Post: #1

As far as I can see, Blue Pill ideologies are things like (but not limited to) Confucianism, Socialism, Nationalism, and more or less all mainstream religions (though offshoots of religions may vary). I consider the above to be Blue Pill because they demand that a man must deny his masculine dominant impulses, and submit to something else (God, society, the nation, the family etc).

I'm not discussing why these ideologies emerge, but why they become socially dominant. As far as I can see, by promoting submissiveness, sociopathic personalities have a far easier time in taking and holding political and financial power. This idea has been said before by other people, but what I want to add is that this is not a new phenomenon. I would say this is the way the world has worked since the beginning of agricultural society.

What do you guys think? I hope this sparks a discussion.

Post: #2

Blue Pill ideologies emerge through a process of natural selection. Societies with large number of beta males in committed relationships with chaste women become more economically productive, stronger militarily, and eventually wipe out other competing societies.
A red pill society, with a few alpha males hoarding all the women, would result in total economic stagnation.

There's a good book about this, Sex and Culture, by Joseph Unwin, written in 1934 that documents various societies over time, and how their attitudes towards sex and women either create prosperous societies, or cause the civilization to perish.

Post: #3

(08-31-2014 03:56 PM)jasond Wrote:  Blue Pill ideologies emerge through a process of natural selection. Societies with large number of beta males in committed relationships with chaste women become more economically productive, stronger militarily, and eventually wipe out other competing societies.
A red pill society, with a few alpha males hoarding all the women, would result in total economic stagnation.

There's a good book about this, Sex and Culture, by Joseph Unwin, written in 1934 that documents various societies over time, and how their attitudes towards sex and women either create prosperous societies, or cause the civilization to perish.

Indeed, sexual restraint is the foundation of civilization.

Post: #4

I don't think Confucianism in China back in the day was blue pill. In fact, it was very red pill in that it imposed a lot of things on women to keep their hypergamy in check.

Post: #5

I feel like you guys have this totally backwards...

(08-31-2014 03:56 PM)jasond Wrote:  Blue Pill ideologies emerge through a process of natural selection. Societies with large number of beta males in committed relationships with chaste women become more economically productive, stronger militarily, and eventually wipe out other competing societies.
A red pill society, with a few alpha males hoarding all the women, would result in total economic stagnation.

Such a society has never really existed until now, and society is more blue pill now than it ever has been.
What do you think paleolithic societies were like, exactly? One caveman wasn't hoarding all the women. Sure the alphas had the first draft pick of the hottest women, and likely even maintained little harems, but any tribe leader that didn't ensure adequate sexual opportunity for his many underlings would be deposed of very violently and quickly.

(08-31-2014 04:35 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  Indeed, sexual restraint is the foundation of civilization.

But sexual restraint is not by any stretch of the imagination a blue pill ideology, it is simply nature. It is inherently red pill.
Men are there to spread the seed as far and wide as possible, women are there to preferentially select stable and exceptional males and reward them sexually. This is static across prettymuch all sexually-reproducing species on Earth, and is a key part of natural selection.
The problem society now faces is that women are not dependent (directly) upon individual men anymore, due to socialistic government handouts and perverse social engineering that affects every facet of life. Their fathers and potential husbands have been replaced by welfare checks and affirmative action. As a result, instead of mating out of necessity and based upon the protection and provisions a mate can provide them, they're free to recklessly fuck around based on any stupid whim that gives them tingles.
From there emerges the whole shitstorm of things that we here know are bad news for society... Legions of lonely dicked betas that effectively drop out of or never even enter the career market, fatherless boys that are predisposed to being useless parasites and criminals, women that squander their 20s losing count of how many dicks they've had inside of them until they wind up childless single harridans in their 30s-40s...

Post: #6

(08-31-2014 03:38 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  As far as I can see, Blue Pill ideologies are things like (but not limited to) Confucianism, Socialism, Nationalism, and more or less all mainstream religions (though offshoots of religions may vary). I consider the above to be Blue Pill because they demand that a man must deny his masculine dominant impulses, and submit to something else (God, society, the nation, the family etc).

What do you guys think? I hope this sparks a discussion.

The above are poor examples of the blue pill (with the exception of socialism). There are many that would argue that major religions are incredibly "red pill" or patriarchal.

Unchecked masculine impulses are just as bad to a society as unchecked female hypergamy. A good example of a society with unchecked impulses either masculine or feminine does not exist because that is a state of anarchy.

