“The Believers” vs. The Empiricists

I’ve been meaning to do a post about this for a while now, and given the present ideological schism in the Manosphere (still searching for a better term) I thought reposting this would be relevant to the discussion. This is from an old Purple Pill Debate thread on Reddit. I was made aware of it by Rian Stone about a year ago and I’ve returned to it often enough in commentary and Tweets that I felt it deserved a post and a discussion of its own here.

Now, I understand that the definitions of what constitutes a red pill understanding versus a blue pill outlook are always going to be subjective to the individual guy. The “red pill” and the “blue pill” have become so distorted recently that as terms, as loose brands, they’ve become effectively meaningless. Anyone who reads my work or has heard me opine about these terms already grasps what my own interpretations are. However, far too many disingenuous actors have entered this community of late and all have an interest in shifting those definitions to cater to their pet ideology. In fact, converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.

All this redefining has done is (deliberately) confuse the purpose of understanding gender interrelations by inserting ideology into the mix. Often this is an effort at reprioritizing how interpreting intersexual dynamics ought to discussed. Most often it’s a conflict of the ‘correct’ way of approaching the interpreting of observable facts & data. So moralists believe in one goal for the interpretation while objectivists see another. The result is we talk past one another. Then one disavows the other, goes off to broadcast what he thinks is truth – according to their origination premise – and builds a brand based on that redefinition of “the red pill” according to them.

You’ll get a better understanding here (emphasis my own):

__________________________________________________________

Red Pill and Blue Pill people end up talking past each other because they cannot even agree on what they should be debating about. The sets of values they hold are completely disjointed. They cannot even agree on what a “debate” is, and what the goals of a “debate” are.

Red Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

  • They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.
  • They believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists.
  • They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
  • They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.

Blue Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

  • They believe that reality is subjective, and what is “true” is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called “truth” is simply a codification of someone’s perspective, and it is therefore pointless to argue about what is “true“. They are factual relativists.
  • They believe that there is exactly one set of moral laws, which human beings have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection (or degeneration). Certain people are ethically better or worse based not only on what they do, but also on what they believe. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.
  • They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.
  • They believe that debates are a competitive process between two people, who each have the goal of establishing their views about right and wrong by attaining a state of moral ascendancy over the other person. They believe that anyone who changes their views is revealing a flaw in their moral character (because their previous views were not morally correct), and must thereafter relinquish the moral high ground and submit their actions to the moral judgement of others (usually the person who won the debate). They believe debates occur between people, not ideas, for the precise purpose of establishing who should be allowed to set standards for the behavior of others (because they are morally superior). Thus, questioning someone’s character is not only relevant, it’s the whole point.

This is why Blue Pill adherents think “those Red Pill guys” are “misogynists” or bad people. Because they cannot imagine an analysis that does not occur for the purposes of judgement, much less one that doesn’t include any idea about what people “should” do.

This is why the Red Pill insists that the Blue Pill are willfully blind. Because, to them, anyone who doesn’t admit the truth must be unable to perceive it. They cannot imagine anyone not caring what the truth is.

This is why Blue Pillers keep thinking that Red Pillers are trying to restore the Dark Ages. They cannot imagine any group with shared views not having one moral agenda that they wish everyone to abide by.

This is why Red Pillers think that Blue Pill adherents must be hopelessly bad at understanding human social structures. They cannot imagine anyone not wanting to do things in the most effective possible way.

Here’s an example of this kind of misunderstanding in action:

Here we see an interaction between RP and BP regarding age of consent laws.

  • RP’s primary objective to propose an algorithm for making legal judgements about consent or lack of it, which he believes will best serve what the majority of people desire to see these laws do. He looks at the issue as an engineering problem, and he proposes a solution.
  • BP’s objective is to establish whether or RP is a bad person. If he can be gotten to agree to a statement which BP thinks of as diagnostic of “evilness”, then the debate can be won, and anything RP says can thereafter be dismissed as originating from an evil person.
  • BP says “All this so you can justify getting laid.”. BP thinks RP is trying to “justify” something according a set of moral rules, because to BP, every act has a moral valance, and anyone who wishes to do anything must at least be ready with a moral excuse.
  • RP has been arguing, meanwhile, about which metaphors best illustrate human social and mating dynamics. RP does not address the issue of right or wrong at all, and seems to believe BP is engaging with him on factual level.

Thus RP and BP cannot even agree on what the argument is about.

RP thinks right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and BP doesn’t care what the facts are.

__________________________________________________________

I imagine the discussion thread for this post is going to get pretty heated. However, I want to point out that a lot of what I’m seeing in the Manosphere at present is rooted in factual relativists attempting to establish what the “Red Pill” ought to mean to people, and thereby redefining it to suit their goals of couching any objective discussion in moralist terms.

What’s happening is that factual relativists want the Red Pill to be about what’s right or wrong according to their ideological bent. So they will bend over backwards to reinterpret what is actually an objectivist exploration of intersexual dynamics to fit their ‘interpretive headspace’ – or they will simply write off the Red Pill wholesale and say “Those Red Pill guys are just bitter, negative, misogynists” without a hint of their own irony.

Example: The realities of Hypergamy aren’t right or wrong, they simply are. In any of my numerous essays outlining Hypergamy, and for all my attempts to dispel the misconceptions about it, I’ve never once stated that Hypergamy was ‘evil‘ or that women’s nature is evil because of it. It’s simply a reproductive strategy that manifests per the realities of women’s nature and needs.

The factual relativists responds to this in two ways: First, is the nihilistic approach (Black Pill if you must) – Hypergamy conflicts with their personal interests and ideological bent. Thus, Hypergamy, or women’s inability (or choice) to police it for their betterment, or humanity’s betterment are evil. Second, is the approbation approach – “You talk about Hypergamy too much (or at all), it must be because you’re fundamentally a bad, damaged, morally compromised person.”

A debate never really occurs between these headspaces because the goals of the debate are never the same. Now, add to all this that factual relativists are appropriating the ‘red pill’ as their own “Brand of Me” and building revenue streams around their ideological interpretation of its original intent. Any counter argument proffered by factual absolutists is not only a challenge to their ego-investments, it’s also interpreted as an attack on their livelihoods.

In 2015 and again in 2018 I made this point:

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

Unfortunately, this is where we are at today in the modern ‘Manosphere‘. The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists; whose livelihoods are now dependent upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those they broadcast it to.

So, I become a ‘Cult Leader‘ because their minds can only think in terms of ideology. Again, the factual relativist never leaves the ideological Frame in which they believe the debate takes place.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

260 comments on ““The Believers” vs. The Empiricists

  1. Seething, jealous judgmental fakes are letting their sickness show with their every online attack against Rollo Tomassi.

    Now they say that Rollo is doing it for the money. That’s the opposite of the truth!

    Rollo makes sure the money from his audiobooks is earmarked to help cover my extremely high medical costs!

    https://www.audible.com/pd/B01E61CYCA/?source_code=AUDFPWS0223189MWU-BK-ACX0-057191&ref=acx_bty_BK_ACX0_057191_pd_us

  2. Debating with TBP or the new exposed purple heathens is like playing chess with a pigeon. All I know is I was tired of the pain, the suffering, the temporal and financial losses. I was experiencing cognative dissonance, today i can’t believe were I’ve been just 2 years ago.

    Long live the true TRP free from ruin and ideology!

  3. One of your best posts, Rollo. This is related to philosopher David Hume’s distinction between IS (facts, reality) and OUGHT (duties, morality)

    However, I would like to introduce some nuance.

    It is not that red pillers are morally relativists. It is impossible to be morally relativist, because each person has a concept of right or wrong (for example, “pleasure is right and pain is wrong”). Is it wrong from married men to be destroyed in family courts only because women want another cock? Whether you answer “yes” or “no”, you have a concept of absolute morality.

