Truth Demands Action, a kind rebuttal to a belittling critique.
I can only blame myself. I was here too late for feminism to sink its teeth into the meaty asshole of the Red Pill and take a big chunk out. I’m part of the second generation of asshole, the one which the god fearing hyenas nibbling away while weary of the lioness returning to finish her meal. I ask said hyenas to provide a thoughtful rebuttal, and this is as close to one as I’ve seen.
Twitter User @flyover_country has provided a Medium.com essay, a suggested 16 minute read. I required twice that. Not because it’s dense, but because half the article is masturbatory, meandering tangents with pedantic language (irony noted) to establish the author is well read; plus, I never learned to read. It’s impressive where he references as many intellectuals as possible to bedazzle me with his knowledge. I only wish he had the same convictions when it came to quoting myself, Carl, or Rollo Tomassi with his most damning accusations. Instead he peppers the essay with the words “Intelligentsia” alongside our names, while leaving them out on the accusatory sections and hoping the reader will make the connection for him. If you’re not aware, this is something called plausible deniability, and any man who has used game to gain more success with women will be very familiar with the technique.
I had planned to offer a thoughtful rebuttal of his points starting at the top and working my way down; I was originally a Redditor and this was a bad habit I picked up from the platform. The problem is the points rely on assumptions, the assumptions rely on definitions, the definitions rely on references and the references make no sense. Garbage in, garbage out. Instead I’ll aim at the thrust of it, I only home to steel man it with all the respect the writing deserves. This is kinder than what I and others were offered. The points:
The critique is summed up as Sheep in Search of a Shepherd, becoming adversarial when the answer we give is to be your own shepherd, which is taken as a shirking of our masculine responsibilities.
The entire framework of his post is framed within a feminine mindset. I don’t mean this as a pejorative either. we are having an argument on completely different playing fields.
That the Red Pill is dangerous and will cause the decline of civilization, lovingly referred to as ‘the west’; and
That the Red Pill is a reaction to and sister system of feminism. I think this is meant to be an equivalency of their attack on men or something. Red man bad, got it.
The critique boils down to the author looking to establish authority and expecting anyone speaking authoritatively to take the responsibility for those who listen. This is done to set impossible expectations of the red pilled “intelligentsia” so that we can be safely dismissed as hedonist assholes. The author ignores any actual damage to masculinity, and instead focuses on a specific narcissistic injury. The ‘white picket fence’ Norman Rockwell narrative where men are men, women are women, and good wins over evil is disingenuous and avoids actual grievance. Instead, it’s arguing over who gets to write the rulebook. If this were a Twitter beef, he would be telling those evil pick up artists to ‘Stop ruining the women we have to marry after they’ve wasted their 20s waiting for us to man up!’
This author must be a Christian pastor in training. The entire thing reads like a man who was given a homework assignment by his pastor. The first part points to a linear path of mankind (read: man) moving from savagery to civilized greatness. It meanders about. It takes time away from making a point to ensure you know how many find leather bound books the author owns and how many great authors he can quote. He finally gets to the thrust of it after a lot of passive aggressive point scoring.
The people within the Red Pill are bad. They have a duty to take responsibility for the outcomes of the actions they are talking about. By saying that their words are merely tools and putting the onus on the reader to map them to his own life, they are a similar to a linguistic arms dealer who does not want to be held accountable for the resulting bloodshed.
Christians debating among themselves over the red pill asked this five years prior. The conclusion was unanimous.
This leads directly to the question, what else is there? As I’ve said before.
There is nothing else.
So, what else is there? Is there reason to have grievance that doesn’t involve a bunch of dudes talking about getting laid and not getting destroyed in a separation?
In other posts, I’ve talked about how the men in this space are really the only system that exists between a loveless, lonely, celibate man and a potential mass shooting. It sounds hyperbolic, but it really isn’t. The A.P.A. or, the authority on mental health have deemed masculinity to be a disorder, while wanting to switch your gender is perfectly acceptable.
I suppose this implies it’s acceptable so long as you don’t switch to a traditionally masculine one.
Why the author chose to go after the Red Pilled “intelligentsia” as the evil authority and not the A.P.A. is beyond me. The only thing we have that the A.P.A. doesn’t is the promise of men ruining those traditional women who just want to put on a sun hat, summer dress, and sit around in a wheat field taking wholesome pictures all day in order to establish that she isn’t the same girl who wasted her twenties on fun and adventure.
If I read his argument right, and I’ve seen it enough to say I am, it’s that anything less than following the path of his moral authority is seen as blasphemy. Unless you’re one of the moral authorities that is actually causing harm, so long as it doesn’t affect he own narrative. Power gets a pass, because sheep don’t attack shepherds of other flocks. The difference is the consequences of the A.P.A findings do nothing to attack the narcissistic fantasies of the author. I should add that this is not calling the author a narcissist, I’m talking about the fantasy. Gender swapping is that ‘moral backwards savage’ ideology that he can dismiss. The fact a bunch of dudes can fuck the soon to be wife of one of these hard working moral paragons, and do it just for the sport of it is a direct attack on that narrative. It makes me wonder if all the pedantry and literary references are a sophisticated form of flex.
