Every once in a while, enthusiasm for what we call the red pill makes someone say some seriously dumb shit. Consider this particular dead hamster in the water pipe:
“We can dismiss mythology as just a bunch of made up stuff and be real hard headed douchebags about this. That's what the blue pill wants you to do. You're just a standard human unit. Nothing particular about you. They're working to eliminate the distinctions between "male and female" itself. To completely standardize you into an economic consumption unit.”
What’s the fundamental error here?
It’s not “caring about the creation myths of a bunch of bronze-age ignoramuses”. You can have whatever hobbies you like. I like barbells, boxing gloves, and rifles; maybe you like myths, poetry, and Karl Gustav Jung.
The fundamental error the assumption that there is one blue pill, and so whatever is the opposite of it must be correct or useful. There is not one blue pill, there are many. And of course they are going to fight each other… because the prize is you. Ownership of your soul. Your slave labour until the moment you die. Your willingness to sacrifice your life fighting for a cause that will discard you like cheap toilet paper.
You think that’s valuable to more than one group? Of course it is.
You think that there’s more than one set of lies engineered to exploit you? Of course there are.
You think those packs of lies are going to clash? Of course they are.
So you don’t get to find out the truth by examining what idiots believe and assuming the opposite. Or by examining what tyrants want you to believe and assuming the opposite. You have use your eyes, your ears, and your brain.
Sure, gay communists working for the United Nations are going to have a problem with tradcons. They’re arguing over who gets to fuck you in the ass. So if you’d rather pitch than catch, you gotta watch out for both of them, and anyone else with their dick out and a suspicious-looking gleam in their eye.
And that’s not to mention the amount of retards who really believe that if something is a lie, the opposite must be true. Weirdos with tiresome and irrelevant theories about race. Guys who wanna tell you all about Jesus. I swear I saw an article on “return of kings” where some idiot was talking about how real men should smoke. (Yeah, sure, lemme kill myself by inhaling poison, because lefties don’t like it. That’ll do me a lot of good.)
You’re not beholden to be the opposite of the people who hate you, whether that’s good for you or not. You owe nothing to your ancestors’ dumb beliefs. You belong to you. You are here for you.
Open your eyes, examine everything, test your guesses, decide what works. That’s the only thing the “red pill” will ever mean.
Every once in a while someone approaches me and, full of absolute and unshakable conviction that they expect to receive my full and undivided attention, declares:
“You
are bad, your advice is bad, your should feel bad, fight debate me!”
Unless I’m bored at the moment, my typical response to ignore them, psychoanalyze them, mock them, or simply say absurd and nonsensical things until they go away.
Why, you might ask, am I less and less interested in debate over time, and what good is this to you, and especially what does this all have to do with getting laid? After all, you’re twenty years old, you’re horny as fuck, and you want to learn how to get lots of trim.
Well, everything is about sex, except sex, which is about power. Understand power, and you’ll get laid.
To understand what debating has, or doesn’t have, to do with power, think about what a debate is, and what it has meant in the past… the nature of the argument has changed a lot over time.
Once upon a time, the argument took the form of classical discourse. This was not so much a back and forth process as a rhetorical speech intended to persuade. While this could be intended for a single person, the assumption was more often that this speech was directed at an audience.
The second age of the argument was modern discourse, a back and forth process between two debaters who took on oppositional roles, but essentially engaged in a cooperative process whose goal was to establish truth by determining which case was more persuasive.
The third age of the argument, most noticeable only in the past few decades, is that of post-modern discourse. This takes the form of no-holds barred struggle to discredit not simply the other speaker’s position, but the other speaker himself, the goal being not to prove the opposition wrong but to silence it so that one’s own position will dominate the conversation.
Thus:
Most people would say that most arguments nowdays are post-modern, and this would probably be largely true.
But what goes unnoticed is that we have entered the fourth age of the argument, the Post-Discourse Age, when argument itself is obsolete.
You may have noticed that arguments no longer persuade, they no longer establish truth, and they no longer determine whose views will dominate the social discourse.
To persuade requires an open minded audience. Post-modern discourse has purged us of this.
The means to establish truth is to test, not to joust with theoretical constructs of logic based upon arbitrarily selected premises.
And whose worldview shall dominate thinking and language is determined by how those ideas spread themselves, and whose cooperation they require to do so.
Debate is no longer relevant either as a means of discovery or of dominance. Who wins the debate is not determined by debating. It is determined for forces entirely external to the debate.
What this means is that arguing is no longer empowering… it is merely a means of entertainment which is no more productive than masturbation or video games.
In situations where you wish to achieve power, or appear powerful, you must avoid debating. Debating is at best an idle pastime, and at worst a weak move that signals an internal need for others to agree with you.
Impose your will upon the world by acting, doing, and showing, not by passively begging others to agree or to act.
Examples:
(Young man dealing with an overbearing mother)
Bad: “You should let me move out and get my own place.” (Argument about whether this is a good idea ensues. Nothing happens.)
Good: “That van out there? Oh, they’re moving my stuff to my new place. I’ll put the key on the counter when we leave.”
(People don’t like TRP)
Bad: “We’re not misogynists because reasons. Our advice is good because reasons.” (You have signaled a need for approval. Others influence you by withholding it.)
Good: “And how do you plan to stop us?”
(Girl displays significant LMR)
Bad: “Come on, baby, don’t be a tease.” Tries to push through. (You have signaled investment in her. Now a power struggle is taking place, and she has something you want that she can withhold.)
Good: “Oh, okay, cool. Well, goodnight, then.” Looks around for coat. (She must scramble to prevent you from withdrawing much further than she intended if she values your attention. You now have something she wants that you can withhold.)
If there is something you want, never argue. Do.