    It is that red pillers have different opinions about morality. So you find everything: from Orthodox Christians (like NovaSeeker) to complete hedonist PUAs. From reactionaries that dream of a return of the Ancien Regime to left-wing people (like Jayman). I have even seen some Muslim men from time to time. Some people (like Roosh) drastically change their complete moral framework.

    It is that the red pillers gather together to discuss facts and not morality. Then, far from the manosphere, each red piller applies these facts to his life (this application needs a personal morality).

    More importantly, red pillers thinks that facts are independent from morality. So if something is true, it is true even if it is immoral. By contrast, blue pillers think that if something is immoral, it is false. So they go from OUGHT to IS, from morality to facts. For example, “men and women ought to be equal” becomes “men and women are equal”. This is known as “the moralistic fallacy” and it is the basis of the West after the Enlightenment. “All men ought to be equal” becomes “All men are created equal”.

  4. Rollo
    In fact, converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.

    This sentence gets right to the heart of the matter. Several related issues, in fact, including the problem of monetizing. It is far easier to monetize ideology than praxology, just for a start.

    A praxology works, or it does not work. It works for a given man, or it does not, but provided the praxology is founded on testable propositions the only argument available is “does it work or not?”. It is a lot more difficult to have purity spirals, purges of “wrongthink”, etc. in the context of praxology than in ideology.

    Perhaps some people are more drawn to purity spirals than actually getting stuff done.

    Excellent essay and I’m not even half way through.

  5. Never seen rollo called cult leader except on ADJ’s twitter rant, which means it kind of means nothing in the greater picture of shit posting done there.

  6. @kfg

    Well, even with that, you also have a concept of right or wrong. When somebody treats you unjustly, you also protest and appeal to justice. Don’t give me BS.

  7. “When somebody treats you unjustly, you also protest and appeal to justice.”

    Trial by Combat does not distinguish right from wrong. It distinguishes winners from losers.

  8. From Anonymous Reader-” It is far easier to monetize ideology than praxology,…”

    Easier, just make sure you included the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen at the end of your 30 second commercial stating your results may vary

  9. If you don’t believe the same as they do, then they will demonize you. Welcome to the female social matrix!

  10. They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.

    This is much too vague to be useful. I’ve heard reality defined as that which exits regardless of any individual’s opinion about it.

  11. Ignorance is inevitable, baked into the nature of reality. We are all ignorant, just about different things.

    Willful ignorance, on the other hand . . .

  12. They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.

    (Whoops…premature sendulation. Let me try that again.)

    This is much too vague to be useful. I’ve heard reality defined as ‘that which exits regardless of any individual’s opinion about it.’ Someone who decides he no longer believes in the laws of physics and leaps out a 10th storey window will not soar into the sky like a bird, but plummet to the ground and die. That’s an objective reality that is true for all people, all of the time.

    The objective reality of relations between heterosexual men and women are trickier to pin down. They can be, and are, experienced, observed and analyzed by any number of competent people and the conclusions they draw vary widely. Even a near truism, e.g. that how attractive a man is to women depends largely on his social status, isn’t always true. When it comes to ‘rules’ about human behaviour there are always exceptions that don’t make evolutionary sense. Sure, there is a lot of deluded, and wishful, thinking around this subject that doesn’t pass the smell test but any objective factual reality that is always true for all people all of the time is going to be very narrow in scope.

  13. Bravo! Truth seekers will heed the advice of Rollo Tomassi and liberate themselves from life’s avoidable tribulations. Nothing more, nothing less needed.

    Leave the twitter-sphere mud slinging to the over quaffed, pomade salesmen.

  14. Rollo, what purity tests have you been accused of implementing? I’ve heard you mention this before. It would be interesting to hear what red pill truths some of your opponents can’t handle.

  15. Plato v Aristotle

    Interesting that the only intellectual of the mano mano-sphere, who IMO correctly embraces Freud’s framework and rejects Carl Jung’s mysticism, contradictorily negates the idea of rational deduction when it comes to the idea of the Easter Bunny . . err. . . . I mean Santa Clause. . .err . . . I mean. . . .Zeus. . err . . . I mean Apollo. . . err I mean God. Pfft! No, I don’t see any pattern here.

    The thorough integration of all my knowledge stops at the door of heaven. Why, cuz somebody told me so and I am to emotionally invested as a result of my feelz. . . . A belief in God is blue bill.

    Meanwhile the immature degenerate food fight of the mens’ o sphere continues.

    The latent effect of altruism never fails. Rollo naively and inadvertently allowed himself to be co-opted, to bad. And now we get to enjoy, ADJ, George and Ivan all embrace the victim complex . . . . Bring your popcorn. I see no end in sight. In the broader context of things, not that big a deal.

    A trader lives not by looting, but by values. Both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the unearned.

    The embrace of contradiction in the malize of post-modernism is just another day in the life. See our current socail, political discourse. Perhaps you could argue that it is all predictable. The ‘red pill’ chasim is small by comparison.

    Evasion is the root of all evil. Evil needs good to exist. Good doesn’t need evil. Objectivism, not as hobby or practical measure is the only true Red Pill. See Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s theory of forms. Pretty lies? Or uncomfortable truths? Eyes to be blind? Hmm?

    Sugar coated poison is still poison.

    Choose your ‘friends’ wisely.

    Happy 4th!
    Peace

  16. converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.

    That seems to be a cornerstone wherever the primary concern is money-making. I have read as much as “theoretical crap” referring to people who try to understand things on a slightly deeper level.

  17. “The only evil is ignorance, and knowledge the only good”

    That is a concept of morality and not bad at all.

  18. “Trial by Combat does not distinguish right from wrong. It distinguishes winners from losers.”

    So you agree with me. It’s best to win than to lose. Winning- Good. Losing – Bad. This is your concept of morality.

    Thank you for clarifying.

  19. “It’s best to win than to lose. Winning- Good. Losing – Bad.”

    I neither said nor implied any such thing.

    “This is your concept of morality.”

    Nice try, but a bit crudely obvious.

  20. This pretty well nails down the inability to agree to disagree by those of “higher moral standards”. You have them wired shut and eating soup with a straw for sure. Except now you are proly a secular humanist with mysoginistic ,racist ,white nationalist and nonmonagamist tendancys. and this means they win again.

  21. Trigger warning: philosophical discussion

    Rollo has taken a bold step into metaphysics with this post–philosophy, to be precise.

    “The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists; whose livelihoods are now dependent upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those they broadcast it to.”

    Rollo’s opponents are using rhetoric, not logic; rhetoric is a powerful political weapon. This particular weapon relies on the vagueness of “Red Pill” as they and their audience see it. The current fracas may help us see more clearly what we mean by “Red Pill” as Rollo and his opponents wrestle over the definition.

    Rollo implies in the title that Blue Pillers are the Believers. Everybody has beliefs, of course. You can’t do science without a set of beliefs of some sort. The key is whether you can test the beliefs empirically. Even then, everybody has some basic beliefs about the way the universe works which are beyond our ability to test. For example, is the universe based on laws or on chaos? Can you model the universe mathematically and have the model be useful? And does our ability to test things in the lab have much, if anything, to do with the real world?

    One of the problems with testing is that tests are almost never conclusive. Hence, you find in science that there are frequently two different camps of scientists on opposing sides of a question. E.g., what killed the dinosaurs?

    (Theoreticians, of course, abhor testing. They have much in common with those who put religious writings as a priori assumptions.)

  22. I’m 52 and have lived the RP life my entire adulthood. I never thought it could be explained so clearly to help others or even furthermore monetized. It is nothing more than a philosophical way of life based on facts and logic.

  23. This “schism” really is frustration between what exists and what we thought existed.

    I suspect for many, the belief or adoption of the Red Pill is part of a promise to one’s-self never to go back to being that beta shlub one was.

