Blue Pill or Red Pill?

Written by Rollo Tomassi on February 14, 2024. Posted in Current News

There’s been an ideological schism in the Manosphere for a long time. Religious conviction combined with ego investments in Blue Pill social conditioning makes Red Pill truths difficult to consider.

Men who’ve built lives (and brands) around what their religious belief has taught them about women, sex, family, and where they should fit into all of it tend to reject the factualism the Red Pill is based on.

You cannot introduce men to a worldwide consortium of data, experiences, and opinions on women and intersexual dynamics without having this new information challenge their ideology.

Long-held religious beliefs become intrinsic parts of people’s personalities; thus, a challenge to belief has the potential to become a crisis of identity for believers.

By definition, faith requires tests of the believer, and the most adamant of believers see the Red Pill as a test of that faith, not just in religion but a test of how the Blue Pill’s social conditioning fits into that faith.

Factual Red Pill awareness versus a Blue Pill ideological perspective on intersexual dynamics is always going to be contentious and subjective. The “red pill” and the “blue pill” have become so distorted over the years that they’re becoming meaningless terms, as loose brands.

The Matrix movie analogy the early seduction communities co-opted used to refer to the understanding men had about intersexual dynamics (living in the Matrix) that a larger social order taught them.

However, far too many disingenuous actors have entered the Red Pill community, each with an interest in shifting those definitions to cater to their pet ideologies – political, social, racial, religious, and psychological brands.

The new order information that Red Pill awareness brings is so jarring to their ego investments that believers are left with only three options: Complete denial, abandoning faith entirely, or finding similarities in Red Pill data that aligns with their ideology and discarding or disqualifying the inconvenient parts.

To do this, believers had to convince themselves that what they thought the Red Pill represented was ideological rather than pragmatic. Converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an Ideology rather than a Praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer), founded in objective intersexual dynamics, has been their primary goal.

Turning the harsh realities of the Red Pill into an ideology is the only way most believers can understand it, much less fight it. You cannot prove a metaphysical truth with physical evidence any more than you can prove a physical truth with metaphysical ‘evidence’ – and believers see trying to do so as a test of faith. Ideology is the only language they speak.

It is a mistake to label the Red Pill an “ideology,” thus similar to feminism or any other ideology. Comparing “the red pill” to a male parallel to feminism has been a common dismissal tactic by critics.

If it’s an ideology, then the red pill can just be dismissed as bitter men looking for the same victimhood bone feminism has been gnawing on for over a century.

The thing is, the Red Pill isn’t an ideology. It’s a praxeology. Why does that matter?  Isn’t that just an intellectual technicality?  Actually, it makes all the difference:

Ideologies are belief systems that hold up ideals, what should be – moral, ethical, social – as standards by which to live or guide human interests. Ideologies are a doctrine of best practices. Humanism, Marxism, religion, Chivalry, and the Boy Scout credo are all ideologies.

Those best practices establish a higher meaning toward which we should aspire and celebrate unifying beliefs that, in theory, should guide our lives. Sometimes ideologies spring from practical, empirical wisdom, but mostly, they are deontological — actions are either good or bad according to a set of rules, irrespective of the consequences of those actions.

Traditions are solutions to problems we’ve forgotten about or solved long ago.

Praxeologies are not systems of belief. They are systems of practice. They are not concerned with whether or not something lives up to a preconceived ideal. They are concerned with whether or not something works.

Engineering, car repair, computer science, deep sea fishing, and first aid are all praxeologies. The Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology. My good friend Rian Stone once said, “It’s useful to think of the Red Pill as the Chilton or Haynes (Auto) Manual of intersexual dynamics.” For the sake of simplicity, we can go with the definition posted by Wikipedia:

“Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom. An action axiom is an axiom that embodies a criterion for recommending action.

Action axioms are of the form “If a condition holds, then the following should be done.”

As a praxeology, the loose science of intersexual dynamics that the Red Pill presents provides us with a predictive framework around which we can form a set of best practices (i.e., Game). The Red Pill is the theory, and Game is the experimentation and practice.

Each is incomplete without the other. The Red Pill is the deductive study of human sexuality and its relational behavior based on the action axiom – “If a condition holds, then the following should be done.” 

As a praxeology, there is no conflict between the Red Pill and morality; it is not a hard science nor a moral code to live by. It uses deductive reasoning to develop action axioms to describe the hows and whys of human intersexual dynamics and mating behaviors.