It's a moveable spectrum where a man trades in certain masculine roles (like killing you for your women and food) for other benefits like paved roads, the gift of not being killed for my resources, and the like.

Post: #7

(08-31-2014 03:38 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  As far as I can see, Blue Pill ideologies are things like (but not limited to) Confucianism, Socialism, Nationalism, and more or less all mainstream religions (though offshoots of religions may vary). I consider the above to be Blue Pill because they demand that a man must deny his masculine dominant impulses, and submit to something else (God, society, the nation, the family etc).

I'm not discussing why these ideologies emerge, but why they become socially dominant. As far as I can see, by promoting submissiveness, sociopathic personalities have a far easier time in taking and holding political and financial power. This idea has been said before by other people, but what I want to add is that this is not a new phenomenon. I would say this is the way the world has worked since the beginning of agricultural society.

What do you guys think? I hope this sparks a discussion.

I wouldn't call Nationalism a blue pill ideology. In this age of political correctness, it's more and more red pill, especially considering the blue pill is open borders immigration and multiculturalism. Having pride in your race/ethnicity/nation is not politically correct.

As for why blue pill ideologies dominate: they feel good.

Why socialism? because understanding economics is hard and everyone should be allowed to live a comfortable, luxurious life regardless of the economic value they add to society (or value they take away). Do you want to be the big meanie who says if the person cant afford food, medicine, shelter, etc, then they dont deserve to have it? It's all about muh feelz.

Why egalitarianism? because it makes me feel good about my shortcomings to know that every single person is equal to me in every way. The opposite of equality is quality! Do you want to be the big meanie who says that one person is indeed truly better than another person because they are more intelligent, beautiful, athletic, skilled, etc? Well that's just mean.

why multiculturalism? because I am such a bleeding heart humanitarian and want to help all the poor people of the world. I want to flood my country with millions of people from around the world. Wanting to preserve my nation's culture would be racist. Not wanting to help poor Arabs, Central Americans and Africans is racist. we are all just citizens of the world!

The red pill doesnt feel good. It's cold & harsh. It's contrarian. In some ways its a form of nihilism because we reject and tear apart all of the mainstream narratives. It's the truth though and it will always win out in the end. If red pill ideologies were a complete lie, then no one would be here on this forum.

Post: #8

(09-01-2014 08:33 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  As for why blue pill ideologies dominate: they feel good.

This. I might also add that their easy. Growing up and probably into mid university I was completely ignorant to how the world worked, and very blue pill.

My thought process went something like this: If winning doesn't matter, then losing = winning. So why work at getting better in sports to end up in the same place as the losers? Yah they won, but they spent all this time working out and practicing, to get to the same place as me. Even though I lost I'm ahead. (Because loss = win)

Why work out, better myself, or become more socially aware? Everywhere I look tells me it's not important who who my friends are, looks don't matter, and that the chubby nerdy kid will get the hot girl in the end. So let's just let it work out on it own.

What actually kicked me in the nuts was seeing that all these promises weren't panning out by my early 20's. So if not then, when? The model was clearly wrong, which led me to the PU forums and eventually here.

People hear what they want to hear. If you broadcast a message like "You can have it all, you don't need to work, just be yourself, sensitive, and you'll become a millionaire and have a hot gf" well a vast majority of people think that sounds pretty good, so they believe it.

Post: #9

(09-01-2014 02:46 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  I feel like you guys have this totally backwards...

(08-31-2014 03:56 PM)jasond Wrote:  [quote='Old Fritz' pid='819546' dateline='1409520926']Indeed, sexual restraint is the foundation of civilization.

But sexual restraint is not by any stretch of the imagination a blue pill ideology, it is simply nature. It is inherently red pill.
Men are there to spread the seed as far and wide as possible, women are there to preferentially select stable and exceptional males and reward them sexually. This is static across prettymuch all sexually-reproducing species on Earth, and is a key part of natural selection.
The problem society now faces is that women are not dependent (directly) upon individual men anymore, due to socialistic government handouts and perverse social engineering that affects every facet of life. Their fathers and potential husbands have been replaced by welfare checks and affirmative action. As a result, instead of mating out of necessity and based upon the protection and provisions a mate can provide them, they're free to recklessly fuck around based on any stupid whim that gives them tingles.
From there emerges the whole shitstorm of things that we here know are bad news for society... Legions of lonely dicked betas that effectively drop out of or never even enter the career market, fatherless boys that are predisposed to being useless parasites and criminals, women that squander their 20s losing count of how many dicks they've had inside of them until they wind up childless single harridans in their 30s-40s...