“Sure, you may be able to get a blow job on the first date, but do you know C.S. Lewis off the top of your head?“
This is speculation. I would likely retract the statement if pressed too much about it from the author.
Here is the key disagreement we have. Whether the tools are useful or not is irrelevant to the Blue Pilled mindset; only the conviction of the “intelligentsia” (almost forgot the belittling quotes) to become their brothers keeper. No authority that currently exists does this. I’ve written and spoken on how narratives affect decisions. This is a prime example:
A man would rather live in a miserable story he’s read a hundred times than write an unknown story with a better ending
He knows (or he should) the status quo. His parents divorce, his mother’s vilification of his father, and being raised as a defective woman should have established it well enough. Just learn to cry and communicate more son. Even if not him, he will have a close friend or seven who have. No man under the age of 50 can plead ignorance.
For us heathens, following our parents life scripts to their likely failure is not an option. I quoted the word ‘truth’ in Whispers work, though I find it useful to use the word ‘utility’ instead. Humans are social creatures, and the social world has too many variables to pin down something as noble as truth. Utility implies a good enough measure of truth along with the humility to know that the depth of human interactions always has more to it than we think. Of course, this idea of a different narrative is a direct attack on a man’s ego investments. It’s not a character attack on the author, it’s happened enough over the years that I am comfortable in assuming it will be here.
Most the points the author discusses parrot the exact discussions I reference. Notice the references have a timestamp of ~2014. I can go back to 2008 and show an older iteration. I can go to 2003 and show an even older one. Before that? It’s someone else’s garbage fire. We were all wearing aviator goggles and feather boas while someone else was navel gazing.
This isn’t an attempt to change minds. Anyone of any worth who engages in the Red Pill in any fashion already knows how this dance works. There is no difference in opinion, there is no meeting in the middle, there is no half and half discussion. It’s a difference in how one processes morality, facts, and the purpose of a debate. Red Pill is amoral, but men are not. Whisper, a pen name of one of the better writers in this space offers great insight into these differences. The fundamental differences in how the author approached his rebuttal to how it’s framed are seen in the assumptions. they are referred to as blue and red pilled in his post:
RP Assumption 1, that there is one reality, and the truth is what accurately describes it. The better a statement does this, the more true it is; factional abolitionists.
BP Assumption 1, That reality is subjective, and what is true is a codification of someones perspective; factional relativists
RP Assumption 2, That whether something is good or bad is a matter of opinion, and that the consequences of actions are what matters; moral relativism
BP Assumption 2, That there are one set of moral laws, and that the pathway of man from savage to civilized man is a straight line pathway, of which any societal woes are considered moving backwards; moral absolutists.
RP Assumption 3, that the goal is to find the utility in a course of action, and how that knowledge can be used to predict outcomes; the discussion is about what is useful
BP Assumption 3, The goal is to establish authority, as per assumption 2, the discussion is about who is the authority
RP Assumption 4, Any disagreement or discussion is about the ideas not the people. The character of the speaker is irrelevant
BP Assumption 4, Any disagreement or discussion is about the people, the ideas are irrelevant. The whole point is to win the moral high ground so one can set the moral rules.
And this gets to the core of his earlier point. Sheep in search of a shepherd. While I suggested broad subjective categories, blue and red pill, what it really does is suggest feminine and masculine belief systems. Just parsing this out would be a post in itself, so I’m hoping you’ll take this as a ‘good enough’ truth, or utility.
This is why every critique thus far on the Red Pill and it’s content creators has been thinly veiled character attacks, passive aggressive snark and other reputation attacking tools. That isn’t because the attacks are crude, poorly thought out or badly implemented. That is because these techniques are the entire point. To attack the character or reputation of anyone speaking so whatever content they talk about can be safely disregarded. If that’s good enough for you, I can’t help you, call me after the divorce if you haven’t decided to suck on a 1911.
It makes perfect sense why the author has such animosity at “Rollo Tomassi,” myself, or Carl.
Rollo, myself, Carl, Whisper, Ironwood, Galt. No one wants the role of the supreme moral authority. We would rather the individual take that upon himself. Even if any of us did, there’s no mechanism from which we can accept responsability so the point is moot. The assumption that the individual is the only and best advocate for his own best interests is as close to a core believe as one gets in this space. For one who wants his shepherd to be The Shepherd, what we put out is tantamount to stapling the 7 iron rules of Tomassi onto the church doors in protest to the indulgences offered for men who ‘man up and marry those hoes.’
I can’t really comment on the fortune telling, as I’m not omnipotent. I haven’t read enough C.S. Lewis to be able to predict the future, so I’ll have to concede defeat to the authors crystal ball. What I can say is that with all the faulty garbage definition of terms he’s used, I'm’ surprised he can confidently predict anything. I find it horribly rude to put the fault on modern societies woes onto the shoulders of a 27 year old man who just wanted to get laid, he was born into this mess, he didn’t create it.