If those axioms prove invalid, then new axioms are developed (Game) to reflect a better understanding of what the Red Pill provides.

All this ideological redefining has done (often deliberately) is confuse the purpose of understanding gender interrelations by inserting ideological language into the mix. Usually, this is an effort at reprioritizing how interpreting intersexual dynamics ought to be discussed based purely on moralistic interpretations.

The conflict arises over the ‘correct’ way of approaching the observable facts and data the praxeology of the Red Pill presents to us. The focus becomes less about the facts and more about how they were acquired.

So, moralists believe in one goal for the interpretation, while objectivists see another. The result is we talk past each other because we’re focused on different goal states. Then one disavows the other, goes off to broadcast what he thinks is truth – his truth according to his originating premise – and then builds a brand based on that redefinition of “the red pill,” according to him.

Red Pill (empiricists) and Blue Pill (ideologists) end up talking past one another because they cannot agree on what they should be debating about. The sets of values they hold are completely incompatible because they don’t start from the same basis.

They can’t even agree on what a “debate” is and what the goals of a “debate” really are.

Red Pill praxeologists bring the following assumptions to a debate:

• They believe that there is precisely one reality and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more accurate it is. They are factual absolutists.
• They believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Systems of morality are things societies invented to encourage a result. It is, therefore, pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists.
• The goal of a debate is to establish the facts and how this knowledge can be used to predict and hopefully control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
• They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people with the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality. While people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them if new information comes to light because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus, questioning someone’s character is off-limits because it’s immaterial to the goal of objective reality.

Blue Pill ideologists generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

• They believe that reality is subjective, and what is “true” is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called “truth” is merely a codification of someone’s perspective, and arguing about what is “true “ is pointless. “ They are factual relativists.
• They believe that there is exactly one set of moral rules (deontology), which humans have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection (or degeneration). Certain people are ethically better or worse based on their actions and beliefs. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for a degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.
• The goal of debate is to establish what is morally better and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.
• They believe that debates are a competitive process between two people, who each have the goal of establishing their views about right and wrong by attaining a state of moral ascendancy over the other person.
• They believe that anyone who changes their views reveals a flaw in their moral character (because their previous views were not morally correct) and must thereafter relinquish the moral high ground and submit their actions to the moral judgment of others (usually the person who won the debate). They believe debates occur between people, not ideas, for the specific purpose of establishing who should be allowed to set standards for the behavior of others. Thus, questioning someone’s character is not only relevant, it’s the whole point of the debate.

This is why Blue Pill adherents think “those Red Pill guys” are “misogynists” or bad people. They cannot imagine an analysis that does not occur for the purposes of judgment, much less one that doesn’t include any idea about what people “should” do.

This is also why the Red Pill insists that moralists are willfully ignorant. Because to them, anyone who doesn’t admit the truth must be unable or unwilling to perceive it. They cannot imagine anyone not caring what the truth is.

Blue Pill ideologists think that Red Pill empiricists are trying to restore the Dark Ages. Any argument excluding a moral imperative seems like an endorsement of returning to a state of barbarism.

This is why many Red Pill theories are dismissed as biological determinism by ideologists, even though Red Pill theory almost always accounts for the human element of free will. They cannot imagine any group with shared views not having one moral agenda they wish everyone to abide by.

This also grates on the ideological principle of personal responsibility, which requires free will to be set above biological determinism. To the moral absolutist, the sheer objectivity of the Red Pill implies that biology and evolution remove humans’ capacity for choice and, by extension, a soul.

We become automatons, but instead of the devil making me do it, it’s my selfish genes that made me do it.

Again, this is why Red Pill empiricists think that Blue Pill adherents must be hopelessly inadequate at understanding human social structures. It’s not that they always are, but they cannot imagine anyone not wanting to do things in the most effective way possible.

The Red Pill empiricist and the Blue Pill ideologist cannot agree on what the argument is about because they don’t speak the same deliberative language. The Red Pill thinks right and wrong are a matter of opinion, not necessarily unimportant, but immaterial to determining objective truths.

The Believer only cares about the facts as they confirm or conflict with his goal of determining right or wrong according to his moral framework.

What I’ve seen in the Manosphere, in the past and present, is rooted in factual relativists attempting to establish what the “red pill” should mean to people, thereby redefining it to suit their goal of couching any objective discussion in moralist terms.

As the “red pill” has garnered popular appeal, factual relativists want the Red Pill to be about what is right or wrong according to their ideological bent.

