Summary: Red pill knowledge is spreading. The great and wise of America deny its significance beyond saying it is crimethink and doubleplusungood. What is it? How will it affect America? Neither is well understood. Here are introductory answers.
“This is your last chance. …You take the red pill …and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
— Morpheus in The Matrix. In the gender wars, taking the red pill is learning about the nature of modern women and marriage. It is dark knowledge, changing how a man views the world. Details here.
. In the gender wars, taking the red pill is learning about the nature of modern women and marriage. It is dark knowledge, changing how a man views the world. 
A previous post in this series discussed Dalrock’s insight that Game is toxic to feminism. Game is the first reaction to the gender wars, the restructuring of society by feminists. “Red pill” thinking is a more advanced reaction. It is toxic to marriage – one of our core institutions — and one that has been most profoundly reshaped and repurposed by feminism. Its spread unpredictable effects and cannot be stopped.
Red pill knowledge spreads by observation of other men, seeing what works and what fails. It spreads by inadvertent reveals in the media (such as this on a reality TV show). Men realize that Taylor Swift’s songs are honest revelations of women’s dreams – and their consequences (examples here).
Men see red pill insights in the news. Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz was a pitiful loser, ignored or despised by girls. As a psychopathic killer, now girls flood him with fan mail – offering themselves to him. That is understandable as the extreme version of the “girls want bad boys” behavior denied by feminists but obvious around us (and proven by many research studies).
Men gain red pill insights from films and TV. They see women casually hitting men (even boyfriends) with impunity. Romance is shown as women breaking alpha men into betas – or women marrying beta providers whom they treat like doormats. Competent but socially inept beta men are treated with contempt and abuse by women. There is little in the patriarchal literature or films of the bad old days showing men treating women like that.
Men read women discussing their lives, often ideal-shattering from a man’s perspective – and then take the red pill. See this extreme example: “I’m A Woman Who Cheated On Her Deployed Husband, This Is Why I Did It“. She skillfully deploys feminist philosophy to justify her actions. She collects his pay but plans to leave him eventually. Dalrock has a vast collection of women’s conversations from Christian conservative websites. Reading it will convert the most fervent White Knight to the MGTOW lifestyle (Men Going Their Own Way). Ditto with prominent women’s advice to young women: see these words that signal a drastic change in the American family.
Men began to write about the gender revolution, encouraging other men to take the red pill. Since feminists won, these insurgents are outlaws. See this analysis about one form of girls’ Game (romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, community property, child support, independence). Outlaw literature arises, such as “Stacy’s Credo” (see the second part, a stream of consciousness narrative written by a red pill James Joyce). See this example of red pill comedy (like all good comedy, expressing experiences of the audience).
Dark knowledge changes everything
“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
— Speech by union leader Nicholas Klein (1918). Details here.
Red pill insights demystify marriage, revealing how it no longer provides most men with an acceptable risk-cost-reward balance. This counter-revolution to radical feminism is in its early stage. This dark knowledge might spread like a virus through the current generation of young men (18-24). The primary effect: discouraging them from marrying. This would change the lives of their generation of women when these ladies hit 28 and decide to settle. This generation might be a step change in US history. It would be like a singularity in astrophysics – we cannot know lies on the other side.
Such exponential growth would surprise experts and the public. It always does, because core social phenomena are considered the unchangeable bedrock of society, no matter how much else changes – until it is washed away. Then comes the transitional phase, and eventually a new equilibrium.
I suspect this will evolve according to Hegel’s process of thesis (radical feminism) => antithesis (red pill) => synthesis (something new). We can only guess what that new social order will look like, or how much disruption will occur between now and then. But there are clues.
New institutions
Most Christian institutions have adopted feminism or even radical feminism into their core doctrines. As Dalrock has shown with scores of examples of Christian Conservatives, often by profound alterations to their core doctrines (see below). A massive expansion of red pill thinking among young men will break their allegiance to those institutions. Since they have already been severely weakened by modernity, secularism, and scandals – they might become just a fringe factor in US society.
Change creates opportunities. Some institutions might prosper by a resurgence of male pride. Red pill thinking might be a bridge for young men to Islam.
Reactions to Red Pill knowledge
“Anger is easy. Anger at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason, is difficult.”
— Aristotle in hid Nicomachean Ethics (paraphrased).
As always, the action to the reaction determines what happens next. Most men taking the Red Pill see that radical feminism has initiated social decay. Some respond by enjoying the decline. Weimerica is party time! Game and Red Pill knowledge help men get sex, and with prettier women. For most men the gain is small, but still appreciated.
Some men take a different path. They are Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), often dropping out of the rat race of education and striving for career advancement. Why bother? A comfortable life is low responsibility, minimal work plus booze, drugs, sports, e-sports, and games.
Some respond with anger. This is exacerbated as they see the portrayal of men by the media (as dolts in advertisements). Some will channel their anger, seeking to change America. These are the ones to watch. Anger is often the first step to political action. More men will respond with inchoate anger, undirected and visceral. They will make excellent recruits for the first group. This might become a powerful boost to the alt-right.
Our elites discourage anger since history shows that pleasant peasants are easier to rule. See these posts about anger as a spur to political action.
- A simple thing you can do to start the reform of America: get angry.
- How can we arouse a passion to reform America in the hearts of our neighbors?
- Should we risk using anger to arouse America?
- The best response to Campaign 2016: anger.
Conclusion
“Difficult to see, always in motion is the future.”
— Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back.
.There is always a counter-revolution, even to successful revolutions. The result is seldom what either side expects. Sometimes the conflict produces a stronger society. Sometimes institutions are damaged beyond society’s ability to repair them, and no new ones appear to replace them. Usually the cost to the people involved is large.
None of these factors have been considered by the ideologues who started the gender wars. They have made radical changes to society based only on their ideology, without experimentation or testing. Generations of young Americans are their guinea pigs. But the insight unleashed in the minds of both men and women must clash until resolved. It is a social science experiment as large or larger than communism.
Insights from Dalrock about modern marriage
- Disney Princesses teach girls “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” — About “Frozen.”
- From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage.