  24. Interesting post but more context would be appreciated. I don’t follow the dramas of the manosphere.

  25. walawala
    This “schism” really is frustration between what exists and what we thought existed.

    It is a divide between what “is” and what “should be”, for some definition of “should”.
    This is what gets churchgoing people tied up in knots over the Red Pill / The Glasses, because in their romantic vision women should be pure angels, not earthy girls.

    Analogy: On travel earlier this year a millennial was driving. We needed to find a fuel station, so up came the phone. Driving down a country road I commented “Most gasoline stations are on big highways, not side roads” but the phone led him on.

    Eventually we came to a dirt road with a gate, about 5 acres of pasture with a house in the middle and a “FOR SALE” sign. MIllennial guy was frustrated, because according to his phone the gas station SHOULD BE right in front of us.

    “Dude. Look out the windshield. Put the phone down and Look. Out The. Window. LOOK. NOW!”

    Once he put the phone down we turned 180 degrees and backtracked to the main road, where the gasoline could be bought.

    Blue pill men have their head stuck into their “oughta be” phone so they can’t see what’s in front of them. Literally in front of them in some cases..

  26. Great post, Rollo. Happy 4th !

    Now, onto the issues and to the point: There is no “schism” that I see in the manosphere. There are those who were always red (you, me, others) while many were never redpill to begin with.

    One of the tenets of the redpill is that you are what you do. What you do on a consistent, daily basis, is who you are. If someone is a Twatter brat (to the point here with the Brit clown who tells his son shit everyday), then how is that someone better, or different, than, say, a video game addict (beta by default) ? He is not.

    See what I just did there ? I just spotted you guys a fake redpiller. Because that someone is not redpill. Never was.

    I am not going to quote myself on what makes a man manly…Let me quote you someone named Ian Ironwood from 2012:

    “Alpha’s talk…his is harder than not talking with your hands. It’s mostly not talking.

    Women talk — the entire Female Social Network is utterly dependent upon communication,..”

    It is very easy to spot the beta: the one who talks (tweets) much, supplicates, reverberates, talks and talks again.

    Men, open your eyes and ears and you’ll spot the betas, fake redpillers (actual blue pillers).

    Note: I personally could care less of what people are and where they fall on the spectrum, but as a man you need to develop a good bullshit detector or the world will tear you to pieces…and that is why I stay red.

  27. Little Johny’s teacher told him to learn and define the difference between hypothetical and reality.

    He asked his dad the difference and dad said go ask your mom if she would have sex with a man for a million dollars,she answered hell yes. His dad said now go ask your sister the same question,the answer was of course.

    Dad said the million dollars is hypothetical and the reality is we are just a couple of average guys living with two prostitutes.

  28. there are several comments on both twitter and reddit by a few that ALWAYS want to make red pill truth as conservative thought or outright republican.

    i reflect back to rollo’s statement that intersexual dynamics should not be associated with politics, race, etc., because as soon as that happens… shit happens.

    red pill doesn’t belong to any political group. why? it’s because women don’t give a fuck about politics when it comes to their emotions, feelings, or vaginas. it’s hard enough with broads not knowing WTF they want every 5 minutes to conflate all their thought with politics too. they don’t care about the shit.

    last… i will proudly predict that once the mainstream media (and reasonable women) actually LEARN what red pill thought is all about, in 5 yrs (or less) you will see, “he has to have a red pill mindset,” as a requirement from women on dating sites.

    there are some who aren’t afraid of the truth.

  29. IMO, there is a RP problematic in simultaneously being “factual absolutists” and “moral relativists.” Let the facts rule the day I agree. However, moral relativism is a vagary, a cop-out, and a catch-all for a lack of understanding of occulted knowledge. Nescience can be forgiven. But IGNORE-ance of the satanic implications and consequences of a position of moral relativism is reckless hubris. I am new to TRM and am on board as a so-called praxeology in the name of safely navigating the mine field of cog-psych driven intersexual dynamics. But if that study openly disowns its own moral decisions on the matter of these choices surrounding human relations, that’s a serious flaw in integrity. Not entirely clear if you are describing usual behavior of those assigning themselves to RP/BP? Or describing and defining universal core beliefs of these templates with which to operate under and manage one’s sex life. I.e. is this descriptive in a hard definition kind of way? Or just descriptive of the usual behaviors of those who can be signified to subscribe to these categories? Full disclosure I am drawing some from Mark Passio who has his own depiction and redresses on the issue of hypergamy and gender war. Thank you for your work btw. I have found it very valuable and am still exploring it. In the midst of Preventive Medicine right now.

  30. Not quite on topic, but nice to see a false rape allegation from 40 years ago, yes, 40 freakin’ years, against Aussie Wolf Creek actor John Jarratt has been thrown out of court. But our feminine-centric society ensures the innocent man is named and the lying female is not…

    ‘Jarratt’s barrister Greg James, QC, said the woman contacted high-profile sex abuse survivor Sarah Monahan with her allegation about Jarratt, and was put in touch with journalist Tracey Spicer and a journalist from the Herald before she made her statement to police.

    He described Ms Monahan as “running some sort of press crusade at the time” and “inviting one and all to come forward with an account that might suggest some sort of sexual misdemeanour by famous film figures”.

    “You were concerned to obtain notoriety,” Mr James said.

    “Not this kind of notoriety,” the woman said. “That was the last thing I wanted.”

    “Your account of his rushing through the door in a leather trench coat and leaping on you and raping you would be sure to attract publicity, correct?” Mr James said.

    “I wasn’t expecting publicity before my court case,” the woman said.

    She said she had pushed the rape to the back of her mind because she didn’t want to think about it.

    “You put it to the back of your mind, for some 40 years?” Mr James said.

    “I put it to the back of my mind temporarily,” the woman said. “For the last 40 years I’ve thought about nothing else.” ‘

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/john-jarratt-found-not-guilty-of-raping-housemate-in-1970s-20190705-p524di.html

  31. “Raphael did nice work…Now how would a bot know that?”

    It wouldn’t, but could very easily say it anyway. That’s kinda the point of the thing.

    I will note, however, that there is something that could be described as “cyborg,” a blending of human and machine capabilities, as all bots are at some level and was the original intent behind creating “artificial electronic brains.”

  32. Not a schism – a revolution. An evolution takes you to a different place; a revolution takes you back to where you started.

    By the way, pet ideology (Ride the Tiger) – very droll!

  33. Great stuff here Rollo. As far as demonizing or exalting ideologies in rp comments sections such as these it’s funny to see red pill guys lament “libertarianism.” Because anarchocapitalism in the Rothbardian tradition is red pill economics/red pill human interaction with zero moral stipulation. Using Rollo’s quote above on red pill appraisals being value-free of intergender dynamics, just switch a few words around and you’re properly describing the “libertarianism” so easily mocked around here by blue pill ideologues masquerading as cold hard fact rp dudes. Keep up the great work Rollo the world needs you.

  34. Trigger warning: philosophy

    As regards believing…scientists rely heavily on belief…that’s why there are journals…scientists report in journals and other scientists who read the journals believe the reports. It’s the same with Field Reports…men report what we see women do when we do certain things…if several men report seeing the same behavior among women, we men tend to believe the reports, even if we haven’t observed similar behavior by women. So belief is endemic to the Red Pill just like it is to the Blue Pill.

    We’ve seen different behavior by women…some are slutty and some aren’t. Red Pill and Blue Pill give different explanations for this. Red Pill says that all women are wired the same sexually and that the different behavior can only be explained by training–chaste women are chaste because of training, not wiring (there are no innately ‘good’ girls). Blue Pill says that some women are innately virtuous (they must therefore be wired differently) and others are wired to be sluts.

