The Red Pill is Intolerant of Irrationalism and “Equality”

The red pill is a philosophy based upon a set of observations which emphasises the utilisation of logic as a tool for explaining the reality around us, as such it is accepting of many ideas and stances, however one thing it is most decidedly not accepting of is ideology which presents a faux sense of egalitarianism out of unsubstantiatable idealism, such ideology operates on poorly constructed reasoning and it is for this reason alone that the ideology in question is unilaterally rejected by the red pill, the most prominent of said rejected ideology of course being that of feminism.

Feminism and irrationalism tend to go hand in hand, this is the core basis behind why feminism is prominently rejected by red pill philosophy, however the relationship between irrationalism and feminism is not exclusive, any position which is not backed by solid logical reasoning is ultimately rejected by red pill philosophy. Fallacious ideology such as feminism, which often makes demands and claims of strength when something is to be gained for the ideology whilst equally (pardon the pun) claiming weakness when something else can be gained for the ideology, is an ideology that we can only reject as being philosophically absurd and thus rationally incoherent.

Feminist rationalism lays in its consistency: it entrenches its ideology by making successful power grabs, this is rational and consistent of any ideology, its irrationalism however lays in the arguments it presents (its methodology) in executing these power grabs, and it’s the fallibility of the methodology which exposes the ideology as being fraudulent. You cannot argue “different but equal” and claim weakness where it benefits you (divorce laws/appeals to tradition – argumentum ad antiquitatem) but simultaneously claim equality to be benefitted in other areas (job opportunities/sexual “liberation” – rejection of tradition) and not expect your system of thought to be deemed deliberately hypocritical, implausible and fallacious in nature by those of rational mind.

The red pill is poignantly anti-egalitarian, incorporating a self-improvement approach built upon self-reliance and personal accountability to one’s self, the red pill is pro-meritocratic rather than pro-egalitarian, some members still hold out hope for egalitarianism, but those are the few who hold on to idealism and dewy-eyed dreams of a better tomorrow, it is an idealist notion that goes against everything the environment teaches us and essentially what the red pill as a philosophy and a collective believes in. We’re a hierarchical species, women attach themselves to powerful men and weak men get left with nothing, that’s how it is, and no amount of rationalisation or declarative to the contrary will change such a notion. Egalitarianism is a mythological idea that has been co-opted in all its incredible irony to benefit a privileged subsection of the population, mainly, those who identify as feminist and utilise its power and influence to get ahead.

I’m an intellectual myself, but I embrace pragmatism and realism, that is to say, to see things for what they are and form opinion as well as a mode of operation based upon the nature of my environment, when I say “nature of my environment” I refer to the most logical method of interpreting my immediate reality, that is to say how it functions at the bare bones, not the illusion or lick of paint that “civilized society” glosses over it to make realities harshness seem more palatably accessible; and most definitely not the perceived nature that propaganda and cultural indoctrination commands that one should perceive. It is thus that when a fellow intellectual starts espousing idealistic nonsense about fairness, cohesiveness and equality I simply cannot be bothered to engage with such a buffoon, literally, for what is the umpteenth time, in debunking this completely unsubstantiated line of Mickey Mouse reasoning that the person in question has been indoctrinated with.

Through encountering many people who are indoctrinated with politically correct/feminist dogma, I’ve learnt to assess when my mental faculty and logic will be wasted in argument, if I assess that someone is not sufficiently open-minded or will be far too ruthlessly demanding of my mental faculty (E.g.: claims they want to be convinced of my position and that it is merely up to me to adequately justify my position, but is seemingly already combative, very intellectually stubborn and resistant in opening up to my line of reasoning regardless of its logical validity) then I deduce the endeavour is a bad use of my time and I refrain from discourse.

Ultimately, the type of person I have just described is the type of person who finds themselves incredibly disappointed in life. They do not live in reality, they live in a projection of fantasy of which they have convinced themselves is a tangible possibility, they overlook much and rationalise that which they do not overlook in order to reconcile fantasy into a form of digestible “truth”, this “truth” not being truth in the truest sense but rather a subjectively flawed interpretation of truth that is held as being a fair representation of “the truth”, when in reality such ideas of “what the truth really is” are far removed from anything close to indicative of the human experience.

These people are what we call ‘bluepillers.’ These are the people we (believers of red pill philosophy) do not tolerate sharing their views, their views lack value to us because they are based in what we perceive to be fantasy rather than reality. The #1 rule of the red pill community is that if you’re going to talk, it better not be with bullshit. If you talk with bullshit, you will not be tolerated. Just because we have a succinct stern posture on this doesn’t mean we’re a community of dim-witted handymen limited to speaking in “straighttalk”, what it means is that we’re accustomed to dealing with the truth and anything that carries the potential to be perceived as a possible truth regardless of whether rhetoric is used to present such truth, or not.

Many times someone with an above average ability to argue the semantics out of something will come onto the red pill subreddit, nit-pick at a crevice in an argument, and take part in what I like to refer to as “academic antagonism” by arguing possibilities, definitions and all sorts of tangential pedantry in order to chip away at a position through a bombardment of questioning that can only be described accurately as inquisition. Ultimately it always concludes with the bigotry that in the absence of evidence (a scientific study which they find to be of repute) that the hypothesis must be deduced false/incorrect. The irony to this is, science sets to either prove or disprove the hypothesis but claims no certainty until either has been achieved, these people use the absence of scientific proof to say the hypothesis must be wrong, this is a hasty generalisation, as there is no proof here to say these things are wrong and the scientific method has not debunked them as much. It is quite hilarious when ‘bluepillers’ and red pill critics alike think the absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself that something is wrong by the merit of being unproven, they irrationally conflate the state of being “unproven by scientific study” as being “disproven by the absence of scientific study” this is fallacious thinking, ultimately the absence of evidence means that something has neither been proven nor disproven, however the person positing the hypothesis has a predilection or leaning in one direction or the other as a hypothesis must usually take a position in order to be tested (especially common in the realm of the social sciences).

Much of the hypothesis within red pill philosophy is based upon social observation, it is not completely unsubstantiated and made-up, sure it is subjective and not subject to scientific rigour, many things are not, we don’t all exist in an academic bubble that is the educational establishment, it is simply elitist to deduce that if an idea does not stem from academia, that it is not credible and is to be immediately disregarded, I see this argumentum ab auctoritate all the time from people on Reddit, especially our detractors, when you corroborate many similar observations across a vast cross-section of the population from multiple cities and nations of similar culture, plausible sentiments start to overwhelmingly present themselves as ideas which demand respect regardless of whether the scientific powers that be will confirm or deny such observations by giving them validity via the academic process and the educational institutions.

What one needs to be very aware of is that, in the market of free ideas, educational establishments have become increasingly politicised, they are not the objective bastions of free thought that they claim to be, if you’re not allowed to oppose an ideology in the realm of so-called intellectuals, then said establishment can hardly claim to be objective or really intellectual in the truest meaning of the word. Institutionalising feminism is like institutionalising religion, it is subjective, intellectually dishonest and inconsiderate of those who do not follow, conform or otherwise abide to said belief system.

What one must be aware of is that the institutions of education themselves are pro-feminist environments, this essentially politicises the administration of the educational environment and the social science faculty therein with ideology that holds their respective disciplines hostage to the tenets of its belief system, rather than promote the legitimacy of objective scientific processes. You must then must bear in mind how many professors and lecturers start to identify as being feminist, it is then that you start to build up of a picture of just how many of these people in fact cannot profess to be teachers in the objective sense of the manner as they infuse their teachings with their personal values and beliefs, passing their bias off as “education” when the intellectuals among us in the truest sense of the word, those with a critical mind, are capable of piercing the veil and seeing this display of bullshit for what it really is, a farce.