- We now place romantic love above marriage, which fatally weakens marriage.
- About our system: Women’s sacred path to marriage.
- Girls are taught the destructive concepts of “The one” vs “my one and only.”
- Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force.
- Essential data about marriage: women divorce at the optimum time (for them).
- More valuable data about divorce rates by age.
See the other posts in this series about the counter-revolution
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.
- Is a return to traditional values possible?
- Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- Men find individual solutions.
- Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, and about marriage.
Books about the new era of gender relations
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
The Privileged Sex
One can not unknow something. You can forget or deny but not unknow. This is the redpill’s power. Similiar to feminisms patriarchy, it’s a lens that illuminates what was in the shadows. Once known, everything the women around you do adds anecdotal proof to bookish theory.
Moreover, so far the feminist counter-attacks have only served validate the redpill and win more men over it. It’s akin to plugging the multiplying leaks in your dam by headbutting it. After winning nothing but headaches, they will probably turn to their big daddy, the state.
The Red Pill will become a hate crime.
Longmarch,
“The Red Pill will become a hate crime.”
A democracy has limits on its ability to demonize ideas held by a large fraction of the population. See how the ideals of the Confederacy remained respectable for a century after the Civil War.
If Red Pill insights spread, we will see increasingly conflict – but eventually they won’t be able to keep them out of the mainstream media and institutions.
There will be some growth, some anger…..but I hate to say it…………..most men are thirsty for sex and like heaps of abuse. Met plenty of men who have been anally-raped in family court but there they are dating another woman, moving in with another woman, planning to marry another woman…….
Even Paul McCartney didn’t learn his lesson after the most expensive divorce in British recorded history!
I think the red-pill voices will be a bit more common in the future. MGTOW will continue to grow…..but really……if real alpha men (not players) and men with looks a la George Clooney drop out…that is when women may……MAY…apply the brakes and have some self-criticism. It’s really doubtful though.
70s Jason,
“I think the red-pill voices will be a bit more common in the future.”
I agree. That’s why I suggest watching the young men now 18-23. They see the train wreck of older men’s lives.
“most men are thirsty for sex …planning to marry another woman”
That’s missing the point. In our era men can have the former without the latter. Time will tell if young men take that option. The easy assumption is that the future will be like the past. That’s why most forecasts are wrong.
“most men …like heaps of abuse”
I doubt that.
Larry Kummer said:
I agree. That’s why I suggest watching the young men now 18-23. They see the train wreck of older men’s lives.
I’ve seen enough posts, blogs and Youtube channels of millennial men who absolutely do not care about women at all. Their level of interaction with them ranges from using them like Kleenex to avoiding them completely. Tradcon men are often bewildered by the level of indifference or animosity shown. So I’m waiting to see what this next generation of young men will bring. I don’t expect it to be better, and think it may well be a lot worse.
Ray,
“millennial men who absolutely do not care about women at all.”
I don’t believe reading media tells you much, since the happy people aren’t posting & videoing about it. But I too often see animosity towards women, esp in the younger millennials. Time will tell how many of them marry.
“I don’t expect it to be better, and think it may well be a lot worse.”
Define “better and worse” in this context. From whose perspective?
Larry Kummer said:
I don’t believe reading media tells you much, since the happy people aren’t posting & videoing about it.
Not even to reactions to events like #metoo or James Damore’s firing? They don’t appear to be coming only from the core MGTOW ringleaders.
Define “better and worse” in this context. From whose perspective?
Worse for women. Less attention, or more negative attention from men. Fewer resources transferred from men to women. Greater reluctance by men to interact with women. Do you disagree?
Men don’t like “heaps of abuse”. They’re willing to tolerate abuse to varying degrees to get sex. Some men are willing to tolerate more abuse than others.
The Deti,
“Men don’t like ‘heaps of abuse'”
The reality is more complex. Radical feminists have encouraged grrl power, so girls despise beta boys and treat them badly. Since beta orbiters stay for more punishment, even marrying them — women assume (logically) that they enjoy abuse.
See the voice of women millennials: Taylor Swift, in the lyrics to “Blank Space.”
Once chivalry is dead and buried, a new generation of men will behave differently. Then society will change in ways we cannot now predict.
Hmmmmm……..perhaps….but I have witnessed plenty o men who will sign up to be talked down to, belittled, and just frankly treated as accessory to a woman just for sex. Plenty. These same men talk about how much “Game” they have. Many men marry again after a horrifying divorce. Many move in with a trophy (ie young / younger) woman and deal with this all over again. A lot of men seem to like this
I watched Lola Bunny drop an anvil on Bugs and now I have to scream “beta cuck” into the mirror every time I see my reflection.
A snapshot in time — about life for girls at the peak of girl’s Game: party-marry-kids-divorce-independence. When marriage was all good options for women, before the counter-revolution.
“How Nashville Became One Big Bachelorette Party”
“The easiest way to identify a bachelorette party is by their matching T-shirts, emblazoned with Nashville-inflected slogans in twee calligraphy (“When I Sip You Sip We Sip”; “BOOTS and BOOZE and THE BRIDE”). The attendees — bridesmaids, friends, moms, sisters-in-law, anyone who’s affiliated with the bride and willing to throw down for a weekend — wear identical tees in black or bright colors. The bride’s, of course, is white.”
I think you might be slightly wrong in the dialectic. I believe the appropriate characterization to be:
Thesis: Traditionalist Marriage & Gender Norms
Antithesis: Feminism
Synthesis: Red Pill
In that conception, it’s not the Red Pill that’s poison to marriage, but rather feminism (including innovations elsewhere in our culture: no fault divorce, the welfare state, affirmative action, popular culture views on men & masculinity, birth control, abortion, etc.)
The Red Pill won’t save marriage–it was already mortally wounded, though there are Red Pill women out there, many of whom have an online presence.
NTL,
These formulations are conceptual, so there is no one way to describe them. In Hegel’s conception, the synthesis is a new stability or equilibrium. Red Pill isn’t that, imo.
A common explaination is NAWALT
My thinking?
NAWALT is bullshit. So what if 1 woman is not like that?
The true question is TAWILT?
The Average Woman Is Like That.