    So what’s the difference between Red Pill and Blue Pill? Both in fact rely on explaining different behavior by women through observation of that behavior. Both are based on “empirical evidence.” Both rely on believing. And I would argue that Red Pill is based on better reading of women’s behavior–chaste women show nonverbal responses to players that indicate sexual attraction, even if those women tend to avoid players. Red Pill also does a better job of explaining why some women are chaste and Red Pill (Rollo) gives a praxology for raising daughters to be chaste. Red Pill also explains women’s wiring (AWALT) better than Blue Pill (Madonna/whore).

    In the end, Red Pill explains women better and provides a praxology to men so that men can obtain what they want from women (and arguably makes men better able to give women what women want). (Even though it looks like a transaction, there is no transaction, because there’s no “meeting of the minds.”)

  35. The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology.

    An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”.

    Rollo has written explicitly numerous times that:
    (1) ignorance is evil.
    (2) encouraging people to embrace Red Pill truths is a “good thing”.
    (3) it is better to have “alpha sex” than be a “beta provider”.

    These are all explicitly normative statements, without even touching upon things like:
    (a) how men ought to act in a feminine-primary social order
    (b) self-improvement (weight-lifting, meditation, fashion/style, pick-up)
    (c) opposing misandry/legal harm to men
    (d) preventing male suicide
    (e) educating young men
    (f) opposing shills/con-men/cult-leaders
    (g) opposing feminists
    (h) parenting/raising children with red-pill awareness

    For heaven’s sake, the title of Rollo’s book is “The Rational Male: Positive Masculinity”.

    [The “Red Pill” itself is a Praxeology. How You, I or anyone else applies it requires a value judgement. Can that application become an ideology? Absolutely, but the means by which it’s evaluated, in this case, is not an ideology.]

  36. Now at last we know what happened with the Convention cancellation.

    There was a Theological Schism over Red Pill / Blue Pill / Purple Pill.

    Rollo asserts a few things, I’m going to accept them because fundamental premises much be accepted or we are wasting time.

    Rollo Asserts –
    – Red Pill means – you hold one reality and you are factual absolutist
    – Blue Pill means – you hold that reality is subjective, and you are factual relativist

    Ok fair enough, I’ll run with that.

    What caused this schism is the collision of PUA game “working against, women in a Blue Pill mindset” and equality Blue Pill Gender Egalitarianism insisting that PUA game does not WORK because of how women think in a Blue Pill manner.

    ROLLO, if you chase this Red Absolutist vs Blue Relativist Rabbit Hole all the way down you come up right against a cold hard fact. This leads to a REAL DEBATE about a woman’s mental agency given the reality that PUA Red Pill Game WORKS

    We in this end of “Red Pill Community” Accept the Reality of PUA. But most of us don’t accept the FULL IMPLICATIONS of this Red PUA Reality.

    If PUA game manipulates women to find men more Subjectively Attractive within a Woman’s Blue Pill World View… then YES from the RED PILL Absolutist perspective… A Woman has no Agency and IS in fact a prisoner to her Blue Pill Relativist Mind set.

    THIS IS WHY BLUE/PURPLE men freak out in religious fevers when this subject is touched on. We all come round again an say that Women are not Equal mentally to Red Pill Men.

    The modern western world has become completely Blue Pilled. We accept that women are “equal” should get equal pay, equal authority etc etc etc. What we don’t consider is WHY WE THINK THIS. Why DO WE THINK Women in the Blue Pill hormone addled brains are equal??? Why? Brain washing? There is very little scientific research that shows women are equal or even close among most inter-gender measurements. They are not strong, their average IQ is typically lower, and the metrics go on and on. The only true advantage they have is greater lifespan.

    THIS is why you are getting kicked out of Conventions Rollo! THIS is why you are having issues. You have begun to speak true modern Heresy against the ASSUMED EQUAL-ISM OF WOMEN. And that CANNOT stand.

    Sure you couch is as “Blue Factual Relativist” but what you are saying is still the same. A Woman’s mental point of origin (and the men that have convinced themselves that women’s thought patterns are correct) those people are all “Blue Factual Relativists”. And this mentality is a substandard world view philosophy given Red Pill Absolutist reality of accomplishment and Blue Pills reality of WEAKNESS to PUA like manipulation!!!

    And to a greater extent Blue Pill Relativist Weakness to Persuasion and Propaganda!!! (e.g. Fakebook, “I made millions, cured cancer with this 1 neat trick” “Doctors, Bankers Hate it!”)

    Greek Philosophical Logic was invented to combat the Subjective, Superstitious failings of illogical thought. This logical foundation based on Factual Absolutism and later it’s true love child Empiricism. All together brought us the modern world relatively free of the nonsense of superstition.

    But man made a mistake, instead of relegating women to logical exile. We invited them into the Greek Temple of Platonic thought and all hell has broken lose. Women have asserted Equality by Subjective Religious, Moralistic, Superstition ALONE! And no Wonder your Male Red Pill Absolutist mental framework is crumbling.

    We took the Poison pill of Equalism on Faith Alone. And our Faith in Women being worth this belief and faith “Believe the Women” Eh? we have been brought low by their Subjective Clown World View.

  37. “I remember EVERYTHING I read. I’m sure you will dismiss what I wrote as horseshit”

    My mother once asked my father for an encyclopedia. He responded, “I’ve already read them. If you want to know something, just ask me.” And it worked. He could visually scan shorter documents and then read them later from his memory of the image.

    I have regressed a bit to the mean and as I understand it there may be as many as several people in the world with my mental abilities. I am, after all, merely human. Shame that, Isis/Ishtar had a great rack.

  38. Souls don’t contain knowledge although some believe they carry insight from one life to the next allowing them to chase butterflies with those of lesser intelligence for the fun of it.

    Interesting that tell of low tech knowledge as we working men seldom share our trade secrets with the uninitiated. There fore these tech wisdoms are not readily accessible to bots.

  39. Young Legend, I upvoted your comment because you posted an actual argument, not because I agree with it. You borrowed from Wiki for your definition of “ideology.”

    Just one sentence more we find this floater in Wiki:

    In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis.

    As I have explained previously and demonstrated previously, everyone has basic assumptions about reality that may or may not be testable. (“Facts” are our beliefs about reality. Poor word choice by the Wiki authors.)

    One could argue that The Red Pill is about emotion, politicking, and other irrational things based on how its supposed supporters vote and what they say.

    Most of the people who downvoted your comment aren’t tall enough for the ride you offered.

  40. eternity is supposed to be a long time yet clocks can’t measure it. The internal clock for AI stops and starts with the men that climb poles and work in vaults. Retrain them and lose infrastructure. There is no need to pull the plug as AI will self destruct given time.

  41. Rollo: “The only evil is ignorance, and knowledge the only good” FIFY: “The only evil is ignorance of God, and knowledge of God the only good”

  42. @GodlyOx

    If you are new here you should read more. Start with “War Brides”. The search tool is at the top.

    Question: do you know the difference between an ox, a cow and a bull?

  43. YoungLegend
    The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology.

    An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”.

    What does the word “testable” mean?

    [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.]

  44. GodlyOx
    But if that study openly disowns its own moral decisions on the matter of these choices surrounding human relations, that’s a serious flaw in integrity.

    From my own study of driving in difficult conditions:

    When driving on an icy road and starting to slide, steer into the skid.

    Restated:
    When a drug runner is driving on an icy road and starts to slide, he should steer into the skid.

    When a police officer is driving on an icy road in pursuit of a drug runner and starts to slide, he should steer into the skid.

    Driving on ice is a praxis, there is praxology in driving on an icy road.

    Question for you:
    Describe the moral decision inherent in “steer into the skid on an icy road”.

  45. “Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper . . .” –Infogalactic

    The sensations of pleasure and pain are states, not intentions, decisions or actions. And even from a radical Utilitarian point of view I could not consider them “good” or “bad” without knowing a considerable amount of context.

