What specifically is this blue-pill indoctrination we fight so hard against? Very simply, it's the transactional, economic nature of our world. From advertising to sexual relationship dynamics, the world is transactional.

A pejorative typical claim is that "you objectify women" or we "treat them as sub-human". Is that true? Not at all. I objectify everybody. I recognize what each party brings to the table, I recognize how the shit-tests women present are simply an attempt to measure my fitness level. I have no problem objectifying everybody, men and women alike. I recognize the transactional nature of social dynamics, of employer-employee dynamics, of family dynamics, etc. And yet that is, in no way, mutually exclusive with concrete emotions. One can pair-bond and have loyalty and trust amongst other men. One can certain feel love, and also recognize its evolutionary advantage, with his eyes wide open as to the fact that love may have a shelf-life shorter than he desires. But such a man who objectifies and uses the transactional nature of the world to his advantage is surely manipulative, right?

I think what others would call manipulative, is what some call "strategy". Nobody is forcing Little Miss Slut to stay with Mr. Bad Boy if she's not getting treated as she wants. He isn't physically coercing her to make "poor choices". Or maybe she stays with him because deep down, he is treating her as she wants to some degree? We are all employing some strategy or another, and hence we are all manipulative. The nice guy has his covert contracts. The girl has her hypergamy, her make-up to hide her flaws, etc. Is it a matter of degrees? Is some level of manipulation inherently "worse" than others? Just because we bring our strategy to the surface and are conscious about it, doesn't change the fact that others are employing subconscious strategies which have literally evolved over time. You surely don't need to employ strategy or manipulation to get what you want, as there are plenty of (well, a few) relationships out there in which the parties' underlying subconscious strategies happen to mesh, but it surely increases the probability of success. Is such a "manipulative" asshole toxic?

Toxic, if you really think about it, simply means ineffective. A toxic strategy is one which, over the long term, isn't actually best for the parties involved. It erodes the functional dynamics which non-toxic strategies exhibit. Yet if a strategy (conscious or subconscious) is effective, how can it be called toxic? Detractors would rather see things happen "organically" which simply means without any strategy. Perhaps instead of ineffective, it means immoral?

This was thoroughly covered by a reddit post over a year ago. The gist of the concept is that bluepillers are inherently moral absolutists, in which any action or "truth" is viewed through the lens of morality first-and-foremost. It doesn't matter to them if a strategy is effective, if it's considered immoral. Whereas redpillers are inherently "factual absolutists", sticking only to what is most effective. At the end of the day, the strategy itself is amoral. It's simply information as to what is effective. The fact that it's "wrong" in the eyes of others doesn't change whether or not it's effective. It's ultimately up to the wielder of such knowledge to choose to act on the information. Well, even if it's effective, perhaps it makes the person wielding such a strategy hollow inside and unable to be happy?

In the classic staple post on /r/theredpill regarding the five stages of grief as applied to TRP, when the band-aid is ripped off, and you start to see the transactional nature of the world, you naturally go through Denial, Bargaining, Anger, and Depression. You vehemently try to deny the truth. But once you accept and internalize the transactional nature of the world, you get to Acceptance. But not everybody in the Acceptance stage is happy. What do I mean? Well, you have a choice once you've accepted the nature of the world. There was a recent thread on the darkenlightenment subreddit discussing "The Black Pill", which is essentially someone who sees how things are, and yet doesn't like it. He wants out. This is the defeatist interpretation of Acceptance, which results in one feeling exasperated. You could argue such a man hasn't truly accepted the world, but I believe he has. Think of Cipher. A man who is unplugged from the matrix, and yet wants back in because he hates the truth. Your other choice is to be an opportunist, and learn how to thrive in the true nature of the world. Think of Neo, who finally accepts the world, and then bends it to his will, with his newfound knowledge. Such a man who sees the world how it truly is, can choose to use the rules of the game to better himself. He can even have a serious relationship and a child, knowing full well the risks. In fact, such a man is using his knowledge of the transactional nature of the world, I attest would minimize the risks such as hypergamy. Such a man is ultimately happy because he finds a joy and power in that choice.

~~~~~~