The knowledge of TAWILT is more deadly than the loss of NAWLT.
Thoughts?
MGTOW,
Re: NAWALT
Many of us old parents have played NAWALT card with our Red Pill sons. My first realization was that was bad advice because NAWALT can be right but operationally useless. Magnitudes matter. There are “nice girls” as boomers defined them — just as there are black swans — but they are too few to make marrying them a strategy. In the 1960s an average guy could marry an average girl thru the somewhat random mating process, with high odds of it working out for both. Not so today.
Further thought and discussion showed that that analysis was superficial. An old aphorism in armies is that a battle plan that requires the commander to be great (e.g., like Marlborough or Rommel) is going to fail. Similarly, mating strategies are dumb that require young men to successfully make sophisticated analysis of women (e.g., what will she do after 5-7 years of marriage). Few can do it.
In other words, NAWALT assumes that young men can tell the young women who will make good wives from the large fraction of ones who will divorce them — take the kids and much of their money. They can’t.
This goes to the larger point, which I might write about soon. Girls today are excited about marriage — see the fantastic bachelorette parties (now often bigger than the somewhat disreputable bachelors’ parties) because we are at Peak Marriage for women. It gives them legitimacy, kids, money — and above all, options. They have all the options. Of course young women see this and get excited. They can have it all.
But at the same time young men (18-24) are seeing the lives of older men — and running the same calculations that young women get. My guess (guess) is that they will do something that few of the great and wise of society expect: many will not marry. That will be a grenade thrown into the complex social machinery.
The next question — beyond even guessing — is how today’s young women will react. I’ve asked women (boomer women). Will those girls adjust their behavior to attract young men into marriage? For example — wearing skirts, nice hair, and lower-key behavior? They all answer “no.” Learning to play those games began at 8, and women achieved mastery at 20-23 — and married. Starting at 28 is too late.
If correct, that means a generation of women will become cat ladies — examples of failure, much like the current generation of men being exploited. It will be the next generation of women that will react, perhaps building a new and more stable social regime.
Larry Kummer said:
The gender revolution began by the boomers started in the 1960s. Over the past 55+ years it has had a big effect. But little has changed since 2002.
Rates of never married looks like it’s grown significantly in that time.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/
I think you’re also overlooking other factors like college campus enrollments. Yes, the shift in enrollments started about a half century ago. But it’s a trend that has continued to grow steadily – it certainly hasn’t stood still since 2002 from what I’ve seen.
Rates of sexual activity, infidelity, divorce, remarriage, childbearing, etc — all have changed slightly since 2002, as they always have over time. Society changes slowly
Divorce rates can be misleading since lower rates could simply be an artifact of fewer marriages happening in the first place. The same is true with birth rates since immigration is a big confounding variable. The Nov Time article referenced shows white deaths in America exceeding births in 17 states in 2014, up from 4 in 2004.
http://time.com/4585232/white-deaths-exceed-births-united-states/
It is possible — my theory — that the next generation (20 years) might initiate a step change — an “s” curve. But there has not been one yet.
That’s my belief too, which has been shaped by articles such as “The Misandry Bubble”. The author describes what sounds more or less like a sudden shift or phase change due to cumulative changes in technology, the economy, and society.
There has been a surge of articles on the internet about the red pill. But that’s like saying there was a severe summer storm
Can’t quite agree there. I consider having a name on a phenomenon, along with a shared cultural knowledge, to be highly significant. There are also parallel occurrences such as #metoo, Gamergate, and various other
“-gates”, which involve the harassment and/or firing of successful male figures in the tech industries. These weren’t originated by the classic red-pill community, but I believe the perception is growing among men that their female co-workers may be more of a liability than an asset to them.
More significant would be a series of books about red pill on the best-seller lists, which hasn’t happened.
Best-seller lists carry the baggage of older media that are losing ground, so I’m not convinced you’re looking for change in the right place. When would you expect a book by MGTOW Youtube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey to be on the NY Times best seller list? My best guess is some time after its staff throws its editorial support behind President Trump.
Hegelian synthesis?
Toxic masculinity is harped on and it is discovered that it can’t be fixed/eradicated. The solution is culling the population of men to 25% of current levels. These remaining men are breeding bulls, and not socially fathers, and the children are raised in collectives of women supported by the state. That’s your endstate here. Men are not goin to “win”, and to the extent that there is a synthesis, it will be fem-centric.
Nova,
Thanks for the comic relief! Doomsters fantastically confident predictions are almost always wrong (one a million are right), but always fun to read.
Novaseeker said:
These remaining men are breeding bulls, and not socially fathers, and the children are raised in collectives of women supported by the state.
Great. What happens when the toilets explode or the snow is waist deep?
That’s your endstate here. Men are not goin to “win”, and to the extent that there is a synthesis, it will be fem-centric.
Men do almost all of the heavy lifting of society, and have multiple essential functions. Women cost more than they put into the economy, and their essential functions are
limited to sex and giving birth to children. So if women try and do this, what makes you think they would succeed?
I’ve been reading this series for quite some time now, with great interest. I have two reactions.
One is, what the average woman would say when confronted with this material. I think it would be the mirror image, but about a very small group. It would be something like, yes, there are a smallish number of very conscious guys whose only aim is to get you into bed, and who will say anything to do that. In particular they will lie about feelings and intentions. They are highly manipulative and exploitative. So you have to learn to pick them out and have nothing to do with them.
I think it would also be that the portrayal of most women as being these devious calculating and manipulative creatures out to trick men and feather their nests at their expense? Well, its very traditional. Its being sold as new insights, but this demonization of women is not at all new. Its found in all cultures that basically deny women civil rights. Its strongest in Islam of course. But you will find it in Hindu India, and evidently you find it in some, largely alt-right, sections of America — among men of certain classes.
The second is, its a generalization about how women are and think and behave that I do not think is a true description. Its not so much, NAWALT, its rather that most women are not like that. For that matter, most men are not either. In my experience we are all much more human with each other than this allows for.
