TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
- Hide Preview | 55 Comments | submitted 2 months ago by Rollo-Tomassi [Post Locked]





All of this takes time, persistence and introspection, but it starts with an act of will on your part. You will only get what you have gotten if you keep doing what you have done. I can teach you Game. I can teach you the habits that would make others believe you’re a self-sufficient Alpha success, but only you can change your authentic personality. This is where a lot of guys lose the trail when it comes to being Red Pill aware. They read my books, they open their eyes, but they don’t know what to do with the information. Rich Cooper once told me that reading The Rational Male was like drinking from a firehose. There’s a lot to digest and a lot to confront with regards to how that information shows you, convicts you, of how you lived your life up to this point. But what do you do with it? Knowing is half the battle, the other half is action. The other half is implementing that knowledge to your own advantage.

Ever since I started writing I’ve always referred to myself as a Lesser Alpha. Some people think that’s self-deprecating, others think I’m just a married Beta with delusions of Alpha. Whatever. Either way, I’m a guy who took this knowledge and applied it to serve my own best interests and forge a truly authentic personality based on what I understand of what we call the Red Pill. I created a me of my own volition based on a realistic understanding of intersexual dynamics, but also of a better understanding of myself in that Red Pill paradigm as a result of it.

So, who is the real you? Who decides what your real personality is and what is authentic for you? What is the estimate that your  personality is based on? I get sick of hearing women and men talk about finding themselves. Women love the idea of a journey of self discovery. This is a fantasy of Blue Pill idealism meant to, again, keep one in a state of helplessness and hypoagency. Women use this garbage as a convenient rationale meant to excuse their past bad decisions. 

Red Pill men don’t find themselves, they build themselves. 

They forge themselves  into a creation of their own choosing based on realistic assessments of themselves, their conditions and the world that challenges them not to build himself. I wrote this essay to encourage you, but also to warn you that this building takes time, and you will meet all manner of resistance to the masculine project that is you.

[-] GayLubeOil 28 Points 2 months ago

There's an on going argument between Essentialists and Existentialists on what comes first essence or existence.

To put it in layman's terms are people born into a pre determined role/caste/race/gender or do they decide their role after they come into existence.

The pickle Rollo stumbled into here is interesting.

His books built on the foundation of biological essentialism.

However "forging yourself into a creation of your choosing" is the diametrically opposed existentialist position..

If men should forge themselves into a creation of their choosing why not a transgender? But Rollo is against transgenders.

On the other hand Rollo isn't going to take the Traditionalist position of a man must follow his destiny. So we have an interesting conundrum on our hands.

I sure hope there was a copy of Being and Time in the glove compartment of this Tesla.

[-] ireadredpillonce 7 Points 2 months ago

Red Pill is really just transgenderism with men going the opposite direction and become more masculine instead of more feminine.

[-] FeddoX 2 Points 2 months ago

I think society is planting more and more feminine traits into men so they transition from pure men into a combination. RP functions as a rock to lean on if you are on the pure male side, and as a guide to transition from a combination of female and masculine traits to a "pure" masculine identity. If a alpha(aka pure masculinity) stumbles on RP, how is he changed in any way expect the theory behind the act of being alpha?

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] scissor_me_timbers00 6 Points 2 months ago

I don’t think it’s really that much of a contradiction. The existentialist notion of the radical freedom to define yourself wouldn’t argue against biological limits. Some of the gender bending early rockstars like Lou reed, David Bowie, etc that were influenced by the existentialist notions of radical self definition still wouldn’t say they are biological women.

“Existence precedes essence” still has its limitations. The existentialists never meant that to mean you could be a frog if you wanted to be a frog.

Therefore Rollo does fit pretty squarely in you might say an “existential masculinity” that seeks self creation as opposed to self discovery, because discovery presumes a pre existent “You”.