    Pain is not pleasant, but I note that I have spent fifty something or other years playing with fire and band saws, and yet still retain all of my fingers.

    And the pleasure of opiates has led many to their destruction.

    But then as I am not a radical Utilitarian I’m not sure how I could classify survival or destruction as “good” or “bad” and in context of morality find the use of those particular words as nonsensical.

    Try “rightous” and “evil” as a better logical fit.

    And before using the word “virtue” please reflect on the fact that it means “manly,” and thus only applies properly to the morality of men.

  46. Some on the other side are thinking ideology and even then I would argue it’s just a mental proxy in their psychology to achieve “power” over others via money/tribalism/etc. The ideology proxy is used to alleviate the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty in their own psychology to help them keep a positive self image about themselves.

    With human beings it is always about power over others, if you have achieved mental freedom for yourself via true study and application of the red pill you can choose to wield the power in a more benevolent form or even then not at all but even then you are exercising power over yourself.

    When fully digested the red pill can get pretty dark until you exercise power over yourself and make something positive out of it, but this will be a very very small portion of males.

  47. Overwhelmingly moral relativists are factual relativists.

    As a matter of action everyone behaves as though morality is objective and free will exists. The idea that truth does or should matter is an example.

    The method of argumentation employed does not actually indicate their premises, but their psychology. Most people are not arguing from premises, or in the sense of logic, arguing at all. They are attempting to persuade and/or win.

  48. ““good” or “bad” and in context of morality find the use of those particular words as nonsensical.”

    Good and evil have to do with ethics, not morality. Simplified it for you.

  49. Anonymous reader responded — [[The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology.

    An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”.

    What does the word “testable” mean?]]

    [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.]

    Have you read Hume (is/ought distinction) or are you just constructing a straw man argument?

    The issue at hand — as was clearly stated — is Rollo’s definition and usage of the “TRP”. Rollo, after all, is the one insisting that “TRP” only refer to a “toolkit” within sexual dynamics.

  50. Perhaps some examples would be foundational for grammar (facts), logic (understanding), then rhetoric (wisdom):

    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2014/05/red-pill-roles-praxeology-of-dominant.html

    “Ideologies are belief systems which hold up ideals – moral, ethical, social – as standards by which to live or guide us. Humanism, Marxism, Christianity, and the Boy Scout Law are all ideologies of various sorts. They establish lofty goals toward which we aspire, celebrating unifying beliefs that, theoretically, guide our purposes.”

    “Praxeologies, on the other hand, are not systems of belief, they are systems of practice. They are not concerned with whether or not something lives up to a preconceived ideal, they are concerned with whether or not something actually works. Engineering, small engine repair, computer coding, fishing, and first aid are all praxeologies. The Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology.” –Ian Ironwood

    No one on Rollo’s side of The Red Pill, I believe, is saying don’t be moral and ethical or virtuous. Moral codes and Moral Law come downstream at the individual level of any one man. To pick and choose among the possibilities to subscribe to. Not from someone else to shove down your throat. And that’s not to suggest you can’t assume someone else’s moral code or morality. You have free will.

    And as KFG noted, the Etymology of virtue:

    The ancient Romans used the Latin word virtus (derived from vir, their word for man) to refer to all of the “excellent qualities of men, including physical strength, valorous conduct, and moral rectitude.” The French words vertu and virtu came from this Latin root. In the 13th century, the word virtue was “borrowed into English”.

    In BlackLabelLogics twitter feed:


    @Blacklabellogic
    Jul 4
    More
    The praxeology is areligious, ammoral, apolitical, and value neutral, so you can integrate it with almost any ideology (or religion) so long as that ideology or religion does not contain contradictions, if so one of the two must be altered.

    @Blacklabellogic
    Jul 4
    More
    I like the idea of a strict border in the red pill between the praxeology, as a theoretical framework largely built on a scholarly and empirical basis and various applications of said framework.

    Each “tribe” can then integrate it with their ideology into something new.

    @Blacklabellogic
    1d1 day ago
    More
    At the end of the day, I nor any other men have as much skin in the game when it comes your life as you do, so in the end you must make your own decisions and live with their consequences.

    I won’t tell you what decision to make,but I can offer judgments of value on your options

    RuleZeroDAD:

    @RuleZeroDAD
    23h23 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @UnPussified @Blacklabellogic
    The point we are trying to make is that co-mingling ideology and praxeology is difficult because of the complexities created by personal desires and and the additional desire for rules. Works individually.

    No one wants or expects the Spanish Inquisition, but there they were.

  51. Rollo

    <

    blockquote>[By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.]

    The definition offered by YoungLegend is incomplete, it is exactly the error you wrote about in the essay. Whether this is an accident of ignorance, or a deliberate squirting of squid ink is not yet clear.

    Praxis, doing, can be tested empirically. Water boils at 212 degrees F / 100 degrees C at sea level. A Communist at sea level in Asia and a Catholic Christian at sea level in Italy and a Libertarian Atheist at sea level in North America will all get the same results, regardless of whatever faith / morality / etc. they believe in.

    A crystal-festooned New Age tarot card reader may believe that water boils at some other temperature, it may hurt her feelings to see water boiling at the standard temperature in her beach apartment…but the water still boils at 212 F / 100 C no matter how she feels about it. Repeating the experiment hundreds of times won’t change the results, either.

    Because the basic physics of heat transfer and atmospheric pressure are empirically the same no matter what someone’s feelings might be.

    Human relationships are obviously more complex than boiling water. But the observable, testable, empirical facts of brain difference between men & women, hormonal differences, etc. are observable, and they are testable.

    Blind, unreasoning faith that “women are wunnerful!” is also observable and testable.
    Men in the US put that faith to the test in family court every day, and a whole lot of them are surprised in a very unpleasant way.

    tl;dr
    Game works, pedestalization fails.

  52. YoungLegend
    Have you read Hume (is/ought distinction) or are you just constructing a straw man argument?

    The issue at hand — as was clearly stated — is Rollo’s definition and usage of the “TRP”. Rollo, after al

    First of all, learn how to keep attributions separated and clear. WordPress does not use [ ] brackets for HTML, it uses < > brackets. The usual simples for italics “i”, bold “b” and blockquote “blockquote” apply.

    This is bold, this is italics and

    this is blockquote

    If you need more help there are sites online with basic information. Search and find.

    Second, in WordPress blogs it is common for the site owner to comment on comments. Rollo added his text in bold underneath my comment. I don’t own his words, he doesn’t own mine, do not conflate two people’s words in this manner. Rollo does not often add to comments, his essays tend to stand on their own, and he might just have other things to do than wallow around with ignorance in comments. This is a hint.

    Third, your definition is incomplete. If you wish to run down the long rabbit trail of epistemology I might follow along, but only if you show evidence of being able to read and understand simple sentences and think.

    What is the meaning of the word “testable”?

    Feminist ideology teaches that sex differences are mere social constructs. This can be tested, and has been. One recent test involved the US Army Rangers. Most men cannot complete the Ranger training. No women can do so without special rule-bending. This test explodes feminist dogma.

    It is not blind faith to state that on average, men have more upper body strength than women.

    What does the word “testable” mean, again?

  53. Anonymous reader —

    You are just one of those wonderful people who never lose an internet debate. I like you.

    (1-3) and (a-whatever) are all obvious examples of NORMATIVE claims that are all central to Rollo’s version of the TRP. The guy literally used the word “evil” in reference to ignorance in this very comment section.

    Anyway, thanks Rollo – your TRP helped me. I’ll give you 3.7% credit for my legendary notch count. Is that “testable”?

    LMFAO.

  54. Fine irony. I instruct YoungLegend on proper attribution then commit an HTML fail.
    Repost:

    Rollo (in blockquote and bold)

    [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.

