The Red Pill Society

They are likely few in number, not of much consequence, and are mostly adolescents trolling the mainstream media, claims Jordan Peterson. Rose Burke wrote an article on 9/6/2018, entitled, "7 Most Shocking Beliefs Of The Red Pill Society." Let me quote some lines from Rose and then comment on them: ". . . The Community, which has become popular on REddit, believe that it's MEN who are oppressed in society, not women . . ." My response: I agree with Jordan Peterson that this group is small, and marginal, not representative of most men, so to equate their noisy online positions, legitimate and accurate or not, they must not be taken too seriously. That said, Peterson denies--as do I--that in the West men are oppressing women, or that there is a male patriarchy, or a white male patriarchy oppressing or holding back women in any serious manner. The West and America in particular are essentially egalitarian towards women and any other grievance-prone identity group. There is always room for improvement. This is not too deny that there is tension between men and women. Jordan suggests that the discovery and widespread use of the pill gave women reproductive freedom, and that since men are lost and confused about gender roles, and women are lied to to be told that being a wife and mother is not their career, only a work career is important for them. Jordan is mostly right here, but I suggest that women should have it all, have their cake and eat it too, but they need a monogomous partner whom they are married to to help them raise their children, provide enough income and to share their lives with. Most men and women are binary,and are fulfilled in loving relationships. Men should have no problem with strong, career-oriented women, and women should want men that are virile, mature, confident, powerful (competent not domineering--the latter is mere corruption, Peterson notes). Peterson also lambastes society that deemphasizes masculinity, calling it toxic and pathological. That is oppressing men and boys, disallowing them the competence, and self-empowerment to be able to self-realize as competent, forceful adults. Where men and women love each other, and cooperate and share power and child-rearing, most of their power struggling and clashes should be reconcilable, to the satisfaction of both parties, most of the time. In short, men should not oppress women, and nor should the cancel culture and woke men-haters of social justice bent with axes to grind, any longer be allowed to assail, put down, gaslight and demean men and boys. This new class of oppressors must be forestalled from attacking men just for being men. Let me quote from Rose's belief #1: "1. A Female Supremacy Movement Exists--feminism is a form of female supremacy." My response: Yes, female supremacy movement exists and its advances at the expense of very masculine men, and radical feminism, not reasaonbel feminism, is a form of female supremacy. This movement likely represents a small, but noisy, influential branch of the feminist movement, and is a small percentage of women, but it must not be underestimated or go unopposed, or it will gain ground. Men must oppose it while sending strong messages of love and respect for women, and expressing a willingness to get out of the way of any woman seeking to advance herself by self-realizing as an artist, intellectual, employee, entrepeneur, mother or wife. I would not want to see female supremacy over men dictating reverse supremacy, female oppression of men socially, culturally, economically or legally, and I fear that there is the coming trend pushed by radical feminists that really are Marxist social justice warriors, and they are man-haters out to subjugate men. Regular, moderate feminists are just fine, but I suggest that women, like any identity group, find liberation as self-actualizers and individualists not by quotas and artificial elevated position not based on merit but on genitalia, as promoted by equality of outcome standards. That is a non-starter, doing nothing for women or for men. Radical feminists are not useful or to be heeded. Let me quote from Rose's belief #2: "Women Are Illogical And Manipulative--It would appear that the Red Pill Community feels that while women are capable of being logical, they're more likely to allow their emotions to get the best of them, affecting their ability to make decisions. This causes women to be seen as erratic and fickle to all these wise, logical men in the world. These guys also feel that women are manipulative and persuasive, skills they use to as a form of 'mental violence' towards men since physical violence is against the law. Obviously, the guys who decided all thing have never had relationships with other men before." My response: Let me begin by repeating what I have written many times before in many places, comparing and contrasting men and women. I believe that women are a little smarter than men are on average, but women are also a little bit naturally more emotional on average, and men are naturally a little bit more logical than are women. Women are a little more evil than men, and men are a little more good on average, naturally, biologically, ethically and spiritually than are women. The reason for this is how I define moral and spiritual goodness. God is more rational, individualist, more masculine and pro-order, creative, moderate and temperate. Satan is more emotional, collectivist, more feminine, pro-chaos, more destructive, immoderate and extreme. Men are slightly better morally than are woman, naturally, because they are more egoistic (Love or good love is mostly self-love, out of which all other forms of love flow.) and women, biologically and innately are more self-loathing (Altruism or selflessness are really self-hatred, and all forms of hating others grow out of this low self-esteem.) These points made, as a given reality for humans, there is much room for optimism. Women can be who they naturally are, but with some training in the desirable, masculine virtues ascribed above, they can become womanly kind, strong, intelligent human beings that can work with and challenge themselves, other women, their male partners and their children. These starting points need not be the destiny of women and all humanity. Women may be