Personally when I made this same realization of this difference, it was a big revelation. Having been raised in a mormon household, you’re raised to believe you lived in a pre existent state prior to earth, and that god had a specific plan for your life. Even after leaving the religion, the residue of this essentialist identity thinking stayed with me until I realized personality is forged and created, not “discovered” as Rollo points out.

However a counterpoint should be included to say that masculine instincts are somewhat innate to greater or lesser degrees, so a component of creating a masculine identity does involve finding your instincts that may have been domesticated into latency or never developed in the first place. For example lifting weights not only cultivated your body but also cultivated a subjective feeling of masculinity when developing physical prowess.

One last note for further explanation would be to look into Jung’s concept of Individuation. Jung said that the purpose of life was to become an individual, as opposed to just a mass person who is not really in control of their mind, opinions, and behaviors. Not everyone Individuates in this life. Rollo is making essentially this Jungian point about Individuation. Also Jung has particular relevance at the moment cuz homeboy Jordan Peterson, love him or hate him, is a neo-Jungian and bringing that stuff back into vogue, which I think is a good thing. Jung was out of fashion for decades but shouldn’t be.

[-] GayLubeOil 7 Points 2 months ago

If a person has the radical freedom to define himself then all leftism, feminism and Transgenderism is perfectly acceptable. The existential freedom to define yourself does not have limitations because it's a radical freedom. The word radical denotes no limitations that's why it was used. That's why leftists bloopies and feminists jerk of to the word Radical so often

So yes there is a massive contradiction that sinks this entire post.

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 3 Points 2 months ago

Eh, just because a radical opening of paths to personal expression are open, doesn’t mean they are wise. It shouldn’t be inculcated the stupidity of radical feminism in women. But not forced.

Edit: it should* be inculcated in women the stupidity of feminism.

[-] GayLubeOil 5 Points 2 months ago

Then why create the radical opening in the first place?More importantly why reaffirm the radical opening when you're (Rollo) a leader of a community speaking out against the effects of the radical opening?

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

Sorry I had to edit a typo on my last response. I meant the stupidity of feminism should be inculcated in women. Maybe you picked up on that.

The problem is that technology is much of what creates the radical opening. There is little we could do with a top down approach to constrain choice in the 21st century global world.

And I think Rollo’s point is one of pragmatism. I don’t think red pill is inherently against the freedom/opening. I think red pill is against what many do with that. At least that would be my interpretation. I mean otherwise we would be tradcucks, who move from blue pill leftism to conservacuck monogamy with no option of independence or gaining experience with women before getting married.

I think we have to deal pragmatically with the present moment as we find it. I’m deeply suspicious of radical political projects on both left and right. I do think there will be an opening in the next 10-20 years for a traditionalist political effort to seriously emerge, but right now there is still much chaos and unraveling that we are best to sit back and analyze, while following a more Rollo style approach. At least for most guys. Even theorists like you and me are kinda limited in what we can realistically achieve politically at the moment.

[-] BillyRedRocks 3 Points 2 months ago

Okay, boys, it's over. We can all go home now. If your destiny is not to be a dark triad wolf alpha you shouldn't even be trying. No need for this sub I guess it was nice procrastinating with you all

[-] ex_addict_bro 1 Point 2 months ago

Where’s the fourth guy... shit, where’s the third?

[-] SmackinDatAss 1 Point 2 months ago

Will I understand his post better if I use the soap?

[-] NextBad 1 Point 2 months ago

My Blue Pill conditioning exacerbated this because it always teaches men that any problem a woman has with a guy is due to his own lack of investment, support, sensitivity or not giving enough of themselves. This is a very damning aspect of the Blue Pill and it’s also one that guys will reinforce in themselves and with other men because they believe their sacrifices are what women appreciate.


He is simply saying this isn't about self improvement, as all our issues aren't on us, or even a reflection of us, however he is careful not to blame women for anything wrong with our dating life other than our own actions, but our actions are influence by culture and often misunderstanding.