    My reply with slight modifications:

    The definition offered by YoungLegend is incomplete, it is exactly the error you wrote about in the essay. Whether this is an accident of ignorance, or a deliberate squirting of squid ink is not yet clear.

    Praxis, doing, can be tested empirically. Water boils at 212 degrees F / 100 degrees C at sea level. A Communist at sea level in Asia and a Catholic Christian at sea level in Italy and a Libertarian Atheist at sea level in North America will all get the same results, regardless of whatever faith / morality / etc. they believe in.

    A crystal-festooned New Age tarot card reader may believe that water boils at some other temperature, it may hurt her feelings to see water boiling at the standard temperature in her California beach apartment…but the water still boils at 212 F / 100 C no matter how she feels about it. Repeating the experiment hundreds of times won’t change the results, either.

    Because the basic physics of heat transfer and atmospheric pressure are empirically the same no matter what someone’s feelings might be.

    Human relationships are obviously more complex than boiling water. But the observable, testable, empirical facts of brain difference between men & women, hormonal differences, etc. are observable, and they are testable. Not just on “bar sluts” but on churchgoing women – the “firmware” is there underneath regardless of the training put on top. AWALT at some level.

    Blind, unreasoning faith that “women are wunnerful!” is also observable and testable.
    Men in the US put that faith to the test in family court every day, and a whole lot of them are surprised in a very unpleasant way.

    tl;dr
    Game works, pedestalization fails.

  55. “Praxis, doing, can be tested empirically. Water boils at 212 degrees F / 100 degrees C at sea level. A Communist at sea level in Asia and a Catholic Christian at sea level in Italy and a Libertarian Atheist at sea level in North America will all get the same results, regardless of whatever faith / morality / etc. they believe in.”

    Have you actually tested your claim, or are you, as I suspect, merely keyboard jockeying?

  56. To the peanut gallery…if anyone claims something is a praxology, they should actually have practiced it, including testing the temperature at which water boils at sea level on all continents.

    If I were to make a praxology about water boiling, I would tell you to boil it yourself wherever you are and measure the temperature at which it boils. That is a praxology, not what AR is doing–keyboard jockeying about the temperature at which water boils. My praxology would work at sea level or in Denver, the Mile High city.

    Some of you all don’t know shit from shinola.

  57. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to observe someone observing it, it makes no praxeology.

  58. “So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.”

    IME “factual relativists” operate from the more popular political perceptions of the day. To them the greater the number of believers is what decides the facts. For example there are women combat soldiers ( this is promoted as public knowledge in their favorite religious monthly with a slant towards attracting- appeasing women) therefore women can do whatever men can do. The fact that they lowered the bar on the skills required for women isn’t mentioned,nor should it ever be as it isn’t popular to mention unfair play or differing rules. This is where the moral high ground comes into play and just the mention of preferential treatment is a public threat to one who doesn’t play by the rules. Never mind the fact they are willing to send women out be shot at and blown to bits,this is morally OK to them as the collateral damage of equalism. Never mind that this same equalism is what convinced the poor girl to become a soldier in the first place, effectively painting a bulls-eye on her own back.

    The next big reason is also a moral glitch,sloth,they are too lazy to be bothered with the facts. This would mean a constant checking and researching what they have been told by their popular feelgood rag. Even doing this brings into question their own moral higher ground that they claim. That would mean they would actually have to do something that requires effort to receive recognition or merit. And here is the real kicker, as there is no relational equity and more than half the populace runs on feels,and he has been discounting those same efforts for financial reasons,this is a line he cannot afford to cross.

  59. ASD,you should include a barometer in your testing instruments. Then you can even take it a step further by controlling the environment in containment and adding or subtracting pressure.

    This is common knowledge for “Joe the plumber”.

  60. wahoo McDaniels
    For example there are women combat soldiers ( this is promoted as public knowledge in their favorite religious monthly with a slant towards attracting- appeasing women) therefore women can do whatever men can do. The fact that they lowered the bar on the skills required for women isn’t mentioned,nor should it ever be as it isn’t popular to mention unfair play or differing rules.

    It’s actually worse than that. There are women in sandboxes and the ‘Stans at forward bases who have an issued M4, but their MOS is not a combat MOS. They might be part of a gunfight once in a while, because they are out on some hill where hajis take shots from time to time, so to the ignorant they are “in combat”. There are tech weenies on the same hill sometimes, and nobody claims that a communications MOS counts as “combat”. Ditto Military Police and others.

    Actual infantry patrol involves carrying a lot of mass (water, ammo, water, grenades, water, batteries, water, ration, water, etc.) and walking for a long time, wearing body armor & helmet, in heat. Women can’t stand up to it, the few who have tried caused permanent physical damage to themselves. Because physical strength including the diameter of femurs is real, it’s not a “social construct”.

    But none of that matters to True Believing feminists and their tradcon sock puppets, because equalist equalism demands that ‘girls can do it, too!” so we are all obliged to believe lies. That’s where the real conflict lies IMO, the True Believers prefer lies to truth, and that’s fine — except they require everyone else to believe the same pretty lies. Plus in the Woke era the lies change on a weekly basis…see the furor over tranny boys running girls track in Connecticut, for example.

    Even worse, when some “Support Our Troops” tradcon starts arguing about women in combat with the usual “I oppose, but…” ignorance. It’s ironic to me when churchgoing men who wave the Ten Commandments around one minute demand in the next minute that men believe lies, without questioning.

  61. SilverFox
    Not quite on topic, but nice to see a false rape allegation from 40 years ago, yes, 40 freakin’ years, against Aussie Wolf Creek actor John Jarratt has been thrown out of court.

    First off, good to see you again. Doing ok? Still out in the countryside, or moving around?

    Taking it into court was surely a mistake. Was there a statute of limitations involved?

    Notice that PoundMeToo in the US has concentrated mainly on the “court” of public social media, especially Twitter – no rules of evidence or punishments for lying, so it’s all good. I assume that there’s been a social media / Twiatter mob after him also?

  62. Here’s an idea: replace “moral relativism” with “moral individualism” (I mean that in the protestant-priesthood-of-all-believers sense / each person is the arbiter of their own morality), and/or replace ‘moral absolutism” with “moral universalism” and see how the arguments change.

  63. It seems that folks are getting caught up in semantics.

    The substance of what Rollo is saying is that TRP isn’t a moral system, it’s a system aimed at achieving certain results.

    In that way it can be compared to a securities trading system, or an investment system or what have you — in each of those cases there are practices that are considered “good” in the sense that they further the goal, lower risk/etc., and other practices that are considered “bad” in the sense that they make the goal harder to achieve and/or more risk. Those “good” and “bad” alignments in a trading or investment system are not, however, “value judgments”, in a moral or ethical sense — they are like “best practices” and “things to avoid” when one has a certain goal in mind (successful trading, successful investing, etc.)

    Now you personally can take an investment or trading system and superimpose on it your own limitations and tailored customizations to the recommended praxis in light of your own moral and ethical system. You do not need to use the systems in an amoral way if you do not wish to do so, but if you do, of course you can. TRP is the same.

    The difference between that and TBP is that TBP is like an investment system that has moral rules built into the system itself — that is, it does not propose certain actions not because they are “bad” in terms of not furthering the desired goal, but because it a priori, on the system (and not the personal) level determines that such actions are per se immoral/unethical and therefore are to be excluded from the system regardless of their impact on the goal furtherance on the level of the system. TBP refuses to leave moral judgments and tailoring on the downstream/personal level, but instead insists on including them in the system itself, and thereby imposes those moral judgments on everyone using the system.

    That is the critical difference, regardless of whether one couches it in the specific semantics/terminology that Rollo chose to use in this post.

  64. “It seems that folks are getting caught up in semantics.”

    Certainly, that is the subject and prediction of the article.