Now, mix in the financial interests of making their ideological version of red pill their personal brand, and they will bend over backward to reinterpret what is an objectivist exploration of intersexual dynamics to fit their ‘interpretive headspace.’

Either that or they write off the Red Pill wholesale and say, “Those Red Pill guys are just bitter, negative, hedonist, misogynists,” a judgment evaluation that is precisely the moralist’s goal in any debate.

The realities of a Red Pill staple like Hypergamy aren’t right or wrong. They simply are. In any of my essays outlining Hypergamy, and for all my attempts to dispel the misconceptions about it,

I’ve never once stated that Hypergamy was ‘evil‘ or that women’s nature is evil because of it. It’s simply a reproductive strategy that manifests per the realities of women’s nature and needs. It’s only bad or good, depending on which end of the sharp stick a man finds himself on.

The factual relativists respond to this in two ways:

First is the nihilistic approach. Hypergamy conflicts with low-value men’s personal interests and ideological bent. Thus, Hypergamy, or women’s inability (or unwillingness) to police the worst aspects of their innate mating strategy for their betterment or humanity’s betterment, makes women evil.

Second is the approbation approach. “You talk about Hypergamy too much (or at all). It must be because you’re fundamentally a bad, damaged, morally compromised person. Who hurt you?”

Just broaching a subject that doesn’t align with their moral imperatives is viewed as an open endorsement of that subject. If you’re talking about Satanism in any context other than complete approbation, no matter how objective or measured, you are a Satanist.

This is the most increasingly common form of factual relativism in the age of social media, where binary extremes are the basis of Cancel Culture. You’re either for or against us; if you even attempt to dissect a topic we’re against, it objectively means you’re actually for that topic.

A debate never really occurs between these head-spaces because the goals of the debate are never the same. Now, add to all this that factual relativists are appropriating the ‘red pill’ as their own “Brand of Me” and building revenue streams around their ideological interpretation of its original intent.

Any counterargument made by factual absolutists is not only a challenge to their ego investments but also interpreted as an attack on their livelihoods.

In 2015 and again in 2018, I made these points:

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial, and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions related to that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology.

The base truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness, or its issues are an entity of its own.

Unfortunately, this is exactly where we are today in the modern ‘Manosphere.’

The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists whose livelihoods now depend upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those who share the same ideology they broadcast it to.

So, as Rollo Tomassi, I earned the title of ‘Cult Leader’ because their minds can only think in terms of ideology. Indeed, they can only argue against what the Red Pill challenges their faith with if the Red Pill is an ideology.  

This is why believers unthinkingly strive to turn the praxeology of the Red Pill into an ideology, a “movement,” a belief, or some advocacy against their faith. You cannot win a metaphysical argument with physical evidence.

If the goal of a debate is to come to a workable, predictive framework based on objective truth, and that truth challenges a belief they’ve based their lives on, it forces them into denial or into abandoning their belief set.

This is why the factual relativist never leaves the ideological Frame in which they believe the debate should occur. Faced with the challenge of having empirical truths of new order data force them into adjusting their old moral framework, the factual relativists must reduce the Red Pill to an ideology, a philosophy, or an orthodoxy to maintain their belief set.

Thus, we read accusations of the Red Pill being “feminism for men” (feminism being an actual ideology) or a philosophical micro-cult with purity tests and secret jargon for its believers to learn.

The louder and more vehement these accusations become, the more factual relativists leverage the internet’s new Clout Economy to earn their livings. While I know it is impossible to be entirely objective in anything, the thought required to ask a particular question implies a subjective bias.

You wouldn’t be asking those questions if you didn’t subscribe to some belief set that caused you to think about them in the first place. Even a commitment to objective truth is itself perceived as a value judgment.

What’s worth your consideration is at least as important as why you think it’s worth considering. I get it. It still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be as objective as humanly possible, despite the pre-knowledge that we have underlying reasons for being curious about something.

Observing a process changes the process, but the fact that you felt the need to observe it in the first place implies some belief in the value of curiosity. The biggest obstacle to the believer mindset is that it’s an unfalsifiable Möbius loop.

The proof of their purpose is implicit in a debate they know they can’t lose.

“My dear, the real truth always sounds improbable, do you know that? To make the truth sound probable, you must always mix in some falsehood with it. Men have always done so.” — Fyodor Dostoevsky, Dem

See more here substack.com

Header image: The Telegraph

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.