[-] valourtore 1 Point 2 months ago

This explains the incongruence I feel: living by will to power (existentialism) alone is too tight a rope to tread. Proving my nobility - how and what is nobility even? I currently understand nobility as described by Nietzsche to allude to the Heroic man of Odysseus’ mould in that he exemplifies direct power and use of that power for his self-serving purposes as opposed to the Christian “humility/vulnerability” (indirect power/manipulation). But I am still unsure if the goal here is to become a Heroic man of the ancients or to forge my own persona from the formless chaos.

I find it congruent to see things in black and white: Born a man, I have a destiny I have to attain. It is not a goal, but a necessity. Everything else is a dying world (liberalism, idealism, hedonism) looking to pull me down with it, to deny me my destiny. The world then becomes my mirror, showing me my path through inversion (contrarian).

My problem now is do I know what my destiny (endpoint) is? Where there a visible goal/necessity to work towards, there is already some Ubermensch (and thus existentialist) idealism dressed as essentialism. And so I am again stuck in a conundrum, unless I can attain growth without having any visions.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] [deleted] 12 Points 2 months ago

As I’ve pointed out countless times, a majority of men’s (80% Beta) only real problem is finding that one girl that fits their sexual strategy as ideal.

And if they find that one girl, they stop in their tracks. As if they have struck gold. And so does all their self improvement and motivation in life. It's why men get lazy stop going to the gym and take on their girlfriend's netflix and eat shit habits because they place all their worth into finding that one girl and then follow them like a lost puppy.

one thing I don’t get into in that essay is how I willingly became someone else – fundamentally changing my personality again – in order to solve this girl’s problems because I believed that who I was when we met was so flawed it was causing her neurosis.

It's why when there's something fundamentally wrong with the relationship, men will blame themselves rather than look objectively and see that perhaps the woman they fell in love with is batchit insane. And that's partly to do with the societal conditioning that women are always the victims, and that men are always to blame. But mostly because blue pill conditioning inside of him seeks a resolution to the conflict. So he questions himself. Questions her what he has done wrong. Falls further into the betatisation process. And utter believes it's on him to fix it.

In a relationship with a borderline you get a skewered sense of reality. Which is why women are much more notorious for gas lighting. As if society validating her solipsism wasn't enough. Now you must deal with a woman who has the ability to induce psychosis at the drop of a hat. Such women tend to have horror stories of their exs abusing them and beating them up. A fate that will soon happen to you when she dumps you as you become a long list of men that 'abused' her in her victimhood false narrative.

My Blue Pill conditioning exacerbated this because it always teaches men that any problem a woman has with a guy is due to his own lack of investment, support, sensitivity or not giving enough of themselves.

And unfortunately I still see that in the Red Pill. Especially Red Pill Married. "You wasn't alpha enough" "Your behaviour is why she got bored" "You got lazy that's why she cheated." And this is what MGTOW has always had an issue with in the Red Pill. The men who will openly blame it all on other men for the shortcomings of a failed marriage. And her hypergamy is then used as an excuse for her shitty behaviour. 'If you was alpha enough she wouldn't have cheated'. But more importantly it pedestalises that woman further because you must become chad. You must improve yourself beyond all. And what of the woman in a dead bedroom? You must change. Yet she's only to receive. And therein lies the fault in the stars. You get red pilled. You change your 'marriage'. You change your personality. And she's still the same lackluster woman.

I suppose it's why you say men must become their own mental point of origin. Because even Red Pill men are inclined to make it about their woman. And more importantly, a man in such a relationship should see objectively that the woman has equal blame in becoming lazy and desireless. Generally in relationships both the man and woman get into a rutt. But it's the solipsism in her that is more inclined to place the blame of a failed relationship squarely on the man. And it's her sisterhood who reaffirm that. And that's rather sad as most women never really progress further than that.

This is why when I became red pilled. Why when I was reading your book during a dead bedroom and I improved myself beyond her capability to do so herself. That I left and couldn't continue to be with a woman who had become as boring as a potato.