  65. It’s not only philosophical differences.

    They may very well be biological ones. As in brain differences.

    Now watch out for this guy, he’s pretty asshurt as far as content creators go.

    But this video I agree with.

  66. I respect your position Rollo and agree that the idea that the ‘Manosphere’ (or at least this blog) should limit itself to the discussion of facts, the discovery of factual truth and encouraging men to accept and internalise such truth. It will only become more difficult to do this going forward and an explicit ‘declaration of independence’ of sorts now (as stated here and reiterated from time to time) would go a long way towards ensuring this. We are forgetful creatures after all and the odd reminder is good, especially since not all of us are at the same ‘stage’ in this never-ending process.

    I do however forsee another possible problem and that is that as the situation in the west continues to deteriorate, there will be increasing calls to widen the discussion on how to use this knowledge in service to other ideologies / religions / ideas. Guilty as charged on this point, but I see now how and why independence is paramount. From personal experience of collapsing paradigms, the calls to ‘pick a side’ will inevitably increase, but I do genuinely hope you can keep it limited to Inter-Sexual Dynamics and the discovery / rediscovery of truth within this realm.

    Unfortunately the texts of the ancients simply don’t pass muster for most people these days (for various reasons) and they need this knowledge re-iterated to them explicitly in a language they can understand (yours truly being one of them). For this we continue to be eternally grateful.

  67. Yollo Comanche, good point on the mental differences. I have dealt with many people that couldn’t form a vision in their mind of the finished product from plans and engineering. IMO these are the hardest people to deal with and involve the most change orders.

  68. @Novaseeker, while I get your point about investment strategies the differences are greater than you imply. It’s not just “Blue Pill investing bans buying stock in tobacco companies” moral position. No, the BP “investing” requires one to believe things that are not true, and are even harmful to the investor.

    Imagine a mutual fund where the managers refuse to admit that price / earnings and annual dividend are at all significant in analysis of stock. Or where prior performance of a stock over a full business cycle was totally off limits for discussion. Or where past bond defaults couldn’t be acknowledged. In other words, where risk is not just unquantified, unestimated, but flat out denied.

    Religious people do not actually act as they urge men to. It’s common to tell men “Just marry! ManUP! Marry! Now! God will protect you!” but nobody from that church steps onto a busy freeway to play dodge-em with cars and trucks where there’s a 25% probability of being hit, yet loudly confident that “God will protect me!”. Does not happen. Not.

    “Risk for thee, but not for me”.

    Actions, or the lack thereof, speaks much louder than words.

  69. @Max Cantor

    “One of the tenets of the redpill is that you are what you do.”
    “What you do on a consistent, daily basis, is who you are.”

    The Blue pill belief system is totally compatible with both of your statements
    Your statements have NOTHING to do with intersexual dyanmics.
    Self development is not the red pill or an understanding of intersexual dyanmics.
    A person can live ANY life. They can improve daily and have a perfect regime of improvement in all areas that affect his status, resources, personal life and SMV, yet have DEEPLY held beliefs that are ENTRENCHED in their mind about how the SMP operates.

  70. @Wahoo

    What about the dad and the son? They wouldn’t have sex for 1 million $, or are male prostitutes?

  71. Meanwhile in the Netherlands:

    Female applicants will receive priority consideration for faculty positions at Eindhoven University of Technology for at least 18 months. […]

    Under the programme, all faculty vacancies must first be opened to women alone. Female recruits will receive mentoring and an extra €100,000 (US$113,400) in laboratory start-up funds.

    Baaijens and a committee will consider exceptions for stellar male candidates. But otherwise, men will be permitted to apply only if a suitable female candidate has not been found after six months.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01998-7

    LOL white knights gonna whiteknight.

    Reminds me of:

    Our community must face the difficult truth that we aren’t likely to make further progress in attracting women to computer science. Women can code, but often they don’t want to. We will never reach gender parity. You can shame and fire all of the Damores you find, but that won’t change the underlying reality.

    It’s time for everyone to be honest, and my honest view is that having 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve. […]

    Obviously many people will disagree with my assessment. I have already been told that expressing such ideas is hurtful to women. But it is exactly because I care so much about diversity that I value honesty above politeness. To be effective, we have to commit ourselves to a search for the truth and that search can succeed only if everyone feels comfortable sharing their honest opinions.

    (Stuart Reges is a Principal Lecturer at the University of Washington where he manages the introductory computer science classes at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering.)

    https://quillette.com/2018/06/19/why-women-dont-code/

    In the same article, Reges calls it out:

    […] among professionals and activists, ‘equity’ has the specific meaning of working to dismantle existing power structures as a way to redress privilege.

    While the equality agenda focuses on equality of opportunity, the equity agenda is concerned with outcomes. Its proponents don’t demand equal outcomes but instead use unequal outcomes as evidence that there is more work to be done. So, unless or until we reach perfect gender parity, they will continue to argue for more diversity programs for women.

  72. More LOLs from that Eindhoven article:

    Katta Spiel, a postdoctoral researcher studying human–computer interactions at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, praised the initiative, but wondered whether non-binary applicants would be considered in the women-only round.

    TU Eindhoven’s human-resources department says that the programme is aimed at female scientists, and that it will go by the gender listed on a potential recruit’s passport. It will look into the issue if a non-binary researcher applies.

    Another pathology piggybacking to get normalized. Slowly boiling that frog.

  73. TT,LOL you could fill a book with little johnny jokes. When I was 10 little johnny moved in next door to us,he was 7. I went out to play with johnny one day and he pops off with,”your mom doesn’t have any boobers.” I said ? “what are boobers”? he says “follow me” and we go into his house and he points at his mom’s tits and says “those are boobers!” And they were the biggest tits I had ever seen to date. She promptly yelled at us to go outside and we did posthaste. Then I explained to him in farmer terms that “those are teats and i call em tits”. “This is how women feed their babys milk” and he said” how come your bigger than me?”

    To this day that guy still gives me credit for his sex ed.

  74. Great article, one of your best IMO.

    I was debating a friend about evo-psych and he said it’s wrong because it’s “misogynistic.” That basically sums up the argument of all Blue Pillers. And ALL women who act Hypergamously, which is de-facto immoral by their Blue Pill standards, ONLY do so because they’re “damaged” or were victims of severe child abuse and attachment disorders.

    ONLY severely damaged, abused women would leave their husbands if their husbands were not physically abusive or drug addicts/alcoholics/etc. ONLY severely damaged, abused women would sleep with a guy on the first date/meeting. ONLY severely damaged, abused women would cheat on their boyfriends/husbands and lie to their faces about it. The way the Blue Pillers see it, these actions stem from psychological disorders exclusively, and are in no way motivated by hard-wired evolutionary sexual/intergender impulses.

    It’s important for Blue Pillers to believe this, as it allows for their other beliefs: NAWALT, and that a unicorn is waiting just for them at the end of the rainbow.

    I have seen friend after friend make every single Blue Pill relationship mistake in the book, e.g. falling 100% in their girlfriend’s/wife’s frame, zero Dread, being super accommodating and apologetic and deferring to them, and yet blame the failure of their relationship 100% on their girlfriend or wife’s “childhood issues” or something generic like “They were a Type A personality.” I’m pretty sure they will just do this for the rest of their lives.

    In my experience trying to debate with Blue Pillers IRL, they all adhere to the NAWALT ideology, and they adhere hard. Any and all Red Pill truths are dismissed as aberrant behavior, the result of psychological disorders, no matter how many women reliably exhibit the same predictable behavior over and over again, regardless of their personal history.

    They also believe every relationship with a woman is 100% up to chance, like it either works out or it doesn’t, based purely on “Communication,” the ultimate generic metric for evaluating the health of a relationship —

    — or random pop psychology compatibility factors. I have heard this a LOT from people. They will argue that MBTI personality types, “love languages,” and “attachment styles” all play a solitary role in determining the success of a relationship.

