Applying The Red Pill: An Analysis

Applying The Red Pill: An Analysis

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” – Douglas Adams

1.) Introduction
2.) Leave Her Better Than You Found Her…?
3.) The Predatory Minority
4.) Take What Works, Discard What Doesn’t
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

The red pill is not infallible, rather it is a male-centric analysis into the nature of men and women. It ignores moral considerations because morality impinges on the capacity to discover truth, but disrespect for virtuousness in pursuit of truth does not mean an unvirtuous life is being advised. It is not ruled out, but neither is it advised. It is up to you, a reader of red pill philosophy, to make that choice; the philosophy cannot make that choice for you.

Moral arguments cannot be dismissed as much as they can be rebutted, anybody can say “X is wrong” but what they really mean is “X doesn’t work for me.” I am incredibly capable of listening to entire counterarguments, I will even agree with many of an argument’s pointed critique of my views, but ultimately nine times out of ten I will still retain my stance in spite of an enhanced understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Arguments (proper debates, not Machiavellian point scoring) are a great way to learn from others, so if you enjoy listening to logic as well as learning, they’re a wholly pleasurable activity in and of themselves.

Great minds often pick holes in one another’s views, come to understand one another better, but do not change their position. To shift position, a view has to be demonstrated to be fundamentally incorrect. One’s preferences for particular kinds of conduct do not disprove a line of reasoning, they merely ignore them in favour of something intuited to be more preferable, often, that means self-serving. However, and this is important to emphasise: one man’s best move can be another man’s worst. The reason for this? Not all men have equal capabilities, and therefore, equal options conferring mutually beneficial outcomes.

This is exactly why the red pill is more a philosophy (or praxeology) than it is a movement or religion. Movements and religions confer little liberty in regard to individualist morality coexisting within their framework, they command and state in a rather absolutist manner. This provides security and well-being to the less intellectually endowed seeking comfort within reality; it allows them to feel as if they “have figured everything out” and thereby live functionally in a manner conducive to clean mental health. But naturally, to the more intellectually curious, this falls short.

This blog consists of my opinions, the matter-of-fact articulation doesn’t make any of it irrefutably infallible perfect fact.

In all things the truth lies somewhere in the middle, unless we are talking mathematics there is no “all” and there is no “never”, merely there are varying degrees of probability which measure the likelihood of a specific outcome. Generally, when we use the word “never” we mean “almost never” and by “always” we mean “almost always”, it is a by-product of ego that we often omit such clarification as we believe the fact it is ‘almost always’ or ‘almost never’ should be self-apparent. Of course, to the less knowledgeable among us, this is typically not the case.

2.) Leave Her Better Than You Found Her…?:

The manospherian adage “leave her better than you found her” is not something I would expect a guy who had to endure a horrible, detached mother in childhood to listen to or respect. He will always, in his own way, be raging against women as a result of the impact his rather callous monstrosity of a mother had upon him.

His experiences leave him unable to take utility from the adage, he may scoff or be outright offended by the notion and declare it nonsensical; this is an outcome of the experience which shapes his individual morality. He’ll hear this adage and think “that’s so blue pill, if I want to face fuck barely legal girls in abandoned barns, I will.” But just because raging against women works well for him, and to accept this adage would fundamentally undermine his effectiveness, it does not mean it would work well and bolster the effectiveness of all men.

Men raised in a climate of hate will be more comfortable with hate, just as men raised in a climate of care will be more comfortable with care. Adult conduct is no more than a social adaptation to childhood experience, varying experiences means varying views.

Men who are otherwise less psychologically violent raised by kinder mothers are not going to agree with the gentleman that had a terrible childhood; in reference to the adage they’ll think “that sounds good, no point making enemies unless absolutely necessary, if I leave on a positive that relationship could yield further fruit down the line.”

