In the manosphere, lots of guys claim to take the “red pill”. They act like this means they are independent thinkers, but they are not. The red pill is an orthodoxy that is as rigid as the blue pill they say they fight. George had a good comment about this.
I like this whole black pill thing more and more. The *red pill* business is just another iteration of the same old mainstream ideas from the opposite perspective. The *red pill* never really questions the premises of these ideas, it just builds a different delusion from these premises. The best example of this is game – instead of questioning the premise that you need to supplicate to women, it accepted this premise and just developed a different way of supplication.
These days the whole red pill universe has become just another tired old rigid orthodoxy, with every new blog, or new ebook just reiterating the same old stuff. No one ever says anything heretical or new, and if you do, you are shouted down. In this sense it has followed the development of the left, which started off as a rebellion, calcified into an orthodoxy, while still retaining its original mythology of being subversive and counter-cultural as an important part of its self-image.
I always thought that independent, heretical individuals who dont subscribe to any movement or body of ideology are the ones most likely to have the skeptical frame of mind to arrive at the truth. Those who like ideology will just settle down in game or paleo and will ignore all the contrary evidence and internal contradictions. They are not after truth but after the feeling of being subversive and the comfort of being part of a movement. Truly independent individuals truly seeking for truth will eventually see the falsity of game and paleo and all the rest and develop a heterodox view of the world without belonging to any label.
This made me think about everything the red pills believe in. Here’s a list.
- The Paleo Diet
- Conspiracy Theory (This can include everything from 9/11 conspiracy theories to conspiracy theories about me.)
- Meaningless “Self Improvement” (This means self improvement without objective metrics.)
- Ron Paul
- White Nationalism (Whether this should be included in the list is debatable)
If anyone thinks something is missing from this list, mention it in a comment so I can include it if it makes sense. If you deviate from any of these things (except maybe white nationalism) because you’re an independent thinker like myself, you will be treated as a “heretic”. There is no room in this orthodoxy either. If you did some objective self improvement like improving your employment and/or financial situation, the red pills would attack it for some bullshit reason like “it supports Goldman Sachs”. (Yes, I have actually seen them use this.) For number 5 I said Ron Paul, not Libertarianism. That is deliberate. When it comes to politics, the red pills support Ron Paul and Ron Paul only. They don’t support libertarian candidates, libertarian minded individuals, or the Libertarian Party. They consider those three things to be “controlled by the banksters”.
Nothing the red pills say or do is subversive. As Geroge said, they don’t question premises like needing to supplicate to women. They also don’t get attacked like truly subversive people would. Instead they perform attacks on real independent thinkers, that they claim is done to them. The red pills are everything they claim their enemies to be.