Consequently I don’t expect the apocalypse that the author and some commenters forecast. I expect the obvious inequities in law, such as biological parenthood and support issues, to be corrected. I expect political correctness to retreat on campus as it will in the country generally. And most men and women will seek and find loving relationships in which to raise kids. I expect this to go through a rocky patch, and then get materially easier again in around five years.
There is no red pill. There is however hallucinatory levels of paranoid misogyny among some American men of a certain class.
That class wouldn’t include such noted male feminists as Lauer, Weinstein, Tavis Smiley, Ryan Lizza, Garrison Keillor, Charlie Rose, Glenn Thrush, Al Franken, Louis CK, Michael Oreskes, Leon Wieseltier, and others, would it?
The common threads are their misogyny, and their feminism.
George,
That is a fascinating exercise, and your answers seem logical (to this guy, at least). Continuing your exercise, what might we reply to that woman?
(1) “there are a smallish number of very conscious guys whose only aim is to get you into bed…”
She’s either inexperienced or kidding us.
(2) “So you have to learn to pick them out and have nothing to do with them.”
That’s radically missing the point. She first should ask herself some questions. Such as why these methods work so well (even if if doing so is beyond the ability of most men). For details see Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad. Second, why do so many men resort to these methods. For details see Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
(3) “the portrayal of most women as being these devious calculating and manipulative creatures out to trick men and feather their nests at their expense?”
Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmström won the 2016 Noble Prize in Economics for their work proving one of the central tenets of economics: incentives matter. Research in sociobiology and psychology has produced similar results. Our core programing is for the survival of our family. We construct sophisticated narratives to conceal that often harsh logic.
(4) “In my experience we are all much more human with each other than this allows for.”
She can assert away to her heart’s content. Time will prove which of us is right. Also, I recommend she read a Psych 101 text. She would learn a great deal about what people are like.
(5) “Consequently I don’t expect the apocalypse that the author and some commenters forecast.”
Thank her for me. I’ve done this for 15 years, responding to over 50,000 comments. This experience has shown that the strongest validation of my insights is people giving rebuttals to false versions of them. It shows an inability to either hear what I’ve said or rationally respond to it.
If she actually read my posts (unlikely from her responses), she would learn that I describe a commonplace process of social revolution. It is unusual only its magnitude and speed. I describe the result as the exact opposite of an “apocalypse.”
Larry,
I see that many of today’s women, my sample size is small, are taking the female red pill. In this case, the question is “Do you believe you can have it all?” The answer is that no one can have it all. This dark knowledge is resulting in good betas getting women who see the truth and are practical about it. Children, home, a good life… women still see themselves as the desirable sex, but with the knowledge that tempus fugit. They are aware, and set plans based on the biological fact of infertility, and the desire for a good life: a good life that lasts for a life.
The key to seeing this, that is needed to determine if real, is to get the stats that show how many women are supporting their unmarried betas or husbands to become wealthier and better providers. I believe that this will show what a possible synthesis will be or be like.
John,
Interesting observations. It’s difficult to see trends as an individual. Divorce and marriage rates during the next decade will tell the tale.
Larry, it may take a few decades if the starting numbers are low, and humans would rather take the blue pill believing in Game or YCHIA (you can have it ALL). Most humans tend to go with the instant gratification of desires.
Consequently I don’t expect the apocalypse that the author and some commenters forecast. I expect the obvious inequities in law, such as biological parenthood and support issues, to be corrected. I expect political correctness to retreat on campus as it will in the country generally. And most men and women will seek and find loving relationships in which to raise kids. I expect this to go through a rocky patch, and then get materially easier again in around five years.
The rise and fall of empires would suggest otherwise…
Kentucky,
“The rise and fall of empires would suggest otherwise”
If America could have gotten every doomster to put up money on their predictions, we’d never would have deficits.
Well said, I agree with you (hope you are right). Misogyny has existed in many forms for eons, as you noted. Yet, misandry is not a solution, just a retribution. This series has made me, a boomer woman, very sad. I don’t see this reflected in the millennial’s in my family who are marrying and starting families. I see mutual respect and loving concern for one another and for their shared futures. I see them valuing a life-long commitment to their spouse and the family they create and nurture together. But that is what my generation and my parents generation have modeled for the younger generations in my family. Even when the going gets tough, the tough stay together and become stronger because of and in spite of the challenges life throws at us all. Clearly, that is not the case in a large swath of society.
Kathleen,
People see what they want to see. I look at the statistics and other hard data. Time will tell whose vision is more accurate.
Larry Kummer said:
I assume you are kidding us, citing 2002 as ancient history.
I was unaware that stating that an expression wasn’t in common usage back then (when referring to gender roles) was equivalent to referring to 2002 as ancient history.
There were certainly men’s issues blogs back then.but I didn’t see the concept of “red pill thinking” widely articulated as a concept until a number of years later, maybe 2009-2010. Here’s a Google Trends graph of “Red Pill”, which supports my assertion.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=red%20pill
MGTOW also shows a big trend upward in the past 15 years or so.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=MGTOW
In fact, little has changed since then.
Are you stating that little has changed between M/F relations since then? Or that “Red Pill” wisdom had the same level of prevalence?
I was referring to the Boomer generations and those that came before
Looks like Devlin’s generation to me, although I don’t know exactly how old he is. He strikes me as pretty unusual – a conservative who wrote bluntly about the negative qualities of women.
Ray,
“Are you stating that little has changed between M/F relations since then?”
The gender revolution began by the boomers started in the 1960s. Over the past 55+ years it has had a big effect. But little has changed since 2002. Rates of sexual activity, infidelity, divorce, remarriage, childbearing, etc — all have changed slightly since 2002, as they always have over time. Society changes slowly.
It is possible — my theory — that the next generation (20 years) might initiate a step change — an “s” curve. But there has not been one yet.
There has been a surge of articles on the internet about the red pill. But that’s like saying there was a severe summer storm. More significant would be a series of books about red pill on the best-seller lists, which hasn’t happened. My guess is that will happen in the next decade, as the step change begins.
