Post: #1

I see lots of things stated here as "Red Pill" that are really no different than the usual Republican Party platform.

It seems ridiculous to me that people who are claiming to take off their blinders and see the world for what it really is conveniently settle on the exact types of positions held by 1 of our 2 political parties. Very coincidental.

Are you just taking the beliefs you were raised with and imagining they're true because you "feel" it in your gut? Are you trapped in the right-wing media loop that allowed people to think Romney was going to win the election?

I made 2 bets with a forum member around election time about which states would vote for whom. I said that Ohio and Virginia would vote for Obama. He said No Way. We bet a book each state. I ended up winning. It was NOT because I knew anything he didn't. All the polls said Ohio and Virginia were leaning towards Obama. All the poll agregators agreed. This guy thought he was smarter than all of them...

Post: #2

I would say blindly following any group is blue pill.

Post: #3

Virginia is a red state but Northern Virginia is blue as fuck due to the majority of tax subsidized herbs.

Post: #4

Being red pill tends towards conservative beliefs as being aware of the red pill means that we live under the thumb of scarcity. As such, there will always be winners and losers. It's in our best interests to learn how to do more with less.

However, being red pill transcends political ideologies. I'd say our founding fathers were about as red pill as it got. The first political parties formed out of this. Dare I say, I am a federalist at heart if we go by that. If the constitution does not specifically mention it, then it isn't allowed.

Post: #5

Having "beliefs" is blue pill.

You're ideas and motivations should be based on real fallible concepts.

Otherwise you can't adapt.

Post: #6

Politics are blue pill.

The real action happens behind the curtain.

Post: #7

Lotta people use the red pill metaphor to push their unrelated political agenda. And typically agendas have no internal coherence. What does teaching evolution have to do with gun control or fiat money?

But since the red pill is short hand for taking your blinders off and really examining what is happening, you're more likely to have fewer hard and fast beliefs, political or otherwise. Imo

WIA

Post: #8

I have an article I am about to push to RoK regarding some beliefs that the manosphere and being red pill has. It's simple, but the points I made could easily morph into its own political party.

Post: #9

People who think of ideas as either being conservative or liberal have already conceded to somebody elses beliefs.

In general I hate the term 'red pill'. By declaring certain beliefs to be red pill (or listening to what other people claim to be red pill) you're just trading one constructed belief system for another. Instead we should all be striving to accept reality on reality's terms. We should listen to other peoples ideas and evaluate them based on our own experiences. That's not an easy task because many times we confuse what we think should happen with what actually happens.

Post: #10

I don't see how the Republican Party is red pill. For one, a good portion of the party denies evolution. The basic premise of the Red Pill is tied to evolution.

Post: #11

Is voting beta? tm

Post: #12

No way, the GOP's biggest female mouthpiece is a careerist, childless spinster carousel rider:

Quote:Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.[24] She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,[15] and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza.[55] In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat.

Post: #13

(12-17-2013 03:51 PM)PoosyWrecker Wrote:  No way, the GOP's biggest female mouthpiece is a careerist, childless spinster carousel rider:

Quote:Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married.[24] She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,[15] and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza.[55] In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat.

Post: #14

(12-17-2013 03:37 PM)frenchie Wrote:  I have an article I am about to push to RoK regarding some beliefs that the manosphere and being red pill has. It's simple, but the points I made could easily morph into its own political party.

At this point, I'd vote for any candidate or party who promised to roll back any of the destructive feminist policies such as mass funding of women's studies, rape culture hysteria, discrimination against men in family courts and so on. All the candidate would have to do to not ruin it would be to not be completely evil and delusional in other aspects.

Post: #15

It depends on your point of view.

I would say at least 1/2 the people on here think society is on the upswing in the West: decline of white hegemony, crazy Christian social mores on the wane, lots of pussy, etc. For these people, Red Pill means embracing this wide open field.

The other half have the psychological stance of "feet in the pool." Meaning we know it's on the decline, but we might as well enjoy it. This group might embrace Conservative values out of a "just because I'm riding the wave doesn't mean it's good for society" rubric.

Evolution is just a way to take the culture from men and give it to women. Like a mom telling her child their father is dead even if he isn't. I'll take patriarchy created myths any day.

Party politics is blue pill. Guerilla politics is red pill.

Post: #16

Is being a Republican red pill?
No.
Is being a Democrat red pill?
No.
Is being a Libertarian red pill?
No.
Being red pill is recognizing that any desire for political office is a representation of a will to power. And all power behaves the same.
Being red pill is recognizing that political parties cannot change the immutable laws of gender and biology.
Being red pill is recognizing that the only good leadership is that which tempers strong leadership with tolerance, wisdom, and humility.

Post: #17

New meaning to "Red". Liberal bastions are the greediest. Who knew?

   

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/geo...46186.html

Post: #18

Is being a Republican "Red Pill"?

Let's ask Will Smith.