If I had led my whole life preying on people to great effect, and I read an article quite cogently articulating how this is undesirable, even if I agreed rationally this was wrong, emotionally I would not. Morality requires the heart to be moved in order to change. I would intellectually agree with the argument whilst simultaneously exempting myself from its conclusion. Hypocritical? Surely, but that’s what people are; they do what works for them in spite of what their intellect compels them to recognise as right.

If you have found a way to live that works for you, you can agree on principle with someone else’s views even when said views undermine how you choose to live your life. The logic can be wonderful, you can enjoy their thought process, but ultimately it is not going to change one bit how you live because how you live is what you’re comfortable with.

And this is what people who become contorted do to survive, they consciously choose predation because predation was deemed their only chance to survive. People are a reflection of their life experiences more than they’ll ever be a reflection of what they read on a blog. Of course there’s a difference between a man who does what has to be done regardless of whether he enjoys or even agrees with it, and a man who enthusiastically enjoys active predation. I believe I stated something to this effect in a previous piece, although the precise quote and essay eludes me. Nevertheless, this much is clear: what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

3.) The Predatory Minority:

Natural dark triads are intraspecies apex predators by presence of attachment disorder and a proclivity for violence, be that physical or mental. Such individuals are a minority specifically because society would cease to function should they be a majority. Therefore it is folly to teach the ways of predators to everybody, and furthermore expect them all to transform into predators.

I specifically write about the dark triad because I believe it’s important knowledge, it is not a recommendation nor an endorsement. At no point do I give instruction, I elucidate with insight and no more. I believe in your right to knowledge no matter how seemingly distasteful or verboten it is in character, but ultimately what you do with that knowledge is your choice.

A society full of predators does not last long, in any flourishing ecosystem there are always fewer predators than there is prey. The number of prey available directly affects the number of predators which can be sustained, the less prey there is, the less predators there are. Not everybody can be dark triad, but everybody can glean great knowledge and therefore increased personal power from studying it.

Predators always look down on prey, but predators are reliant on prey for their survival. In this way there is a perverse co-dependency in spite of the in-group/out-group psychology which philosophically polarises the morality of predators with the morality of prey. The morality of predators is “exploit wherever possible whilst preventing reprisal”, the morality of prey is “do unto others as they do unto you”.

4.) Take What Works, Discard What Doesn’t:

For every person mindlessly hanging onto every word I write, there is another who rejects much, yet still appreciates the line of reasoning and way of articulation in which the words are presented. Audiences are diverse, in fact one of the men kind enough to financially support my writing informed me he disagrees with much I say – yet appreciates it enough to fund it. You have answer seekers who want you to think for them, and then you have people who simply enjoy exposing themselves to a cogent chain of thought. The disagreeable conclusion matters less when one enjoys the process in which it is reached.

I share this appreciation, for example I disagree with much popular Youtuber Stefan Molyneux says, specifically in reference to his views on virtue, women, and the use of corporal punishment, but nevertheless I still very much enjoy his reasoning process, and therefore respect him as a thinker in spite of our differences in opinion.

When it comes to the red pill or anything for that matter, you should take what works and discard what doesn’t. Realise that whenever you read something, even if its backed by scientific data that specifically supports the argument, the data used to support an argument has almost always been hand-picked with that argument in mind. Scientific studies are no more infallible than the agenda of the funding source (the study’s reason for existing) as well as how results are interpreted and applied. Science is easily corrupted or obfuscated, any funding for specific desire of outcome, or any social politics which infect academia easily undermine the neutrality, and therefore applicability of the results.

Not all opinions are equal, some are closer to truth than others, some are better thought and better articulated than others, but opinions are no more than opinions. This blog is a collection of opinions. I was once asked “how I can be so sure about what I say when not everything I say can surely be fact?”. This blog is the sum of my opinions; I am sure of what I say because I find no superior alternative, I accept my conclusions are not perfect truth in so much as they are superior albeit flawed renditions of it.