The Red Pill is now a known factor. Even though there may be ‘good women’ out there it is always a game of Russian roulette. Maybe better is the ‘box of hand grenades’ analogy. You have a box of 10 hand grenades. someone tells you that only 5 out of those 10 are live. The other 5 are duds. Now you have to take a hand grenade and hold it to your chest and pull the pin. Are you going to follow orders or tell them to take a forking hike?
The hand grenade analogy is EXACTLY what marriage has become. 50% of the time the marriage will blow up in your face and you’ll be left, AT BEST, in a horrible place if you are male.
Young men today have watched it happen to their own fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, more times than they can count.
CeeEhs,
I agree with the grenade analogy. Telling young men to find the good women is useless unless we can tell them how to distinguish the good from the bad ones. That’s asking too much of them.
As for the odds, what are acceptable odds when the consequences of a bad choice are so high? We don’t play Russian Roulette despite odds of 5 to 1 in our favor.
“The Red Pill is now a known factor.”
Only by a small fraction of young men. That’s the point of this post. If this is an “s” curve, things will get interesting quite quickly!
Thanks Larry for the clarifications, much appreciated!
“Roles were defined so that the dance could be done by amateurs, which is pretty much everybody. Women enticed, offered, encourage, supported.”
and
“Both of them (and their leading ladies) would laugh. It’s the guy’s role to initiate that discussion. Imagine any of their leading ladies doing that. They’d let the guy know they were available, and dangle the tasty bait. ”
This makes a lot of sense. I remember one girl in particular, we were “hanging out” for about 2 months, got along really, even briefly discussed marriage/kids/family. Yet when I was asked her to get in a relationship, the answer was in the negative. She bounced very quickly afterwards. That really confused me, I remember talking to my close guy friends about and asking: “What did I do wrong? She was really into me…up to the point I tried getting serious” Haha
“(5) “The goods are odd, but the odds are good.”
That’s a statement of a women in the transitional era. Girls glorying in being odd. Wayne or Bogie would give them a pass.”
Oh, I should’ve clarified. The engineer CEO was a rockstar in college (similar to my experience), he was also a bit on the rougher side in terms of social skills (“goods are odd”). The wife was talking about her husband being a bit of an oddball (goods are odd), but also realizing he’d made a damn good provider (odds are good). He did end up becoming a very charismatic and successful CEO. I guess he just needed a bit of socializing and his wife provided that for him.
Vyasa,
I strongly urge you to read Closing of the American Mind
by Allan Bloom. Here is the opening to his brilliant discussion of your situation. It shows what you did wrong.
It is better than any book you will read about Game, Red Pill, or whatever.
Larry,
going through the book right now. Still not entirely sure what I did wrong, at least according to the old paradigm. (I get what I did wrong from a red pill/game point of view).
Maybe I should explain a bit more – we talked a lot about the future, even bringing up marriage, kids, and whether she would take my last name. She seemed enamored with me, and considering that “break-up” really stung, I was enamored with her too.
The text before that paragraph you quoted:
“When I see a young couple who have lived together throughout their college years leave each other with a handshake and move out into life, I am struck dumb…
There is an awful lot of breaking up, surely disagreeable, though nothing earthshaking. Exam time is a great moment for students to separate. They are under too much stress and too busy to put up with much trouble from a relationship. “Relationships”, not love affairs, are what they have.”
That’s not how it felt with that girl. Or with a second girl a year later. For both of them, it felt like we really clicked (both of them even saying: “I’m so happy I found someone like you” – having the same cultural background and seemingly wanting the same things in life: family).
What I thought was really odd – with both of them, we talked about me meeting her parents, i.e. making sure her parents approved and interacting with her family considering how conservative they are. Both seemed very ecstatic about that. Yet when I proposed actually meeting the family, suddenly I “was getting too serious”.
Each of them were 23. The conclusion I drew at the end of it (and with the help of Dalrock’s posts) was that I was dealing with women who wanted marriage and were excited about the prospect…just not yet. It’s not that they didn’t want me to meet their parents…just not yet. I thought I was getting encouraged and supported by these women to pursue things further, as “It’s the guy’s role to initiate that discussion. Imagine any of their leading ladies doing that. They’d let the guy know they were available, and dangle the tasty bait. ” Maybe I just misread, maybe I just took it too seriously while they were just passing time and fantasizing about the future.
But I don’t believe I made the mistake Bloom talked about of having “relationships”. I saw what he described in college as well and I too found it really weird when my friends got into amorphous relationships, and breaking up when they graduated as if it meant nothing.
I’ll continue reading the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Larry Kummer said:
I disagree. The need for Red Pill insights is a modern development. None of that was needed before radical feminists “reformed” our social system.
From F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power
“Men, also, are most likely to marry when they do not understand women too well”.
From Rotating Pollyandry And Its Reinforcers
“The reality of marriage in any age is indeed such that it has never been easy to make it a sensible choice for a man from a purely self-interested point of view”.
The entire textx are online at https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf and
https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v7n2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf
The listing of volumes of the Occidental Quarterly shows that these articles were published in the 2002-2003 time frame. So Devlin was red-pilled before the term became fashionable to use in the context of the reality of the sexes.
The combination of the breakdown of society’s shoring up of the male role, the “liberation” of women, and the greater communication afforded by the Internet is what triggered widespread red pill knowledge.
Ray,
“in the 2002-2003 time frame.”
I assume you are kidding us, citing 2002 as ancient history. In fact, little has changed since then. I was referring to the Boomer generations and those that came before.
The foundation of Red Pill is evolutionary biology and psychology. This is considered to be misogyny by the scientifically illiterate. Women are wired to prefer traits that are not considered to be positive in today’s feminized society.
Devon,
I disagree. The need for Red Pill insights is a modern development. None of that was needed before radical feminists “reformed” our social system. In the old days of patriarchy, men would have laughed at Red Pill advice. But the world has changed.
For some vivid examples see Classic films show what marriage was. Facts show its death.
Larry,
could you elaborate on “men would have laughed at Red Pill advice.”
I took a look at your classic films post. In particular,:
“In the dark ages it was seen as women’s job to persuade a man to marry her as shown in many classic films.”
I find this does correspond with some RP advice, namely: “have sex with a girl, and have her bring up relationships status first”. Though I wonder if you’re talking more about things such “plate spinning” or constantly having to “game” them – which I do imagine older generations would find comical.