I agree with everything you said. This was what I was getting at. Should have explained more but I agree.

Post: #10

Yes and no.
As the population grows and more people emerge into adulthood, the status quo often seems like a good option, but there are more people discontented and seeking an alternative. Look at how non-mainstream political parties have really gained steam in recent years- UKIP, Front National, etc.
If an idea that is not really working has a lot of competition (all ideas do) then it will be pushed all the more vociferously.
The competitors still gain ground, it just isn't always apparent.
If there was a new movement like the Nazi party or a nationalist lobby, it might well have widespread popular support, at least in Europe-but the middle-of-the-road press would demonise it, because usually, it's they who are the media gatekeepers.
Not that I'm saying Nazis should have our support,-Im not- but consider: The NSDAP had their own newspaper, their own media-even before winning an election. They'd never get mainstream favourable or even-handed coverage now, but they could still spread their message by other means. So it is with anybody who rocks the boat, even a little bit. UKIP were often hailed by the British press as racist and parochial, but the Conservatives are defecting to UKIP now, not the other way around.
The party line is towed on the surface, but unless someone is invested in that idea, they don't take it for granted any more.

Post: #11

An idea: Is the relative success of Islam partly because it is structured for both blue pill and red pill? You have the virgin requirement and arranged marriages which are good for betas and you also have the polygamy for alphas which is redpill. The promise of virgins in paradise for martyrs takes care of the omega wifeless surplus (the blue pill part). Also, ban on alchohol and such (blue pill).

Post: #12

The use of the phrases "blue pill" and "red pill" have reached the point that they mean nothing.

In my understanding, the "red pill" is just an analogy lifted from the Matrix to denote seeing behind the curtain, seeing things for what they truly are behind the illusion that people/society wish to construct.

How in the world is calling a political/religious ideoology "blue pill" or "red pill" in any way descriptive or informative? Each ideology would classify itself as "red pill" in that the adherents of that ideology believe that they indeed see the truth, and have come up with a system which is the true way humans ought to live.

For instance, for feminists, their ideology is the "red pill". They believe that The Patriarchy is the "blue pill", a system imposed from above which subjugates both men and women by forcing them into "oppressive" sexual roles. Feminists believe that by "smashing the Patriarchy" they are tearing down an unjust artificial system which limits humans and frees them to follow their true nature towards, what they believe, will be feminist ends.

Whether you agree or disagree with that system does not make it blue pill or red pill. A system that supports masculine men is not a "red pill" system it's just a system which supports masculine men. "Red pill" is so subjective, and everyone who has thoughts on any issue believes that they see the "real truth", that we may as well abandon the phrase as it seems basically useless.

Post: #13

^^Since red pill denotes the alpha, masculine, logic, and truth. Blue pill would mean beta, submissive, illogical and lies. Tempting to use on different philosophies but I guess it really suites its original purpose, the dating game.

OP a good way to see human society is just like the animal one, prey and predator. Strong people at the top are predators and weaker people at the bottom are prey.

Post: #14

(09-01-2014 08:25 AM)frenchie Wrote:  The above are poor examples of the blue pill (with the exception of socialism). There are many that would argue that major religions are incredibly "red pill" or patriarchal.

Unchecked masculine impulses are just as bad to a society as unchecked female hypergamy. A good example of a society with unchecked impulses either masculine or feminine does not exist because that is a state of anarchy.

It's a moveable spectrum where a man trades in certain masculine roles (like killing you for your women and food) for other benefits like paved roads, the gift of not being killed for my resources, and the like.

The most important religions in the world are (arguably) Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Of those, Christianity and Islam have the most red pill teachings, but Orthodox Judaism does in its own way as well. Most religions are fairly "red pill." The way that they're interpreted by liberal theologians makes them less so. If you read Maimonides on the Commandments and the New Testament, you'll quickly see how red pill religion can be.

We may have eliminated the idols of Baal, Marduk, and Dagon, but we have new idols of hedonism and scientism.

Post: #15

Not so sure about this. Would you consider hyper-capitalism a blue pill ideology? Because that is what dominates Western societies.

Post: #16

(09-04-2014 12:38 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Not so sure about this. Would you consider hyper-capitalism a blue pill ideology? Because that is what dominates Western societies.

