the bullshit, and you see women, as well as a lot of men who utilise red pill philosophy, are immoral creatures. I don’t intend that to be a value judgement, but without getting into some nuanced philosophical/metaphysical argument and redefining what good and bad are (people always try to whore up my time with this nonsense,) we all know what good and bad is innately. I’m not going to debate you on technicalities to help you justify the virtue of what is otherwise deemed morally reprehensible.

2.) Philosophical, Metaphysical & Anthropological Arguments:

If you violate someone else’s rights because there is incentive for you (stealing, adultery etc) that’s bad. Some philosophical ideas preach otherwise (Nietzsche’s master-slave morality and Social Darwinism comes to mind,) however such ideas are not practicable on a daily basis for the majority of people who live and breathe today. They are interpretations of reality from a metaphysical or scientific perspective. They are so abstractly dense, that you could cogently argue such philosophy is technically correct. However, that which is technically correct and that which is socially conducive are not one and the same. You are not mathematics. Burying yourself in abstraction will not immunize you to human instincts. Arguing from a metaphysical perspective on the nature of morality, as did Nietzsche, is all well and good if you’re a philosopher, but it’s not going to be terribly conducive to your mental well-being unless you are a psychopath. For a psychopath, it is conducive. It helps them rationalise their lack of sympathy should it bother them they lack it.

It doesn’t matter if DNA and atoms are amoral, and that you’re a collection of atoms and DNA that is in an amoral competition. The combination of all those things in tandem gave you a sense of justice. You have a revenge instinct. Your sense of justice and need for revenge are the basis for all of universal morality’s guiding principles. You’re part of a game that is not adequately represented by maths and physics. Those things can’t explain morality in a useful manner, because morality is only part logic, the rest is the intangibility of emotion we experience in the human condition.

If a guy doesn’t want a life of ruthless Machiavellianism and unbridled hedonism, that’s his choice. Just like going your own way, becoming a pick-up artist, or being a patriarch with a family is a choice men can make. None of these things are “right choices” in the universal sense but simply are what he believes to be “right” for him. As long as such a man understands that this won’t stop other people from living their lives differently, and that women are for all intent and purpose, immoral, he’s good. If he takes action to defend himself from people who respond only to incentives and disincentives, and ignore moral principles based upon justice/injustice, then he’s good.

3.) Bro-Knighting:

No matter how moral or immoral someone opts to be, people will always debate things to death in order to “demonstrate their superiority.” Most people who advocate for immoral behaviour don’t even have the conviction to call what they’re advocating for immoral. They know it’s immoral, they know fucking someone’s wife and breaking up that family is immoral. But they rather call it amoral and say “well she was going to ruin that marriage anyway.” “If he was alpha enough she wouldn’t be cheating on him, so he deserves it.” “I have no commitment to that other guy, I don’t even know him, so if his girl wants my dick, I’m going to press that.” If that doesn’t sound like bullshit to you, I don’t know what to say. This guy is complicit, he’s an accessory to a whore’s immorality, but because pussy is on offer, he doesn’t care.

When you try to rationalise that as amoral, “it’s all part of the game,” you care, a lot. You don’t want people to think of you as immoral, so you try to say it’s not good or bad but that it just simply “is.” That family falling apart, or a relationship falling apart isn’t your fault. If you give a girl dick who is in monogamy, that’s always immoral, because you violated another man’s rights.

In agreed monogamy, you have rights over exclusive sexual access, when those rights are breached, immorality has occurred. Now if you have an open relationship going on, and your girl fucks another guy, then you knew the score. You may be upset, but you weren’t betrayed. You were complicit. Complicit like the guy who knew he was fucking a taken girl, but whose horniness overrode any moral principles he may otherwise adhere to. Betrayal is the key act that evokes a need for revenge. When betrayal occurs, so does immorality.

“Bro-knighting” (a ridiculous term if I’ve ever heard one) is an issue of moral contention within the red pill subreddit. It is men of different conventional moral principles (and some without) essentially bickering what the right thing to do is when it comes to fucking a whore who is currently the sexual property of another man. I’m going to tell you now, I don’t think this philosophy can tell you what to do in such a situation. You have to figure that out for yourself. You have to decide whether the sex (the incentive) is worth sacrificing a personal principle for. Of course, if you have no principles and adhere to an immoral lifestyle that you describe as amoral, then you don’t have any principles to sacrifice because you’re beyond caring. This article is probably annoying the hell out of you. Good.

The red pill community can present balanced arguments, we can tell you the benefits of immorality (incentive) vs. the benefits of morality (principle,) and combined with your own pain and experiences you can make a choice on how you choose to live your life. Sometimes you may violate your own principles because you can’t keep your instincts in check, which you will regret afterwards. That’s to be expected, you’re fallible after all.