The former advice (don’t commit, be aloof, have a bit of game to get fun sex with a women and have her bring up relationship status once she’s caught feelings for you) has been useful for me – It didn’t seem like any women in college (mid-2000s) were genuinely interested in marriage any time soon. I had very good provider status, everyone in my social circle knew it (the women included! – if men were ranked on potential provider status, I’d be no.1 by a mile).
As I approached my mid-20s, being alone led to a sense of desperation on my end. It was subconscious, but yes, there was a feeling of “is there something wrong with me since no girls are trying to persuade me to get in a relationship with them/get married?” and “Huh, I feel like I’m doing everything right, why does it seem that the moment I show some reciprocated feelings, they flee for the hills?”
The few women I did have a brief “relationship” with mostly wanted it to stay fun and light. But the reality was and still is that I don’t want a relationship that is simply fun, light with no “end-goal” of marriage in sight. I don’t know if women realize men (most men) don’t actually enjoy going on 50 dates and spending countless hours in relationship limbo, and not doing something more productive/active.
“Young women have been socializing young men since before the invention of fire.” –> Ha, I loved this.
Sadly, has not been the case for me. I imagine in a different era, especially in college, I’d have at least one woman trying to make me a bit more socialized. Again, it was a profoundly confusing experience for me (in hindsight) – when all the guys were saying “oh yeah, Vyasa, that guy is a fucking genius, he crushes everything, extremely competent”, basically putting me above them in a social dominance hierarchy, and yet have very little female attention. I was busy focusing on my academics, and doing extremely well. I had some girls interested here and there, but none of them exhibited the following behavior:
“Of necessity, therefore, it was understood to be the woman’s job to get and hold the man by her charms and wiles because, by nature, nothing else would induce him to give up his freedom in favor of the heavy duties of family.”
And of course, at the end of junior year and in my senior year, when I did ask out women who showed me some interest, the refrain was always: “I’m not looking for anything serious right now”…OK. I didn’t understand they just wanted fun.
“Today all of this has become politically incorrect. A film with a woman chasing a man seeking marriage would be harpooned by critics and denounced by feminists.”
This actually explains a lot. In the back of my mind, RP theory always seemed a bit off. It didn’t mesh with what my elders had told me And I couldn’t explain why, but here’s perhaps a good example: a few years back I met the former CEO of a major defense company. He was an engineering student at my alma mater when he met his wife. His wife’s words to him:
“The goods are odd, but the odds are good.”
That always confounded me, as it was absolutely the opposite of my experience. If women actually chased men in a bygone era for marriage purposes, it explains a lot in my own life.
Just want to make sure I understand your comments and thoughts. Cheers!
Vyasa,
All great questions. Let’s try and tackle some of this. I hope this helps.
(1) “men would have laughed at Red Pill advice.”
Imagine having drinks with Bogie and John Wayne, explaining Game Red Pill advice to them. We can only guess (they’re fictional, after all). My guess is that they’d laugh at Game. “You’re trying too hard, thinking too much about dames, just do it.” Red pill would be incomprehensible to them, because modern women are radically unlike those in their day.
(2) “have sex with a girl, and have her bring up relationships status first”.
Both of them (and their leading ladies) would laugh. It’s the guy’s role to initiate that discussion. Imagine any of their leading ladies doing that. They’d let the guy know they were available, and dangle the tasty bait. That’s the line. In “Bright Eyes” (Shirley Temple, 1943) the strong guy tells the hot babe “you should propose to me this time” (she dumped him before). She smiles (not gonna happen). He proposes. In Hatari (John Wayne, 1962) the hot Italian babe doesn’t get a proposal on her timetable — so she leaves, forcing him to chase (he is, after all, a hunter) and propose.
(3) Re: women socializing men. “Sadly, has not been the case for me.”
Yes, that’s one aspect of our radically changed circumstances. So we’re going to get a lot of alienated young men. No sensible society lets that happen. Weimar had that as a result of WWI; it didn’t end well for them. My guess (guess), to be described in future posts, is that this will initiate pack formation (a back-up strategy hard-wired into men). These men will stand together and start reform of society.
(4) “I didn’t understand they just wanted fun.”
Again, a radical change from the days of Bogie and Wayne. Women used their high SMV days to get a guy and start a family. Gen X women successfully delayed marriage into the 26-30 range. That’s girls’ Game (carousel, party-of-their-life-marriage-kids-divorce-independence). Red pill is the reaction to this.
Here is the answer to your question. See this as a historical process: classical age, boomers (transitional), Gen X (new era), Gen Y (response) and Gen Z (reform or revolt?).
(5) “The goods are odd, but the odds are good.”
That’s a statement of a women in the transitional era. Girls glorying in being odd. Wayne or Bogie would give them a pass.
(6) “If women actually chased men in a bygone era for marriage purposes”
Absolutely not. They didn’t chase guys (girls would accuse others of that), ask a guy out, or propose marriage. In general (there is always a wide range of behavior) guys didn’t want to be chased and didn’t want aggressive (“pushy”) girls. Roles were defined so that the dance could be done by amateurs, which is pretty much everybody. Women enticed, offered, encourage, supported.
That had the advantage when things got tough, the guy couldn’t blame her for the marriage. Flip side, neither could easily walk out. Over time both the legal barriers and social stigma for misbehavior — divorce, sluttery, unwed mothers, etc — decreased. Without the guide rails, the system began the collapse we live with today.
Red pill knowledge isn’t poisonous to marriage. Women abandoning what previously might have been termed the old set of rules’ is poisonous to marriage. While you addressed this in the body of your article. It could have been more aptly named. I also would disagree with what you’ve said elsewhere in the comment. Red Pill knowledge was always out there. It’s more a matter of women being considerably less licentious. Until society decides it wants to start holding women accountable, MGTOW is the best result. Game is a novelty that wanes with ones testosterone. Look at Roosh V and Neomasculinity. Chasing tail gets old.
Men are withdrawing from society and I, for one, encourage them. It’s best to hasten the collapse.
The BBC produced this as comedy. I wonder how many women consider it real.
It is pretty common for “older folks” to dislike points of view which disagree with their experience. It is most uncommon for older folks to actually think about and grapple with ideas that don’t meet with their experience in significant ways. Here is some piping hot truth for the older folks about future treatment of women.
Someone suggested that the “Red Pill” for women was “You Can’t Have It All”. That’s not the Red Pill. The Red Pill for “women” in so far as there is such a thing is
“You can’t have ANYTHING at all”.
You can’t have any help on your part of the bill. Which is written down right here ..tap tap.
You can’t have my personal respect. Or any species of “belief” in you or your probable actions..not anything positive anyway.
You can’t have sex the way you want. You can copulate when allowed to and otherwise you can leave. You will leave shortly in any event. And be forgotten. Just like a gay Grinder “date” ya know?
You can’t have a phone call or a second engagement. If I don’t like the sex well enough I won’t even mention your name to my buddies, let alone remember it myself. If I even bothered to get your name of course.
You won’t be allowed to dodge getting naked and copulating when I see fit. If you try..you will be watching the whole scene fall apart as I toss you out or I leave the spot as appropriate. Which is happening shortly anyway.
You won’t get any consideration for your wrinkles and your years. If you have a female child/grandchild who is of legal age I will happily screw them too. If you object..I will laugh and then sleep with three of your grand/daughter’s friends (if they are legal of course).
You also won’t be getting a job from me in any business I own or run. If I can’t practically not hire your gender..I will forgoe the economic opportunity. I won’t knowingly aid you economically. Principles over profits. God over Mammon.
You won’t even get “dates” let alone woo’ing or any sort of chivalry. You will bring your old wrinkled past-it’s-best-by date old-milk body along when told, you will undress when told to, and after all that if I don’t like your looks..I will order you out without a single shred of regard for your feelings or dignity.
Your weight, your looks, your age..they are ALL fair game for any sort of jocularity, humor or taunting I deem amusing. And if you are married and matronly..you don’t get a pass either. The fool who mated you will get to watch you mocked and verbally abused. If he objects physically then I will go right to the legal limits of response. The more suffering my response causes the better. Verily!!
Your daughters will be my evenings amusement and then I will toss them back into the throbbing herd KNOWING they will encounter naught but tears and heartache and eventually..alcoholic obesity. And toxiplasmosis hopefully.
You can’t have it all.. you can’t have anything..except what whores get. (Possibly) an erection and then total dismissal.
Copulation while you have decent looks..
After that..nothing. Not a single dollar for the homeless woman on the train last night. Not a roof for the night.
Not a step aside so they can avoid a dangerous curb. NOTHING.
You can’t have everything.. you can’t have ANYTHING..not from my hands anyway.
“Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage” Marriage is the poison.
The “red pill” is a reaction to a phenomena that has been growing for decades. If anything…men are late to the party. Women and society have been telling men to dance the same dance that they always have, but men have finally begun to notice that the music has changed.
“Remember all I am offering is the truth, nothing more…” ~ Morpheus
Red Pill knowledge will help men protect themselves and understand the world as it really is. That’s it.
The Red Pill will not stop the trends. There are no “new institutions” that will stop these trends.
– Associating with women will continue to become more dangerous.
– Marriage and birth rates in the Western world will continue to drop.
– Marriage will continue to become an artifact of the affluent.
– The welfare state will continue to ensure that the degenerate will continue to out-breed the fit.
– The middle class will continue to shrink and the gap between rich and poor will continue to grow.
– Automation and immigration will accelerate the destruction of the middle class.
– Successive generations will continue to see their standard of living fall.
– etc. etc. etc.
You can fight in the trenches to build wealth and family only to be stabbed in the back and robbed of everything…or you can keep your wealth and watch your own back.
Vektor,
Both you and Larry are right regarding the Red Pill knowledge and Marriage. In my opinion, Red Pill will affect marriage (well, it already does) in a bad way (like now-young males will simply refuse to get married). Secondly, marriage, as it stands now, is a poison. See the skyrocketing divorce rates (and not only in the States). It is a poison because instead of offering a vehicle for a happy life with someone you trust, love, cherish, respect, it is a vehicle that results in single-mom(pop) families, bitterness, losing trust of the opposite sex, misogynistic/misandrous attitudes.
Our modern society was built on families, people willing to do the work for their families (well, not all, but you get the idea). Children raised by both parents, learning about the world from two different perspectives, man’s and woman’s. I think the family is the nucleus of a society, and a family is created by marriage (normally). Destroying marriage will take a huge hit on the nucleus, and the society will be shaken. We’ll see how strong. Maybe we’ll end up with a new nucleus, that is better,… or worse.
I’m sorry that this is happening. We managed to advance the equality between sexes, the rights for women. And now, instead of continuing our evolution, we started to decline. I don’t know, it sometimes feels like a retribution for how women were treated back in the day (let’s be honest, the society really sacrificed them, i.e. denying the right to education and forced marriages, to keep them submissive). And now women come back with a vengeance. I really hope it’s not the case, otherwise we are still so very primitive, regardless of our advancement in science, art, society in general. We can’t control at all our old, reptilian brain.
Andy,
I agree with your analysis, but not your predictions. Linear predictions are usually wrong because there is always a counter-revolution. See my posts about the first signs that it has begun — and those about solutions to end the Gender Wars.
Larry, yes, the phrase ‘apocalypse’ in my post was a very poor choice of words, and I realize that is not what you are envisaging.
The doubt that I was trying to express was that the social revolution represented by spread of the ‘red pill’ attitudes is probable. We shall see of course. But to me it looks like a very small minority approach. I agree of course that there are women whose behavior fits the model, and that there are men who feel this way about them and about women in general. What I am doubting is that these attitudes are going to become consensus. I think its more likely that we will see regression to the norm, so that behavior and conditions of relationships and the family will move back somewhat to where we were, radical feminism, always a minority belief, will be discredited, and men and women will continue to get together for affection and the raising of children. Whether in formally sanctioned relationships or informally.
Its a sort of muddle through scenario.