Will?



Well, there you have it, folks.

A definitive answer.

Post: #19

This, for me, is the essence of what it means to be "red pill":

Our firmest convictions are apt to be the most suspect, they mark our limitations and our bounds. Life is a petty thing unless it is moved by the indomitable urge to extend its boundaries.
--Jose Ortega y Gasset

To me, it's also a great nutshell summary of Kantian Liberalism as described in his essay "What is Enlightenment," which opens with this:

"Enlightenment is mankind's leaving behind its self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to employ one's own intelligence without being directed by someone else. This immaturity is self-imposed if it results not from a lack of intelligence but from a lack of willingness and courage to use it without another's guidance."

He continues: "If I have a book which does my thinking for me, a priest or pastor who serves as my conscience, and a doctor who tells me what to eat, then I need not take the trouble to think for myself."

Contrast this with Edmund Burke, who is widely considered to be the founding father of Modern Conservatism: "We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations, and of ages."

I have plenty of respect for Burke, even though I disagree with much of what he had to say. I believe that much of what Modern Conservatism, and to a somewhat lesser but still very high degree, American society have become is a natural, congruent outgrowth of the Burkean mindset indicated in the above quote. In short, American society needs more Kant and less Burke.

^^^Also, regarding the above, Mann Coulter has also been "romantically associated" with Bill Maher. In short, she is an equal opportunity whore (no disrespect to sex workers) who knows where her bread is buttered, and jumps on the conservative gravy train every chance she gets. She just couldn't compete in a real marketplace of ideas, but in blue pill modern conservative America, she's a multi-millionaire... on her own merits, of course.

Post: #20

(12-17-2013 03:38 PM)Ensam Wrote:  People who think of ideas as either being conservative or liberal have already conceded to somebody elses beliefs.

In general I hate the term 'red pill'. By declaring certain beliefs to be red pill (or listening to what other people claim to be red pill) you're just trading one constructed belief system for another. Instead we should all be striving to accept reality on reality's terms. We should listen to other peoples ideas and evaluate them based on our own experiences. That's not an easy task because many times we confuse what we think should happen with what actually happens.

I want to follow up on this point. I can't stand PUA lingo in general, and when I do use it as a matter of expediency I try to always put it in quotes as you have. Lingo is for followers. In my opinion the free mind movement should be about creating leaders, not followers.

The military was all about lingo and acronyms. It's a followers environment and if there's one nugget of wisdom I'd try to impart in these political threads it's that trying to belong, or to fit in ANYWHERE is inherently "blue pill". Stand out. Do you. Leave the following to the sheep.

Post: #21

Quote:I see lots of things stated here as "Red Pill" that are really no different than the usual Republican Party platform.

Like what, for example?

Republican politics and the "Red Pill" seem to lign a lot is because feminism, equalism, and various other pseudoreligious ideologies advanced by "blue pill" women and their gay male allies are primarily associated with liberals and Democrats. Democrats and liberals represent the primary opposition.

To the extent conservatives and manosphere do not align, there tends to be PLENTY of opposition from other powerful factions such that there's no real point bringing it up.

Post: #22

Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

That kinda stuff.

Not just critiquing feminism.

It's so funny from my perspective, people call me a liberal because I believe government spending on things like schools, transport, hospitals, health care, etc. are good. Try to tell a feminist I'm a liberal and she'd screech your face off.

Trying to argue what beliefs are "red pill" is of course ridiculous, because everyone ultimately thinks they have taken the red pill and anyone who disagrees with them hasn't:

Post: #23

Also, it's worth pointing out, especially for people accustomed to Parliamentary systems: The only real purpose for the Republican and Democrat parties are to win elections and pass arbitrary legislation. Their particular platforms form out of political expediency and large-scale internal compromise.

Post: #24

(12-17-2013 05:45 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Also, it's worth pointing out, especially for people accustomed to Parliamentary systems: The only real purpose for the Republican and Democrat parties are to win elections and pass arbitrary legislation. Their particular platforms form out of political expediency and large-scale internal compromise.

A bit oversimplified, but essentially this, yes.

Money, lobbying, favoritism, etc are all factors in this. As is fear mongering sensationalist media which has become increasingly partisan itself (Fox vs MSNBC/CNN)

Post: #25

(12-17-2013 05:44 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

Yeah see I haven't seen any of that. Who says "lower taxes on the rich"? "No services for poor" certainly comes up sometimes but it's usually framed more like "no services for irresponsible carousel riding single mothers." Haven't seen any pro-military spending discussion.

Vox loves going after science fetishists, but usually words his arguments fairly carefully. Maybe someday I'll put together a post to more fully address his anti-evolution arguments but he's smart enough that I can't half-ass something. Meanwhile he only does this on his main blog (not his game blog), and I haven't seen that particular idea promoted elsewhere.

And who is particularly religious besides Vox, Dalrock, and Rollo?