It was rather interesting to say the least because I had women coming up to me in bars flirting with me (literally in front of her) and she would throw a hissy fit about it but it never sparked a genuine desire to fix the dead bedroom. And what really fucked her up and made her so lackluster wasn't me or any of her exs. It was her radical feminist ideology. One that always had an issue with men being 'competitive' that men was not deserving of female desire.

I've always hated feminism so at every part in our 1.5 year relationship I resisted each way. Constant conflict and hamstering. Much like a BPD woman.

Red Pill men don’t find themselves, they build themselves.

Forge your own path. And that's what MGTOW can teach Red Pill. To develop yourself as a man who has an fulfilling life beyond women. It will make you less inclined to place your mental point of origin on them too. Fulfilling your biological imperative is an important aspect to building yourself but not as important as building a legacy that one day you may even pass onto your children. Perhaps that is the empire that you have created through your career. What ever it is to him, a man's journey is much more than just becoming chad. I would place the importance of brotherhood and male spaces much further than fulfilling one's biological imperative. Still, MGTOW's hiding away from women because of the victimised climate is not the solution. Becoming chad is still a part of the rather large puzzle. Masculinity needs femininity. Genuine desire feeds it. And masculinity is what drives men to accomplish incredible things in life.

[-] Cloak_and_Rose 3 Points 2 months ago

I don't have much to add to this, but I reached the same conclusions these last few months, even RP often tends to forget to hold women accountable, and it's probably due to that "she's a teenager" mentality. I get it, it's a way to maintain indifference game when a woman pulls stupid shit, but even then... I read Rollo's Mental point of Origin recently and it really resonated with me too.
Great post man

[-] DeGENZerate 6 Points 2 months ago

This is Rollo Tomassi who I have quoted many times but there is a gaping hole bigger than ya mom in this article.

When he said

Red Pill men dont find themselves they build themselves

Based on

realistic assessments

What I am about to say is maybe too controversial for the Red Pill, but I see the pattern and somebody needs to say it.

These are the same maxims that Jordan Peterson lectures.

Lets talk the origins of Red Pill. The subject or focus of fascism was the state/race. The subject of communism was socioeconomic class. The subject of liberalism is the individual. Since liberalism won the 20th century, the individual won. This means it's time to liberate. Liberate man from government. Liberate black from white. Liberate female from male. Child from parents. Person from gender

This line of thinking fucked things up which led to a need for The Red Pill. The Red Pill is inherently opposed to this fuck up in every form. Jordan Peterson is an individualist and a classical liberal. He wants to go back to somewhere in the middle of what I just said. He wants to conserve the system in an earlier stage of decay.

Rollo had become steriotypically sports car materialistic. Here he unconsciously repeats the flaws of the system he opposes. He views the Red Pill as a "Praxeology" cause and effect in relation to the matrix aka the liberal system we live in.

they forge themselves into a creation of their own the masculine project that is you

Rollo views people as materialistic objects and since red pill is a reactionary "praxeology", according to him, his advice is void of any guiding principle to build on. What the Red Pill needs is a direction. A Red Pill mission^^tm or masculineproject^^tm is masturbatoryand escapes the essence of the issue. Instead he opts for a response reminescent of "clean your room." The Red Pill will eat up this advice blindly because after all, he is the Rollo Tomassi!

When Rollo steps out of the Lambo will he lead men to something great or will he continue to react to the next horrible thing liberalism does to the world

While it is difficult, Rollo Tomassi is the Jordan Peterson of the Red Pill. If you want to blindly reject this then enjoy your dopamine. If you want to argue this logically I'm all ears. If this leaves you frustrated with nowhere to look for answers, feel free to pm me about Ride the Tiger, the best answer I could find.

[-] Rollo-Tomassi 3 Points 2 months ago

Sorry, I'll be sure to put more God in the next one to make you feel better.