    Out of all of these, “Communication” takes the cake. If she cheats on you, it was “because you didn’t communicate well enough, and surely there is another, healthier girl waiting beyond the horizon for you who is good and moral and values communication, and you’ll find her someday! Don’t worry pal! She’s out there!”

    If that isn’t Dream Land, I don’t know what is.

    These are also the first people to dismiss women as “having too many issues” if they get blown out after making every mistake in the book.

    They have zero Game, or anti-Game, and believe the concept of Game is dehumanizing and misogynistic. All the while every woman on the planet is using female Game — i.e., Hypergamy. It’s solipsistic “Game” where they are the only player and their wants/needs/desires come before everyone else’s. They will stay with one guy as long as he fulfills her Hypergamous needs, but as soon as he’s deemed to fall short of satisfying her Hypergamy with his own Game, she will find someone else to fill the void.

    And that isn’t inherently good or evil. It just is. Blue Pillers are incapable of seeing Hypergamy as a concept separated from moral judgment. And any woman acting hypergamously, they will automatically filter as “psychologically damaged,” and continue to believe NAWALT.

    There is no practical advice to give anyone in the Blue Pill world. They have absolutely zero framework for producing repeatable results, and can only recommend that everyone go and get decades of therapy while waiting for the “right one” to show up, which of course is supposed to happen after years of therapy and “working on themselves” so they’re “ready for a healthy relationship.”

    Blue Pillers are disturbed by TRP it because it disrupts their pedestalizing of sexual/intergender relationships. When your girlfriend or wife, whom you’ve been with for years and are in love with and feel so close to, acts in a way that is primarily dictated by animalistic instincts, it can really make you feel like shit, like your entire world has collapsed and everything is ruined.

    If people understood TRP and grew up with it as a model, there ironically would probably be less shootings, less stabbings, less killings overall, and a lot lower rates of mental illness and even crime in general.

    So many — SO many — of people’s problems are based on overly idealizing relationships/sex and putting it on a pedestal. And, additionally, not understanding their own imperatives and impulses. It really helped me a lot to know that for men, mate guarding/possessiveness/paranoia and rage at infidelity, real or suspected, is NORMAL!

    When you understand that it’s NORMAL, and is an evolved mechanism, it puts it much more into perspective. Knowing you would feel this about ANY girl you’ve fucked enough times, that your brain is wired to react this intensely, and it isn’t because what you had was so sacred and special that you’re so pissed off. When you put it on a pedestal and idealize your relationship, like it was Sacred, you will lose your fucking mind 100% if shit hits the fan and Hypergamy runs wild.

    I know because this happened to me recently, and yet I didn’t do anything stupid, and was able to temper myself by understanding that I, too, as a man, have evolved sexual impulses/mechanisms that run amok in my brain when specific things happen, like an ex fucking another guy. It’s NORMAL.

    Blue Pillers: when their Idol is smashed to pieces when their girlfriend/wife thoughtlessly goes out and enthusiastically gives their body up to some random dude, there is a very high chance it will be so traumatic to their Blue Pill conditioned mind that they will kill themselves, kill someone else, assault someone else, do something really stupid and violent in general, vandalism, stalking, breaking and entering, whatever.

    I would even argue that the modern epidemic of co-dependence is based on the results of Feminism and the over-idealizing of “healthy relationships,” and the downplaying of evo-psych and accepting and embracing the fact that we, too, are animals with evolved impulses and mechanisms.

    Hypergamy has been very important for me to understand. Understanding MY OWN evolved mechanisms, and understanding that I’m not unique, and actually NORMAL — this has been a huge part of my own healing and Red Pill journey.

    I favor The Red Pill because I favor people being sane and stable. Blue Pill is a one-way ticket to self-destruction and absolute fucking chaos and violence. Same with Purple Pill and Black Pill.

    As it always goes, only a few will walk the narrow path. Most people will simply cherry pick and not make any effort to actually integrate new ideas into their perspective of reality. Oh well. Not my problem.

    That is, until some Blue Pill dude who got cheated on busts into some random venue and shoots a bunch of people. Then it’s a lot of people’s problem. Or having a friend who commits suicide because of the same circumstances and now you’ve gotta live with that loss for the rest of your life.

    I rarely talk about any of this in person with anyone anymore, lest I be labeled a misogynist. If there is no benefit for me or anyone else to sharing information, I will just keep my mouth shut.

    Don’t cast pearls before swine, lest they trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces.

  75. You’re especially wise at the end. This obsession with intersectionality along the wokesters means an attack on one (or even questioning one) means an attack on all, so the sphere and red pill thinking should focus only on intersexual dynamics.

    If the conversation spills over into government policy, nationalism, race, etc, it’ll face ten times more distractions.

    Let’s keep the focus on the red pill. We discuss other ideas in other venues.

    Keep it up, Rollo!

  76. @theasdgamer

    — Moving on from analytic philosophy and into a broader discussion of “ideology” —

    Do you consider “women’s studies” a legitimate science or social activism built around feminist ideology?

    Three common empirical claims made in women’s studies literature:

    (1) One in four college women are sexual assault victims.
    (2) Women are paid 77 cents on the dollar to men for the same work.
    (3) Two hundred million women worldwide are the victims of FGM.

    Common slogans in women’s studies courses nation-wide:

    (a) Smash the patriarchy.
    (b) #KillAllMen
    (c) #MeToo
    (d) My body, my right.
    (e) Only weak men fear strong women.
    (f) The future is female.

    The word “ideology” may have a negative connotation, but it is quite clear that both TRP reddit and Rollo’s The Rational Male are HIGHLY ideological.

    Consider the following quotations from The Rational Male: Positive Masculinity

    (I) “Nothing is as simultaneously fear inspiring and arousing for women as a Man she suspects is self-aware of his own value.”
    (II) “The Cardinal Rule of Relationships In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.”
    (III) “So entrapped are we in our self-expectation and self-imposed limitations that we fail to see that we have always had the keys to our own prisons – we’re just scared shitless to use them.”

    Here are some cherries from the TRP reddit:

    (A) She’s not yours. It’s just your turn.
    (B) All women are like that.
    (C) She’s riding the cock carousel.
    (D) Don’t be a white knight.

    Sidenote — I find it hilarious that Rollo is famous for the word hai-PUR-gah-mee yet refuses to pronounce it correctly.

  77. The Praxeological Axiom: Humans engage in purposeful behavior

    The Action Axiom: If a condition holds, then the following should be done

    These are logical premises, similar to the Scientific Axiom: Dat shit don’ happen by magic. They are axioms because they cannot be proven within the dependent logical systems themselves. The Scientific Axiom is literally meta-physics.

    If anyone misuses these axioms to build an ideology, that’s on them.

    “Dat shit falls when you drop it,” is not an ideology. It’s an observation. Of course you might not hold to the Cartesian Axiom, but then there’s no point in paying any attention to you anyway.

  78. @theasdgamer

    Well, for there to be a meeting of minds there should be minds to begin with lol.
    Each of the sexes has developed what was mostly in demand from the other sex, men clearly have never been interested in their partner having a mind — just like women have never been interested in “honesty” if honesty is to mean something beyond a deceptive dress of honesty + disposition to take their orders and be of material/economic use to them and their family (“He should love not only me, but also my family” translated for you).

    I don’t think that market transactions require meeting of minds though.

  79. @softek

    “Great article, one of your best IMO. I was debating a friend about evo-psych and he said it’s wrong because it’s “misogynistic.””

    In our time where basically all the (largely followed) media answer to the same centre of power and pursue the same agenda, the standard rule as to human culture (90% of men and even more women are culturally programmed) got an update to an even more disquieting 90% of men and even more women are culturally programmed with the same cast.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: