“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.

You Be the Boy

The following is a poem by Marie Howe that I recently became aware of from an NPR ‘Fresh Air’ interview:

Practicing

BY MARIE HOWE

I want to write a love poem for the girls I kissed in seventh grade,
a song for what we did on the floor in the basement

of somebody’s parents’ house, a hymn for what we didn’t say but thought:That feels good or I like that, when we learned how to open each other’s mouths

how to move our tongues to make somebody moan. We called it practicing, and one was the boy, and we paired off—maybe six or eight girls—and turned out

the lights and kissed and kissed until we were stoned on kisses, and lifted our nightgowns or let the straps drop, and, Now you be the boy:

concrete floor, sleeping bag or couch, playroom, game room, train room, laundry. Linda’s basement was like a boat with booths and portholes

instead of windows. Gloria’s father had a bar downstairs with stools that spun, plush carpeting. We kissed each other’s throats.

We sucked each other’s breasts, and we left marks, and never spoke of it upstairs outdoors, in daylight, not once. We did it, and it was

practicing, and slept, sprawled so our legs still locked or crossed, a hand still lost in someone’s hair . . . and we grew up and hardly mentioned who

the first kiss really was—a girl like us, still sticky with moisturizer we’d shared in the bathroom. I want to write a song

for that thick silence in the dark, and the first pure thrill of unreluctant desire, just before we’d made ourselves stop.

Before you get titillated by this or think “WTF Rollo?” read the poem again. Despite reader compliments, I wish I could say I was more of a poetry aficionado; and yes Howe fits the man-jawed, womyn’s studies archetype to the letter, but after hearing this I had to look up the poem and read it for myself to really get the message. This is a message that I’m not even sure if Howe is really aware of, or intended communicating – You be the boy.

I’ve written in the past about sexual fluidity and the brilliance of it becoming the redefined, reinvented social convention du jour of feminization. I say ‘brilliant’ because it so deftly and conveniently places the inadequacies of its ideology on the backs of the men who wont (really can’t) play along in affirming women’s primacy. Men’s evolved biological predilections and sexual strategies simply refuse to be unengineered into complying with feminized utopian ideals. This has always been the bugbear of feminism. Empowered single mommies can raise a boy to pee sitting down, to leave the toilet seat down, but he still finds he has a natural compulsion to want to take a piss standing up, and seat be damned. It takes half a lifetime of psychological conditioning to repress the male sexual experience.

Similarly, sexual fluidity doctrine also gives the aging spinster a new outlook in her post-Wall years. “Never mind that men wont man up to our your mythologized standards, it appears you’ve been a lesbian all these long years and didn’t know it! But don’t worry, masculinized lesbians make for better ‘men’ than men.”

From Sexual Fluidity:

If you read through the article Why Women are Leaving Men for Other Women, you can’t help but notice the commonalities of the testimonies coming from otherwise feminine women being attracted to more dominant, masculine women. Often these come from long married-with-children women who’ve divorced their beta husbands in favor of a more dominant, butch, Alpha lesbian.

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her.

Uncle Roosh has an uncanny knack for posting complimentary articles around the same time I’m contemplating a topic, and this offering was no exception. One thing his study on Eastern European women seems to have a consensus on is a lack of masculinity in feminized men (see: American Betas). Roosh’s article provides an interesting contrast to the sexual fluidity convention in illustrating a natural dominant/submissive dynamic that is an in-born imperative for women.

Hypergamy prompts a natural contradiction for women – security and provisioning versus sexual impulse and genetic preselection – this is the root of women’s evolved pluralistic sexual strategies, get the Alpha seed, get the long term provisioning. In the past I’ve gone into detail outlining the innate compulsion women have for desiring security (and parental investment) in the long term, but I think the idea of what represents security to women needs a better explanation.

Case Study

My friend Dave was a stereotypical beta chump and his shrew of a wife was the typical ballbusting so-con feminist who was only too willing to browbeat reminders of it into him constantly. In other respects Dave was a great guy, the sole provider for his family, a great handyman who renovated his home with his own hands (he even built me a nice wood guitar rack for my guitars), but to anyone who’d see him and his wife together it was clear that he was on the receiving end of what I’d consider borderline abuse. He essentially married his mother, who was also a domineering bitch over his father, which is ironic since his wife was already a single mother of two boys when they wed. They had a single daughter who, in her teenage years, took her cues from her mother and picked up the browbeating when mom wasn’t available.

Yet for all the domineering and all the derision she was so comfortable in laying on Dave, she would rip into anyone who would think he was less than a man. She could call him a pussy, but anyone saying the same would be met with a list of his manly credits to such a degree that you’d hardly think you were talking about the same person in the room. She would defend his manliness with the same zeal she had in abusing it. For all of Dave’s wife’s invectives she couldn’t allow anyone to think that the man she was paired with was anything less than the ideal of manhood. On some level of consciousness she wanted him to be dominante even if that meant she had to manufacture the appearance of it for people who knew them.

You be the Boy

The impetus that brought this post about has been the recent discussion thread about Rational reader Ted D’s situation at home. He’s been stuck for some time over at Hooking Up Beta, but his story, and others like it are all too common in a fem-centric socialization that encourages equalism in favor of complimentarianism. It’s the triumph of blank slate ideology that men should be shamed out of a natural position of dominance that women’s own in-born need for security has need for. It’s tragic that it’s been conditioned to the the point that men have internalized equalism to such an extent that the desire to assume a necessary position of dominance, even a marginal position of guidance or leadership is equated with a tyranny. Even the word ‘dominance’ is conflated with power and control in a negative context.

From the first Iron Rule of Tomassi:

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

There is no such thing as egalitarian equality. Even for homosexuals, there is a dominant and submissive partner. It doesn’t make one an evil controller, nor the other a complacent doormat, it’s just that someone has to drive the car. Either you trust that person to drive or you take that control away from them. Someone has to be the boy.

Power abhors a vacuum, if you are unable or unwilling to be in control of the frame, a woman’s innate need for security will compel her to control it for you – in spite of her subconscious need for you to be the boy. You can be the Dom or the Sub, just know that you’ll only be the Sub for as long as it takes her to find a Dom to drive the car. This is the paradox of Hypergamy; that her desire for the best genetic/provisional partner would conflict with his ability to dominate her, all while professing a desire for equality masquerading as control just in case he can’t or wont take the driver’s seat.