The thing that would be very interesting to me is, what the women in your and Dalrock’s immediate circle think of these posts and the subject. Do they agree? Or do they have the same reservations as I have about the portrayal of women and generalization about them in the ‘red pill’ theory?
Women in my circle would be deeply uneasy. And not for the wrong reasons, not out of fear of having been found out! No, because they would recognize echoes of a very non-ideal past….
George,
Did you read the post? Again you are attributing to me the exact opposite of what I said. I’m not going to bother explaining a second time. But really, this is absurd.
Try giving quotes, not just making stuff up and writing rebuttals to it.
I also don’t think there is a ‘red pill’ in the sense of the various posts and threads. That is, I don’ think that the account of women implied in it is correct, and I don’t think the phenomenon is that some men are waking up to the dreadful reality.. I don’t think people are waking up to the true and rather appalling nature of women, because I don’t think women generally are like that.
Some are, of course, and yes, it can be hard to tell who is who, just as some men are assholes, and they can be hard to tell also. But most, men and women both, in my view, are not.
Perhaps my middle name is Pollyanna! Hope not. Time will tell.
George,
“I also don’t think there is a ‘red pill’ in the sense of the various posts and threads.”
Given your twice-demonstrated inability to see what’s written in this simple post, my guess is that you have near-zero understanding of red pill thinking.
To take a guess (emphasis on guess) based on my experience with this common phenomenon on the left, you can’t see thru your thick ideological blinders. You just see crimethink.
OK, I will read again carefully, you and Dalrock both. Maybe I am completely misunderstanding.
I’m actually not on the left, politically…. But I will read again, carefully.
George,
Everybody mixes and matches (e.g., the commonplace social liberal – fiscal conservative, and social liberal – foreign policy hawk). Your response is from the left, certainly.
The fact that you mention alienation is most interesting, I have found in my experience that the failure is on the part of mothers who willfully do their best to instill in their sons (my brother and I being an example) the “feminist narrative” which is to say the nice guy shtick generally results in alienation from both sexes. My brother and Stepbrother were cads and quite good ones also, I hated them on false pretenses but now I have the utmost admiration in light of their conquests and the truth the Red Pill has shown me.
As for the Red Pill, it has taught me much, the primary tenet I admire most being: he who cares the least holds the most power in relationships (thus reduce yourself and others to an expendable state gives you power as you have nothing to lose), be they sexual or other, plus being a player from my observation can be summed up best by the Jesuit Sanchez: “In order for a man to sin mortally, he must consider either his action to be bad, have some doubt or scruple, be in danger of malicious intention, if none of the former exists, ignorance, inadvertence, and forgetfulness are natural and invincible”
They assert (lay claim to) themselves with confidence (a mind free out hesitation, reservation, doubt or scruple, all bad things in my estimation) which is the exact opposite of what men and boys are being instilled in by women nowadays (they are taught to doubt, to hesitate, to be reserved, and be full of scruples which scruples in themselves are needless, scruples themselves are needless).
Thus Game and the Red Pill are good in my estimation because it sums up a rejection of the spirit of the age: absolute confidence irrespective of the nature of the morality of the act, and game is most definitely fornication (according to the Biblical standard) but to whom the end is lawful the means also are lawful, the means themselves being indifferent as the doer decides the morality of the act.
Dalrock has taught me much and since his commentators are Romanists generally I have taken to study the Jesuit Order to learn Game (one of the charges against the Order for which they were suppressed in 1773 was being notorious seducers of other men’s wives).
INRI AMDG
Johann,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I hear a lot of similar stories.
Everybody must deal as an individual with the situation on the ground. That often means making hard choices, as you have.
On the other, we have to recognize that these are expedients — not good for the individuals or the nation. Hence my next post about solutions. We can do better, but only if we stand together.
You might find the previous posts in this series of interest. They are like chapters in a book.
Marriage is bad for men – end of story
Jojo,
No. History does not work like that. There are no ends, no beginnings. Every generation is dealt cards and works with those cards. Reforms are far more likely that abandoning social structures used for countless millennia.
I think what is called “Red Pill” is very fuzzy (unhelpful terms), but it connects with an unresolved tension between elements on the right that we see today… I wrote the following in order to explain my thoughts in response to a discussion from some in the manosphere here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1115732211322351616.html
Social experiment? Not really… I see it as an answer to men who are intelligent and masculine enough to actually be a problem for globalism. You see, in the past, men would bind together as collective from the bottom up.(fascism) Which is basically a nation’s immune system kicking in to kill the infection.(communism)
Now, with modern technology there is mass media and a surveillance state. This combines several facets of social engineering to prevent an uprising. Feminism is just the tip of the spear. You also have pornography, anti-male propaganda, and political correctness keeping 95% or more of the masses in perpetual mental myopia.
So what to do with the other 5% of men? Simple, keep them happy with most powerful drug on the planet: pussy. I used the red pill to turn a liberal feminist into a traditional conservative, stay-at-home mom. This is my way of spitting in the face of modernity
Good article though.
Lets assume that global population reduction is desired due to environmental and/or other reasons or that it have been decided that replacement of white race with alternatives is sought out. Such replacement could assist some global projects as peoples of lower IQ seen in migrant populations are easier to manipulate. High IQ men would stop breeding and white women would crossbread with low IQ men of migrant background.
Resulting mixed race could be easier to manipulate by elites.
Under such premises feminism could be an engineered feature and red pill may well be an entirely expected reaction leading to designed discord between sexes.
Many millions of women will suffer an utter misery as a result, similiar number of men will lead more selfdestructing life style and few dosens of wealthy globalists will laugh all the way to bank.
As time pass we might even see a situation where vast majority of women demand cancellation of certain laws favoring them, just to have a hope of secure family life again and yet authorities may refuse to bow.
In failing Roman Empire it was illegal to turn yourself into a slave. Freedom had to #enforced# by law because majority of peoples didn’t won’t it. Reason: slave was not paying taxes and very few peoples could afford these.
Ghots were welcomed as liberators by common Roman folk. Rest we know – empire gone down the drain.
Martin,
“Under such premises feminism could be an engineered feature …”
But it’s not.