4.) Strategy and Fact is Amoral, Human Behaviour Isn’t:

Telling you how to fuck someone over, or otherwise unduly influence someone as a “sexual strategy” is amoral. Anything I write that provides you with knowledge, no matter how dubious sounding, is amoral. Because what you do with that knowledge determines its morality. The supply of knowledge is an amoral act, unless one provides said knowledge with a malicious intent. Even then, without adequate timing, the ill-intentioned supply of knowledge (eg: espionage) may not lead to immoral outcomes. Anyhow, I digress and wish to avoid such dense discussions within this piece. For all practical purposes, knowledge in and of itself is amoral. Using knowledge to infringe on someone else’s rights and cause them emotional pain? That is immoral. Every man must decide “do I want strong moral principles that I want to live by, or do I want to behave however I need to behave to get what I want?”

Neither is red or blue pill. It simply “is.” It is not as simple as “people who operate mostly on incentive are red pill, whilst people who operate mostly on principle are blue pill.” All choices and strategies are amoral, it’s the act itself, the intent behind the thinking that goes into the act (if any) and how it affects others which designates something moral, or immoral. People who have chosen immoral lifestyles often want to sell it as amoral. This is bullshit, it’s disingenuous. If you’re going to be immoral, own it, don’t act like folk with moral principles are “blue pillers” because even though they understand how fucked up the game is, they want to adhere to certain guiding moral principles in their life.

5.) Confusion Between Amorality & Delusion:

A lot of people in the red pill community confuse amorality with delusion. They are different things. Amorality is simply stating what works in a scientific and pragmatic manner. Delusion is believing in something that is not true. If you understand the game, but refuse to adapt to it, you are not “blue pill,” you are simply defiant, stubborn. Perhaps even self-righteous.

Some think that fucking a friend’s girlfriend, sister, or whatever is okay. That is fucked up shit. You don’t deserve a wolf pack when you’re pulling moves like that. Trust is a commodity. It is wisest to adhere to certain moral principles, whilst demanding others live up to the same moral principles. This ensures that the bond of trust is not broken, this is the premise almost all human cooperation is dependent upon. People who are constantly out for themselves end up alone, owing to an emphatic lack of trust on all sides. Minimal trust equates to numerous dysfunctional and fleeting relationships, for prosperity does not occur when everything must be circumspectly analysed.

6.) Trust:

Why do men instinctually almost have close to zero trust for women? Because we know they’re immoral creatures. We know they don’t give a fuck about men’s needs and that their needs are in diametric competition with man’s. Women must be regulated. If you’ve read red pill philosophy, you know women will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own well-being. They don’t have a higher mode of thought, they just run off biological programming and do whatever to “get theirs.” They ruin men without a flinch because hypergamy necessitates they replace the old guy with a shinier upgrade. One who earns more money and is fitter. Women aren’t loyal unless you’re powerful. A woman’s love is hyper-conditional, because unlike man’s it is parasitic rather than sacrificial.

You can call that amoral if there’s no malice behind it, but regardless, the pain it causes across society is anything but. We used to keep female behaviour in check with man’s sense of justice posing as divinely ordained, imposing this morality on society as a whole. But now men have lost control; female morality runs the show. So plenty of guys are adopting a feminine view of morality to “get ahead.” I learned to think like a Machiavellian because I had to. Not because I wanted to. I write about Machiavellianism to help men who have been where I was. A man with no power is often more contorted than a man with too much. It is important you know how to manoeuvre in the game.

7.) The Rationalism of Morality:

If you think morality is a wholly rational process, it isn’t. Even in the intellectualism of Nietzsche’s master-slave morality, or the Social Darwinism within Ragnar Redbeard’s “Might is Right,” you can detect a certain hatred and contempt for weakness. It is the contempt for weakness that inverses traditional morality as we know it. In fact, in a perverse way, I would say it is something akin to natural female morality. It seems all but apparent that hypergamy is the basis for female morality, that which enriches her being good, and that which doesn’t, bad. Hypergamy ignores other people’s need for justice and is entirely self-serving. Sound familiar? In a way one could say red pill philosophy is the female moral strategy applied to male interests.

Vice becomes virtue, and virtue becomes vice. Women are without honour unless they are taught and shamed into having some. They don’t possess the natural sense of honour that men do. Scarcely do women have strong moral convictions that don’t mirror those of the dominant social group influencing her. In this sense, no matter how plausible the typical woman’s convictions sound, they are sophist in nature, they are not hers. She is simply believing in what needs to be believed in to ensure her survival, be that to keep a high value partner, or to fit in with her social group. In this age of emasculation, however, more and more men are taking on female traits to “adapt” and “win.” As I said once before, Machiavellianism is a female instinct, and a male vocational art.

Any good behaviour women show is simply out of respect for the power they perceive you to have. Innately, as people, without being controlled, yes, subject to the control of a higher authority, they are feral. They don’t care about your opinion if they think you’re weak, no matter which charming social representative they send to greet you.

8.) Sex & Civilization:

Take a long hard look at the sordid state of affairs we call society today. The dysfunctionalism that runs rampant is the product of female sexuality, unoppressed, run amok. Corrupt the women and the men will follow, because when man loses control over female sexuality on a cultural level, he individually adapts himself to succeed within a feral mating climate.