  1. Great post. Things got a bit hairy when you said:

    “the absence of evidence means that something has neither been proven nor disproven”

    Absence of evidence in this/your context means that the hypothesis has not yet been evaluated/studied. That does not mean that there is no evidence. (You might want to change your wording a bit)

    If something has been studied then an absence of evidence to support the hypothesis absolutely negates it.

    Ultimately, your point is spot on. Absence of study (not absence of evidence) is insufficient to negate a hypothesis. People make this argument often when attempting to counter Red Pill ideas, and it’s a classic ‘Appeal to Authority” fallacy.


  2. You may need an editor, because a lot of this was really rough to read, especially your section that starts with “I’m an intellectual myself…” and continues with run-on sentences and strange phrases. You’re trying to side like Heidegger and missing the mark by a lot.

    Also, it doesn’t make sense. You say that

    “Much of the hypothesis within red pill philosophy is based upon social observation, it is not completely unsubstantiated and made-up, sure it is subjective and not subject to scientific rigour,”

    And then comment with

    “Institutionalising feminism is like institutionalising religion, it is subjective, intellectually dishonest and inconsiderate of those who do not follow, conform or otherwise abide to said belief system.”

    So one form of subjectivity is correct but another isn’t?


    1. “You may need an editor”

      I wrote this awhile ago, I’ll take another look. I may have accidentally posted a rough copy in haste thinking it was the final copy.

      >So one form of subjectivity is correct but another isn’t?

      Subjectivity is as correct or valid as it is helpful. If something is helpful it is generally considered correct, although it may not be simultaneously truthful. A culturally institutionalised ideology which endeavours to permeate all of societies elite institutions has more burden to be correct, verifiable and trustworthy than a fringe internet philosophy based on sexual dynamics and the self. Furthermore like religion, feminism never proved itself with the scientific method, it came into cultural hegemonic power in the same way that religion did, through the hysteria of protest and inculcation. If you can point to a study pre-feminist dominance which demonstrates that the adoption of feminism for society would be a good thing, I’d very much like to see it. Seeing as the red pill is not a culturally institutionalised set of ideas, I cannot judge it as such, for that would be a hypothetical speculative comparison and not one grounded in tangibility.


    2. I agree completely with Wowzer, especially on the author making one form of subjectivity seem valid and another invalid. It is basically using the exact same hypocritical reasoning feminists and makes us look really bad.

      I would fix this by saying the redpill isn’t subjective, it is objective because it is based on logical reasoning.

      But to say a lack of evidence directly supporting the redpill is not a reason to invalidate it is a weak thing to say. Primarily because it is exactly what a feminist could say if you ever try to invalidate feminism. Also, lack of evidence really is evidence in itself in many cases.

      We have to remember that the people attacking the redpill will need exceptionally strong arguments to cause them to scurry away.

      And not to be annoying, but it is true what the other commenters said, this is one of the more poorly written pieces on this site. I would challenge yourself to send the same message with half the words. It is an excellent editing strategy when writing persuasive pieces. It forces you to choose every word and sentence very carefully and really makes you think about what is a legitimate point, and what is fluff or redundant. First start by shortening words, if there is an easier word that says the same thing, use it, always use the easier words. Then try to shorten sentences. A lot of sentences are run on, they either say the same thing twice or two different things. Then try to shorten the paragraphs by removing entire sentences.

      I promise you, if you seriously try to shorten this b 50%, it will come out much stronger and better written.


      1. It’s not just this article, it’s much of my older stuff. If you go to the archives pages and read the third sentence you will see I am in the process of polishing my older content. I wrote this 18 months ago and have improved much as a writer since then. Balancing the editing process of old articles with the consistent creation of new pieces is laborious, but I endeavour to eventually complete the task. Essentially, this is something I’m already aware of and will rectify in due time. Nevertheless, I appreciate the depth of your comment so thank you for the feedback.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s