It is your duty to yourself to adopt opinions you believe and discover will benefit you, whilst respectfully disagreeing with those that are no help and outright discarding those that would hinder you. The quest for truth and the quest for happiness are mutually exclusive, rightfully as the bible asserts “for with much wisdom comes much sorrow”, and therefore if happiness is your goal, bias towards a way of being which promotes self-happiness becomes unavoidable.

Remember, you only left wonderland because wonderland failed to keep you happy. Had it kept you happy, you’d still be there. Not because you couldn’t escape if you put your mind to it, but because when a dream is enjoyable, one wishes not to open their eyes.

5.) In Closing:

Amongst the discussion had by red pill readers and writers, somewhere in the middle of it all is a perfect truth in reference to the nature of women. However this truth, even if we could grasp it, is so nuanced, intangible and inconceivably complex that it defies measurement and summation. One should not search for perfect truth, because there is no such thing present within the limits of human understanding. As such, one would do well to understand that the red pill is not a perfect truth in so much as it is a sufficient one.

Realise people are shaped by the sum of their life experiences, and this in turn dictates their personal morality. It is due to the experiences of many thousands of men that the red pill has been able to uncover the threads of truth pertaining to the relationship between men and women. Truly, no one man could ever hope to develop such an advanced understanding by himself. Your application of this knowledge is a choice only you can make, use what works, discard what doesn’t, and come to your own conclusions. Toe-a-line or toe no line, the red pill doesn’t care.

6.) Relevant Reading:

The spiritual predecessor to the article pre-dating this one can be found here – I wholly recommend it.

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

If you have a problem you wish to discuss with IM, you can [seek a consultation here]

17 thoughts on “Applying The Red Pill: An Analysis

  1. Beautifuly written. It was a pleasure to read but I would have said it with much fewer words. I get the feeling that you partly write for the sake of writing.

  2. “Red Pill” being the collective knowledge of the manosphere can IMO only be descriptive and neither prescriptive nor normative. It is then only mandatory when one wants to get certain results out of one’s life.

    “Red Pill” can serve as a guide through life. It’s ignored at one’s own peril in the same way as one would better use calculus to guide the design of an airplane wing. Ignore calculus and see what wing you get, ignore RP and see what life you get.

    1. Agreed that “it’s descriptive not prescriptive” sure, we make generic recommendations “lift, approach, read” which in and of themselves are prescriptions, but beyond that how one approaches life is a completely independent choice. The “what” is often the same, but the “how” or the “why” isn’t. You can lift in many different ways, for health or for vanity. You can read many different books, for learning or to increase vocabulary. Shit’s nuanced!

      Also, great analogy.

      1. My grandfather used to make my mother read a dictionary for half an hour every school evening.
        She spent a lifetime escaping scholarly pursuits. wry laugh
        Part of the enjoyment of the TRP lies with the varied backgrounds of its writers, so that again exploration of nature versus nurture wends its way.

  3. Illimitable,

    When talking about personality types it seem more fluid. There would be no apex predator but the best performing dark triad–even that grows weary of winning all the time… the masochistic side of sadism then comes into play. All others would switch to prey mentality beneath bigger fish. In fact, unless I’m just high mach myself, I find I aalmost always do if the situation suits it–I can’t imagine and don’t see anyone else behaving any other way.(a big part of game seems to be giving the false hope you’re somehow the only one impervious to switching) I only treat others as I wish to be treated when I can’t enforce my wishes upon them or I have no interest in what they have to offer but a passing pleasant interaction to balance out my psyche.

    Am I mistaken?

    Another thought: could there be an alternative to predator or prey mentality? Partner mentality perhaps? How would that go? “Cooperate for however long there’s mutually assured destruction then refer to above mentalities”?


  4. This post clears up two things I’ve been confused about in trying to understand the world of the red pill. I really love a lot of what I read on good red pill blogs and feel like it’s one of the few remaining streams of modern thought on gender that is actually based in reality, beauty and truth.

    It’s been hard for me to understand the varying levels of contempt for women though because it’s not something I see in the masculine men who are around me in “real life”, and while I hear and connect with frustrations about feminism, divorce, the feminine imperative, etc, again that’s not something I see the masculine men around me really having strong emotional reactions to at all so I have been trying to understand. I have not thought to tie it to cold, detached or controlling mothers the way you have but that makes a TON of sense as part of what that emotion is about.

    Also, by defining the red pill as male-centric analysis of male and female nature you’ve helped me understand the resistance to female involvement in the red pill. If the red pill is defined simply as that which wakes one up to reality, I didn’t understand the resistance to female involvement or even acceptance and support (since reality is something women are very much a part of too). But if it’s a male-centric philosophy, it makes complete since that many would not even want female support because that could sink the whole ship.

    Though… I think reality IS male-centric for women too, and that’s part of what makes red pill wisdom so real.

    1. “It’s been hard for me to understand the varying levels of contempt for women ….”

      Leelee, the varying levels of contempt for women that you observe in many men might be an effect of some of topics you touch upon in your blog (yes, I clicked on your avatar and read some of your posts). Namely, the overwhelming number of women these days who refuse to act ‘feminine’ and with a degree of submissiveness in relation to men, having been brainwashed and shamed into believing that such natural female behavior is weak, oppressive, and verboten. Many men are just sick and tired of it and have become jaded, which manifests as contempt.

      It’s a mirror image of women being frustrated by and contemptuous of weak men. I believe men become weak as a result of modern female behavior and feminist conditioning. There isn’t enough bandwidth for two masculine-acting people in a relationship, and it doesn’t seem women are backing down any time soon; their behavior is reinforced and backed up by the media and society, while men have no such reinforcement (save for the manosphere, which is like a candle, compared to the mainstream media’s floodlight). It takes a Herculean effort for a man to, 1) open his eyes to what’s being purveyed in the media/society (take the Red Pill); 2) internalize it; 3) generate the ability to overcome it in the face of overwhelming pressure pushing in the opposite direction from Nature’s Truth.

      If the horse refuses to take to the reigns, it’s a painful and time-consuming proposition to attempt to break it. Contempt flows from frustration.

    2. Some men do fine, basically by accident. Many do not. The men who do fine have no need to inquire into anything — they have no need to understand a situation, since their present level of understanding doesn’t create any problems (for now).

      I don’t think misogyny is a natural state for most men. But it is becoming that, in a society where fewer and fewer men fit into the “doing fine” category. We live in a deeply feminized society where manhood is variously ridiculed, despised, denigrated, and misunderstood.

      To seize one’s own masculinity in those conditions is a herculean effort. And no matter how determined you are to overcome the obstacles, the number and ubiquity of those obstacles will inevitably lead to frustration, anger, and more.

    3. On the contempt for women:
      1) The author already nailed 1/2 of the question. Mothers and early childhood contribute to a lot of it. The other half is comprised of men who had good/decent childhoods, but had their heart shattered to bits by girlfriends/wives who they deeply trusted. Believe it or not, men CAN (and often do) feel very deeply about things. My hypothesis is that men are far more reluctant to emotionally invest in things and people, but when they do, they’re fucking serious as shit about it. So when a man emotionally invests in a woman, and she stomps on his heart, it can be extremely traumatic. Women, on the other hand, are far more willing and able to emotionally invest in MANY things. As a result, women are more likely to build a “tolerance” to emotional heartache over time that facilitates a speedy recovery from breakups. An analogy: A boxer is going to be able to shake off a blow to the head a lot quicker than someone who has only been in a few fistfights.

      When you see anger towards women on the RedPill, it’s because many (most) of those guys had their hearts broken by women and were absolutely shocked by the experience. They naively assumed the women they were involved with fit the “loving, nurturing, eternally loyal” stereotype perpetuated in our culture. They were shocked by how quickly women could turn cold and just “switch off” to them, as if their relationship meant nothing. The RedPill is basically a rehab center for suckers who couldn’t intuitively figure out the game on their own.

      Male-Centric aspect:
      2) I think the only reason RedPill is considered male-centric is because most RedPillers don’t trust women to provide clear, honest insight into the female psyche. The entire RedPill movement is predicated on the assumption that women are almost incapable of objectively discerning and systematizing their own psychological makeup, tendencies, and motives. Thus, when a woman tells a man what she wants [out of a man/relationship], a RedPiller is going to interpret her answer as an arbitrary preference that’s rooted in an underlying principle she isn’t aware of herself. Is this fair? Sometimes no. But I think on average, this is a pretty close approximation of the truth. If you look at the scientific research into female attraction, you’ll quickly notice researchers struggle to find consistent “patterns” in female attraction. This is because the female subjects aren’t able to typically articulate the underlying basis for why they consider certain men attractive or not. Their answers are always, “well, I think [x] is cute about him” or “I like it when guys say [x].” Guys, on the other hand, are pretty simple to figure out. It’s more straight forward. Guys are static, whereas women are eternally dynamic (emotions and preferences constantly shifting based on a multitude factors they aren’t fully aware of).

      All this ambiguity leaves room for movements like the RedPill to spring up and start connecting the dots researchers aren’t able to connect themselves.

      In short, since RedPill considers itself a reality-based movement, and since it considers women unable (or unlikely) to see the basic reality of their own nature, it concludes that women are of little use to the movement, apart from bringing RedPill insight into their own female circles. Women may APPROPRIATE RedPill theory, but it’s unlikely women can CONTRIBUTE to RedPill theory.

  5. Outstanding article, and one I recommend without reservation.

    You make a fascinating point, and one supported from other sources:

    “One’s preferences for particular kinds of conduct do not disprove a line of reasoning, they merely ignore them in favour of something intuited to be more preferable, often, that means self-serving. However, and this is important to emphasise: one man’s best move can be another man’s worst. The reason for this? Not all men have equal capabilities, and therefore, equal options conferring mutually beneficial outcomes.”

    I call your attention to this:

    “…it is scant wonder that some experts have concluded that the concept of psychopathy, as commonly understood, is disturbingly problematic: a ‘mythical entity’ and ‘a moral judgment masquerading as a clinical diagnosis’.” (Blackburn, 1988, p. 511)

    The weak who fear to change their weakness, deride the strong for their strength. The weak who do not fear change, transform themselves to a state of increased capacity.

    I concur readily with your accurate theory of peak predator population.

    It is, after all, one of the joys in life.



  6. It was a very enjoyable read, but in the “leave her better than you found her” section i have to disagree. I disagree with the point you made that no man who comes from an uncaring mother, would off-hand due to the trails of their early years, agree with someone who had the opposite. I disagree because i was effected by this very thing, and in reading yes i saw a lot of myself, just less violent. To say though that one could never un-train their brain from this type of behavior is just not true. It is absolutely a very difficult thing to do, because first off one needs to be able to see past the example of a woman that was set for them. In doing so one needs to confront what their mother did to them, confront the fact that it wasn’t their fault. and understand that regardless of how unfair it was that she more than likely saw some of the same as a child. Which proves you point, just in terms of the transferring of familial experiences. What i found to impede that and to change that was really just to find the morality in the entire situation, because a person could never see past trauma such as that if they can not first see the wrong in what caused the trauma. It’s a simple concept, but a difficult process.
    One must constantly remind them-self of their individual, and that you can be a blank slate if you keep yourself there. My mother tormented me, and i did hate women for a long time in some sense of the word, but the individual is always capable of rationalizing the logical path for themselves if they so choose to seek it, and simply adhere to whats known. Do i still flinch every time my wife wipes me cheek, yes. But in that i know the flinch isn’t because of how women are, and that it is because of how one woman was.

Leave a Reply