[-] DeGENZerate 1 Point 2 months ago

That's what Jordan Peterson would unironically have said. On a strictly rational level though: I think many people would be interested to hear what Red Pill men should orient ther mission around and specifically, if it is up to the individual to decide, why not decide to be a feminist as a Red Pill man? This would be contradictory to TRP but not to your statements in the post.

[-] CosmicSpiral 2 Points 2 months ago

These are the same maxims that Jordan Peterson lectures.

The difference with Peterson is that he advocates responsibility and self-generation improvement only to the extent it makes men docile and supplicating to the predominant zeitgeist. "Cleaning your room" constitutes little more than a command to be unobtrusive and meager in one's ambitions. It's good advice for young men suffering from ennui and anhedonia, useless for making them anything more than worker bees. It's feckless tradcon wish fulfillment without a compass.

The subject or focus of fascism was the state/race. The subject of communism was socioeconomic class. The subject of liberalism is the individual. Since liberalism won the 20th century, the individual won.

If you are naive enough to believe the cover print, you can segment 20th century ideological conflict into these categories. Perhaps communism's primary preoccupation was back when Marx was still hashing out the finer points of Das Kapital, but that all but ended in the early 20th century once figureheads realized it was more convenient and profitable to rule by fiat rather than a emergent order born from the proletariat. By the time Evola transitioned the majority of his focus into political treatises, existing strains of communist resistance obsessed over state control as the sole means of implementing their policies despite being material enemies to fascism. So on and so forth.

Since liberalism won the 20th century, the individual won. This means it's time to liberate. Liberate man from government. Liberate black from white. Liberate female from male. Child from parents.

Yes and no. The rise of urban centers over rural communities as the nexus of moral, cultural, and socioeconomic importance brings with it anonymity and all its attendant trends (e.g. loose sexual mores). This has always been the case stretching back to Western antiquity. You will find similar hints of decadence and profligacy in records of ancient Sumer, 8-11th century Kyoto, Han China, etc. They existed in spite of the more rigid traditionalist beliefs that dominated the public consciousness. This is one area where Evola is disastrously wrong: I suspect he conflated the metaphorical importance he placed on aristocracy with mystic nostalgia. In reality, the flaws of liberalism you condemn are the preferences of the upper class filtered down into the upper-middle and middle classes. Since you are advocating Ride the Tiger as an ur-text, you should come to terms with the holes in the writer's thought-processes.

Nevertheless, liberation in the private sphere leads to restriction in the public one. "Liberate man from government", the libertarian dream, would only be possible with a homogeneous population adverse to internal conflict. This paradox in the application of liberal philosophy generated fascism as a counterresponse. It's why surveillance is the new buzzword in geopolitics.

Person from gender.

Contrary to popular belief the ancients were quite taken with hermaphrodites, homosexuality, and all the "disgusting aberrations" their admirers find reprehensible. Mid-20th century Americans they weren't.

This line of thinking fucked things up which led to a need for The Red Pill.

Well, the process began in the 19th century and it's not like the mean level of life was much better prior to liberalism's existence anyway. People who espouse reactionary doctrines never seem to take this into account. It's like how Leninists overlooked the possibility they would be victims of the guillotine.

If you want to argue this logically I'm all ears.

There's nothing particularly logical to discuss when your rhetoric is so tautological. Any discussion about whether the Red Pill should champion an older framework of society/culture should start with whether such a thing even existed.

[-] DeGENZerate 1 Point 2 months ago

You are correct about Peterson but not immediately rejecting him based on his position in relation to liberalism is detrimental to say the least.

On Marx here I also agree with you however you conflate ideology with their political counterparts I mentioned. We are talking to people 20+ IQ points lower than us im not going to give them a detailed analysis of 20th century ideology. Also liberalism isn't 19th century its very 18th century in origin, or you could just say enlightenment values.