Praxeology had those roots he describes. How he gets to this particular framing is beyond me. If he had to ask or clarify terms, I don’t know why he didn’t go to the source. Ian Ironwood gave the best description for Praxeology as it maps to a Red Pilled mans life. Ironwood builds upon the work of Keoni Galt, the man who made the first post using the Red Pill and is as good as it gets for original sources.
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.
I like the Twain-like admission that human action is never from within, always from the outside. Red Pill is reactive in the way all men are reactive.
A problem comes along which causes a trauma, or a hardship.
Men find the situation untenable and work towards a solution.
Not as noble when put simply. Thanks Mr. Clemens!
This all makes sense when you assume mankind and morality advance on a linear path. Do you know who else does this?
While I hate to be cliche and talk about horseshoe theory, feminine values in, feminine values out. There’s a reason Redpilled men tend to have equal disdain for the TRADCON and the progressive. The two groups aren’t mad at each other because the other ideology has it’s boot on your neck for the sake. They aren’t concerned of man’s well being. They are mad because it’s not their boot. At least the progressive types are upon and up front about this, the TRADCON has the delusion that they are doing the guy a favor.
“A real man doesn’t make his woman drive, work, or do anything resembling self reliance!”
Sure, Sharia law is pretty clear on that.
I figure if the author can become TRADCON Nostradamus and meander about the future, I can become Red Pilled Columbo and meander about the present.
Another fault he makes is in calling feminism an ideology. It isn’t an ideology, it’s not a belief system, and it’s not a set of values …
It’s a tactic.
And the only part of feminism that parallels the Red Pill is the argument made in the The Melian Dialog:
because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
For both, it’s about getting what you want, using whatever tools best accomplish that goal.
This is why feminism has no rhyme or reason. Is being a slut empowering or evil? Is prostitution a social construct or is it a woman taking back her femininity? The reason it makes no sense is because it’s not supposed to. It’s will-to-power, or womaneese (a shorthand term used to describe it in this space); using mans innate instinct to protect women against his own self interests. This is what happens when all danger is removed from society. Without the need of a man, what need do we have of man?
Flip the genders and it says much about the mentality. Why do you think everyone is up in arms when a guy flippantly tweet to ‘go learn to make a sandwich?’ Or, ‘What do you bring to me other than a warm hole between your legs?’ Many women don’t have an answer. Many don’t want to.
I would take issue with his assertion that the men’s rights movement is a precursor to the Red Pill. If there was a sister movement to feminism, it wouldn’t be red pill, it would be the M.R.A. They’ve taken the idea of feminism as a tactic, and assumed that men are on equal footing when using the same tools. Instead of that instinct for protection however, they get revulsion. This is why the movement as a whole has zero success successful pushes in the last 50 years. Even when they put women into the ranks of their leadership, the female approved grievances are not addressed. This isn’t an important point; I wanted to address it to avoid the idea that Paul Elam has any business in this space with the rest of us.
Pick up artists are the father to the Red Pill:
Our George Washington is Mystery, our tri-fold hat is a feather top hat.
Our Boston tea party was an L.A. foam party.
Our war of 1812 was, Woodstock ‘99?
This is why I assume the intent was pure nihilism, or building up a god in order to tear it down. To make this into a societal woe is to give the “intelligentsia” too much credit. We were a bunch of guys who wanted to get laid, got good at it, found ourselves in the company of predatory women and institutions that abandoned us in our time of need, and then took it upon ourselves to clean the mess up. Passing notes on are what allowed it to happen as quickly as it did. Strike a blow for male ingenuity.
Put 10 weak men in a room and you get caddy in-fighting. Put 10 strong men in a room and you have yourself an army.
While this is a masturbatory, pedantic rebuttal to an equally masturbatory pedantic post, I do want to give credit to the author. I’ve been asking for pushback for years, and it’s the best I’ve seen yet. However, it’s a sophisticated version of the thousands of arguments that people have already had on purple pill debate, or the blogosphere circa 2009 - 2014. The arguments are tired, the terms aren’t even agreed upon, and the fundamental disagreement between masculine and feminine axioms will never be reconciled by a post where both parties refuse to meet on the other person’s home turf.
There’s no shortage of men willing to be the plow horses of society and they are welcome to reach the disillusionment of that dream on their own. Automation is coming. Once one no longer has the noble job as a truck driver, paralegal or back office drone, they can come back and tell us how the paragon of male virtue worked out for them.
Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior, Rollo Tomassi?
 Free northerner, Alternatives to game. (https://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/alternatives-to-game/, 2014)
 Stephanie Pappas, ARPA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner, 2019)
 A.P.A. What is Gender Dysphoria? (https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria)
 Whisper, Why PPD, while sometimes diverting, is ultimately useless. (Reedit, /r/Purplepilldebate, 2015)
 Ian Ironwood, Praxeology of hate dominant male. (http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2014/05/red-pill-roles-praxeology-of-dominant.html, 2014)
 Keoni Galt, Praxeology and the truth of game (http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/praxeology-truth-of-game.html 2014)
 Keoni Galt, Game is the Red Pill (http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/09/game-is-red-pill.html, 2009)
 Mark Twain, What is man? Page 1 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/70/70-h/70-h.htm, 1835 - 1910)
 Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89