slightly more illogical and manipulative than men, but most men run in collectivist packs and that leads to the over-feminization of all men and women that stay group-living. This barbaric communal structure holds humanity back and down. When and if both women and men individual-live and individuate, these very masculine states of existing, they will be logical more than emotional, and authentic, sincere, and abandoning game-playing and manipulation for pursuit of honest relations and open communications. Thee must be no more abuse of anyone by anyone, either emotional, verbal, psychologial or phsyical. Let me quote from Rose's belief #3: "Women are hypergamous--Apparently, women are only interested in men who are superior to them. The Red Pill Community believe that women seek out hypergamy, which is the act of marrying someone in a higher class system. Whether it's not having a lot of money or holding a high position in society, women don't look at men they see as inferior to them let alone marry them. These men are invisible. Women in relationships will then cheat with men they feel are more superior than their partner. And this is ALL women . . . Apparently hypergamy can be kept in check by 'a conservative upbringing and strong male family presence,' otherwise we'll be constantly looking to upgrade our relationships." I do not know of any of my blue collar coworker peers that think like this--which I why I think Peterson is right that the idea of backlashing against feminists is mostly online taunting and excess. Some of this may be that young men do not have proper upbringing, encouragement and training on how to be manly, strong, industrious, responsible, strong and exhibiting leadership skills. That women far outnumber man now in college is a sign that there will be a coming educational and class difference and gulf between young American men and women, so that growing gulf might fuel online complaining and whining about college-educated women that may seem haughty, hypergamous or snooty to blue-collar men. My guess is most Red-pillers are attending or attended college. My recommendation to young men would be to become and act manly but be courteous and respectful and protective of dates or potential mates, but never patronizing or seeking to dominate a potential partner. If a guy is clean, fit, articulate, considerate, polite, upbeat, well-behaved, gentlemanly, gainfully employed, and self-educating and self-actualizing, he should be attractive to some if not all women that he meets. If he is a Christian or conservative with family values, and traditional values, so be it, and he should find a partner that goes along with that set of values. Patience is necessary. Men should be manly and macho, but never bullying. They should think for themselves, ever educating themselves, and curious about everything, and yet gun-loving, America-loving, liberty-loving men that are mature, fit partners for mature, loving women. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 4: "Women Need Men More Than Men Need Women." My response: I do not know the answer to this one, I think most women and most men, binary and heterosexual, need a life partner to share with and to have children with. There are exceptions of course. Women may seek commitment more than sex, and men might seek sex more than commitment. Both men and women need each other and are not as a rule meant to live alone. Perhaps this needs to be decided on an individual basis. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 5: "Women Are Depreciating Assets--The only value women hold are their beauty and their fertility." My Response: This male fantasy belief reveals the callow, shallow, selfish, immature, hedonistic, cynical view of a young male out to "love them and leave them." We all age and are no longer so fertile, sexy and physically desirable. Marriage is a sacred sacrament from God and is part of natural law, and most of both women and men are to marry, settle down, be monogomous, have and raise children according to God's law and presence in the blessed family. In light of this traditional take on adult women, it is obvious that women are an appreciating asset to be love, cherished, and enjoyed as lifelong companions for better or worse, through sickness and health, until at death they do part. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 6: "The 80/20 Rule--According to these Red Pill nutjobs, 20 percent of men are having sex with 80 percent of women. That leaves 80 percent of the world's men without a swxual partner, which seems quite illogical. But these guys seem to think men are entitled to have sexual partners whether women are interested or not. And it all has to do with family values.'Only in conservative pro-monogamy communities is each man guaranteed a wife within his relative social league. Guaranteed a wife. Sounds like the kind of society I denfintely want to be part of." My Response: Who writes such beliefs?--are these Red Pill writers a bunch of virginal, computer nerds that only talk to themselves like a bunch of girl-fascinated, girl-obsessed but frozen, willless, scared boys in the 7th grade, at the school dance, afraid to leave the clique of their buddies to go invite a girl on the other side of the gym to dance? If they are 25 now and still not crossing the gym to ask the girls for a dance? If such, they are in a state of severely arrested social and psychological development. I recall reading on line about the huge number of young Japanese--mostly young men I believe--so into computers and the cyber-world that they seemed to have no interest in sex or even a serious relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Perhaps that is what we are dealing with here. It seems aberrational to me, and these young men need Jordan Peterson to educate them on how to act like heterosexual men, grow up, assume adult responsibility, how to work, clean up their rooms, get clean, educated, sociable, making good money and learn how to interact with women with courtesy and respect so that the vast majority of them are able to find women willing to sleep with them or wed them. No one is entitled to a sexual partner or a marriage partner, and society should never force the issue. All such match-ups must be and remain voluntary. I do not