That is what happens when we say “stop locking up your daughters and confining sex to marriage, let’s have a mass orgy.” Sex pushes people towards immorality to get an orgasm and feel powerful. The bonds of family, and thus civilization, are destroyed; one adulterous orgasm at a time. Sex is not all about release, at its murkiest, it’s about leverage and controlling another. This is a most potent form of power which is inextricably intoxicating to both sexes.

It is for this reason that religion emphasised limiting the supply of sex. It existed as a means to suppress female hypergamous, and male polygynous instincts. That way, men did not get abandoned when a woman found a superior provider. And women did not get abandoned or a diminished share of the resources when a man obtained the opportunity to mate with a woman of superior beauty.

9.) Incentive v. Principle – A Balancing Act:

Neither the immoral or the moral guy are really “right” in what they do. The immoral guy is “right” in the sense he optimises his behaviour to obtain the most incentives. Whilst the guy with strong principles is “right” in the sense that optimises his behaviour to cause the least necessary pain in the world. Necessary is highlighted, because if you have to steal or kill to save your own life, then to ensure your own survival such things become an exceptional necessity. These things aren’t absolutes, you will do moral and immoral things throughout your life. Sometimes you will chase incentive, other times you’ll listen to principle.

The sum of your actions, if available in complete list form would detail whether you gravitate towards your principles, or toward incentives. As much as people like to say “good” and “bad” are arbitrary, people who think this tend typically to be autistic or of high analytical intelligence. They are people who are able to think very abstractly in the philosophical sense. Such knowledge is, for all intents and purposes, completely irrelevant to your everyday social relationships. The other group who agree with this notion are the people who realise they lead immoral lifestyles, but are not comfortable with describing their choice of behaviour as such. Their ego does not permit such labelling, so they try to rationalise that how they live is “amoral, rather than immoral.” Everyone has a disposition toward behaving morally or immorally, don’t be fooled by the nonsense that they don’t. Whoever you meet, do your utmost to discern their leaning, and behave as you deem necessary.

Do I think the guy who leans more towards morality is blue pill or stupid? No. He is a man of principle. Choosing to have principles regardless of reality doesn’t make you blue pill. What makes you blue pill is not understanding the nature of the social paradigm we find ourselves in, and convincing yourself that attitudes and ideas that aren’t efficient, are. To simplify that notion, the blue pill is accepting dogma that does not effectively describe the social paradigm we find ourselves existing in.

If you understand the game and decide you’re going to be an upstanding guy, then as long as you understand what is going on and that other people aren’t necessarily playing the game the way you have chosen to play it, you will be fine. Half the battle is understanding how other people operate. When you know how the most ruthless operate, you don’t need to become them to lead a fruitful life. If you decide “fuck it” and live how you want to live in spite of the nature of the game, you’re not deluded. You understand the game, but simply refuse to become immoral in order to be more successful within it. You value your principles more than financial or sexual success. That is rare, but good for you. In a success driven capitalist culture people will view you as weak for making this choice, but it’s a mature decision most of us must make.

10.) In Closing:

Some of the people who follow this blog to read the more dubious things I write about will think I’m weak for expressing some of the opinions I have here. Respect is lost. Whatever. I don’t care. Screw your respect, I never asked for it, you gave it to me. Allow me to be an example of what I’m talking about. You have to stand up for what you believe in and argue it with as much earnestness and eloquence as you can muster.

The game is fucked up, I know that better than most. And trying to normalise betrayal, deceit and double-crossing as the status quo is indicative of that. It’s cultural regression.

I am blessed in the sense I have enough influence to give my opinions without having them immediately disregarded, because obviously I have “read the sidebar.” If a new guy said what I said, would anybody listen to him? I doubt it, he’d probably get shouted down. But then could he argue his position with the level of finesse that I can? I doubt that, too.

Don’t do everything red pill philosophy tells you to do. Honestly, pick and choose to apply what you read here as well as on the red pill subreddit. Don’t take everything we say as gospel. Yes sexual strategy is amoral in the most abstract, metaphysical and anthropological sense of the word, but don’t let that define your social morality. They are so far-removed from each other, you may as well describe the taste of food with maths; a most disingenuous of grounds to rationalise a position.

As much as dark triad theory helps one acquire incentives for instance, I don’t want to create a cult of sycophant wannabe psychopaths who are trying to medicate their pain and poverty through ruthlessness. I have had strange e-mails from men in the past who seem to think they can morph into Scarface and “wish to learn the dark arts.” You’ve been watching too much Harry Potter son. That’s not how it works. I typically fluctuate between hearty mocking laughter and passing concern when I receive such messages. If you’re one of those people, you need to seriously check yourself. Psychopathy is something you’re born with that is “cultivated” in your childhood. Narcissism and Machiavellianism on the other hand can be learned, so borrow from them should you wish to internalise aspects of the triad.

As with everything, moderation. Anything taken to its utmost extremity is insane. We’ve seen that with what feminism turned into.

11.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the USA
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the UK
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in Canada
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the USA
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the UK
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in Canada
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the USA

Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the UK
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in Canada