I would say corporatism dominates Western civilization, not true capitalism.

Post: #17

Since when is submitting to an authority blue pill ?

The reason why men can command authority in the first place is because they understand it's value and significance. That is why men voluntarily submit to god, because they have witnessed what does world without authority look like. In order for authority to be passed upon others, one must receive it from above. Man who demands others to obey him, but he himself obeys no one, that isn't the man whose word i will take.

I'm definitely no advocate of complete freedom, since the whole concept sounds like a bunch of left wing crap to me. Societies are based upon cooperation which has biology as it's foundation. Nation-state is the last step in the involvement of that biology. I definitely do not want to witness an era (though it might be unavoidable) where that common social adhesive for all men worldwide will be swapped for money and material value. I do believe an individual can be completely free, but that's about it - couple of individuals can be free, but not whole societies. Societies have jobs to do, a planet to maintain, and procreate. No place for freedom there.

Post: #18

Because it doesn't require any thought.

"Do this shit (school, education, fast car) and we'll give you seven girls and a job that pays you just enough money to survive!"

It doesn't take any thought or initiative to be blue pill. You do what they say and you get what they're willing to pay you.

Post: #19

So what if it doesn't require any thought ?

If a commander of a division tells them to capture a city, are they going to "think" about abstract nature of the thing, or are they going to act ?

It's easy to theorize about freedom from an individualist point of view. You, and you only can do whatever you want. Add kid to equation, and voila - goodbye freedom. Add wife too, and freedom is as far as it can be. Point is, a society cannot work without limitations imposed on people. The whole concept of freedom is limited only to an individual in the first place. Why ? Because everyone's vision of perfect world is different. What is free world (and hence perfect) to you, isn't the free world to the next guy.

There is no such thing as collective freedom. Words collective and freedom are polar opposites. Collective means bunch of mutual obligations.

Blue-Pill as far as i understand, is seeing the natural order of things in a distorted way, mostly used when observing sex roles, society and biology. But red-pill thinker who starts worshiping the idealist concept of freedom is dangerously trespassing into blue-pill territory from my point of view, because he is essentially denying millenniums of evolution and revolutions of society, which all started with ambitious project of creating something perfect to serve people who can't even agree if it is a shade of green or shade of blue on the wall, let alone how society should work. The best we can do about freedom is long-term planning. That's as far as we can predict possibilities of our own freedom in future.

Post: #20

(08-31-2014 03:38 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  As far as I can see, Blue Pill ideologies are things like (but not limited to) Confucianism, Socialism, Nationalism, and more or less all mainstream religions (though offshoots of religions may vary). I consider the above to be Blue Pill because they demand that a man must deny his masculine dominant impulses, and submit to something else (God, society, the nation, the family etc).

I'm not discussing why these ideologies emerge, but why they become socially dominant. As far as I can see, by promoting submissiveness, sociopathic personalities have a far easier time in taking and holding political and financial power. This idea has been said before by other people, but what I want to add is that this is not a new phenomenon. I would say this is the way the world has worked since the beginning of agricultural society.

What do you guys think? I hope this sparks a discussion.

If a society is familial then altruism will out-compete sociopathy and greed. Its when different peoples are grouped together under an artificial construct that they start preying on each other.

Post: #21

Could it be that the ideologies are cyclical in nature, and we just so happen to find ourselves in a time when blue-pill ideology is the dominant social force? World peace and economic prosperity probably contribute to this. Think back to times in history when red-pill ideology was the dominant social force--usually after a major war. Being a complacent pussy usually resulted in death (for the beta). Alphas had the strength and mind-set to survive the brutal conditions. They came home and continued to dominate beyond the battlefield. Well, until their entitled children and grandchildren took the reins.

Post: #22

They must.

It comes down to alpha fucks, beta bucks. If there were no blue pill, there would be no beta bucks.

Post: #23

I think there's a pretty simple answer to all this, simpler than what most people ITT are suggesting. 'Blue pill' ideologies are more popular because humans are social creatures. The herd instinct is far more common than the tendency to be an individualist. And even if a society of true individualists ever existed, they wouldn't all follow some 'cult of individualism,' they would just come up with their own ideas which would be all over the map and mutually contradictory... Because that's what "red pill" is at the end of the day; thinking for yourself.

Post: #24

I strongly disagree with view that red pill = individualism

Post: #25

This thread shows that red and blue pill have become completely meaningless terms.