know if 20 percent of the guys are getting 80 percent of the women--I suppose psychologists should have studies already done on this--but if young men self-improve as suggested above, most of them will find someone to have sex with or to marry. Still, a few may never find such a partner, and I can say is that life is not fair. Maybe the rejected few should go hire a prostitute for sexual relief, and then get on with living and inviduating alone--they are not to turn bitter against women or society and attack or kill women out of revenge. That is wrong and inexcusable. Mark Levin is, I think, one of the most brilliant, insightful, decent and well-situated politcal philosophers in America today. His number one take on America is that our whole national experiment has been a Constitutionally-guaranteed, federally structured, political and legal framework that allows each individual citizen the opportunity to express his personal liberty as he sees fit. The protection of and pursuit of liberty for all Americans is our mission today as Leftists conspire to grow tyranny and socialism to eradicate personal liberty and freedom of conscience. If each man would exercise their share of national power, as a private citizen expressing his liberty as he will, how could he in any way force a woman to marry him or have sex with him? Each American woman too has her God-given natural right to express her liberty as she sees fit, and who she sleeps with or marries or not is no one's damn business, and if Red Pill Community would have a problem with this, then they are still digesting the blue pill. Her expression of her personal liberty as an individual and individuating American is the only legitimate form of feminism that is to be sold to women. Let me quote Rose's belief #7: "White Men Aren't Privileged--Redpillers believe that any woman are non-white male who achieves something or outperforms them cheated somehow. For example, if a woman receives a promotion at work over a man, those of the Red Pill Community will likely believe that she performed some kind of sexual favor or used her manipulation skills in order to get ahead. They wouldn't ever think that she actually worked hard and deserved the promotion. That thought just wouldn't cross their mind. When white men have an advantage over women or those of color, it's because they're simply better at the task at hand. Redpillers don't believe race or gender has anything to do with their positions in society. Even though the community's beliefs are far from traditional, their little cult continues to grow. As you can imagine, this concerns the public as the Red Pill Community have some twisted view on rape, racism and a woman's position in society. They are thought of as a gateway community to the alt-right, aside from other creative labels people have come up with. If you're a woman, a person of color, or anyone with an ounce of common sense, then this definitely isn't the kind of group you want to befriend." My response: Rose Burke seems bright, articulate and aware. She is also a Leftist. She obivously believes in White Male Privilege, which tells me most of what I need to know about her worldview. If you espouse white male privilege, you are for Marxism, social constructionism, critical race theory, radical feminism, wokeness, and the entire racial and social justice memed diatribe. All lives matter in America, and all enjoy privilege here, including white males, roughly no more or no less than any other identity group. Dennis Prager claims only two privileges matter in America: that you are born in America, and that you grew up in a two-person family. I would add a third privilege--if you were trained in my Mavellonialist philosophy, you stell achievement would follow, with no consideration required about who was trying to hold you down or back, it would be irrelevant as you would be unstoppable, no matter what series of identity groups that you belong to. Where Leftists blame white males in America for unearned success, favoritism and discrimination, where Redpillers, if Burke is accurate in representing them of accusing women and people of color here of getting ahead without merit and competence, based on sexual favors, manipulation, connections or quota system favoritism, then both sides are to be condemned. What are they missing? We Americans enjoy liberty and wondrous opportunities for success at work and in business if we work hard and apply ourselves. We need not worry about how others, men, women or people of color, got ahead or did not. Our job is to self-realize and become so skilled, brilliant, productive and valuable to our employer and society, that we enjoy impressive personal success. To worry about who is an oppressor or who is oppressed, or who got there by being favored or discriminated against, these whiners with their rage, their ingratitude their self-pity, their willingness to quit and settle for third place achievement, their grieveance-carrying appeal to the government, to HR and to lawyers to enforce stultifying equality of outcome limits on all so that the winners cannot go farther or have more than the losers or the mediocre performers, is in the best interest of no one. If some or all the the Redpillers are collectivists, then they do belong with the alt-right collectivists that could grow into a fascist movement. That is very dangeorus and quite undesirable. Prager points out repeatedly that the Left, the alt-Left (which is not the Democratic Party running our government) is very dangerous and very powerful in America right now, and journalists like Burke that do not recognize how authoritarian, radical, revolutionary, cruel, violent, intolerant, hateful and hating are these tyrants, these true-believing Maoists bringing their Marxist mass movement down upon America, fundamentally transforming the best country in the world into a socialist dictatorship into perpetuity. Under the guise of being compassionate, noble and idealistic, the proponents of social and racial justice are are Leninists at the bottom: the world is comprised of tribe versus tribe, and all history is an endless, brutal record of warring rivals, and victory is what happens when one's tribe comes out on top. It is 1917 in America and the Bolsheviks are at the gate of the czar's castle.