Fundamentally your entire critique of Evola is measured quantitatively:

its not like the mean level of life was better prior toliberalism's existence anyway

Moreover it sounds like you haven't read his more essentialist texts. Evola measured things quite differently than you do, in that he puts will before method, on a metaphysical level. Urbanization is very anti-traditional and you attack Evola where he looks for what is positive as we approach the Kali Yuga.

Furthermore your modern compromise of trannies as being normal is not only disgusting, but also ignores the decadence right before your eyes, generalizing history so you can see the children of today as favorable, in your allusion to the traditionalist perspective.

Just because you don't know how to wield anything besides logos doesnt mean you shouldn't. If you wanna nerd out then pm me otherwise there is plenty logos already in here to discuss.

Any discussion about whether the Red Pill should champion an older framework of society/culture should start with whether such a thing even existed

The problem is liberal thinking infects your logic. Liberalism, and subsequently you, abolished all organic thought on the level of metaphysics. This discussion isn't about championing specific culture it is about inner orientation. If you understood traditionalism as René Guénon defined it then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Thanks for your respons Slavoj

[-] TitusDorsus 2 Points 2 months ago

Nothing is permanent. All the cultures, civilizations and traditions come and go.

The same goes with the concept of how to live. You cannot expect people to live the same way as a few decades or centuries ago when the population was ignorant and about a few millions.

Every year, time is accelerating, going faster and faster and getting attached to something from the past will make you lose the game.

Before, you had to be what people told you what to be. You had to believe in this god and religion, you had to be heterosexual, you had to be married, you would do the same job as your father and teach it to your son.

You can be whoever you want and do whatever you want. But now, your choices have a big impact and you are the only one to blame if you fail at the game of life.

Things fucked up because there was an old way to do things and we did it for thousands years . We needed an upgrade and we will not reach a balance in a few decades.

[-] DeGENZerate 3 Points 2 months ago

Nothing is permanent

No tradition is the same but they all hold identical truths within them on an orientation level. When you don't have these things you get wifey.

What you are arguing for is called futurism and it is the antithesis of traditionalism. You look at this and say "gee isn't it great how far we've come" completely ignoring the social facts in favor of science and urban materialism.

You care more about your car than you do about social relations being so rotted that we need to go to an internet forum in order to power play our way into a vagina. You see this as progress or at the very best a worthy trade off instead of a manifestation of the decadence it is.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

Interesting point, although I don’t think there’s an opening in society for any truly radically anti liberalism political project until things start to seriously melt down. Maybe next decade we will see that. Until then I think red pillers are best suited to take a Rollo or Peterson approach, if they aren’t religious.

Nor am I really convinced that an anti liberal political project would be a good idea, despite the big problems with late decadent liberal societies. Perhaps a shift to an earlier liberalism like Peterson advocates is more pragmatic. And frankly in a newly global world like we have now, I think it’s nearly impossible to be radically anti individual/liberal because people will just move to a different country. You would need to be basically totalitarian.

[-] DeGENZerate 3 Points 2 months ago

All of this analysis is great but if only there was a book that negated all of those points and gave something positive to consider as a foundation instead of Jordan Cuckerson. Why are you endorsing an establishment figure on The Red Pill? Stop that

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

Haven’t read Evola, but I’ve researched his ideas and especially that ride the tiger book. I’m certainly not opposed to the ideas, and it’s on my reading list. But if I understand correctly, isn’t it basically laying out the hopelessness of trying to change the larger decline? And so focusing on your self and your circle to “ride the tiger?”

Also to call Peterson an “establishment figure” is not really correct. The establishment of libcuck and has tried to discredit and purge him but he just makes too much sense to too many people so now they have to come to terms with his permanence. He’s more like purple pill. He is the gateway drug out of The Cathedral. I see him as fundamentally on our side, in opposition to Cathedral orthodoxy. Lots of people see cracks in the matrix thru him, and then go on to full redpill on gender and civilization. I know you don’t like his centrism but the bigger enemy is the Cathedral and Peterson is with us in opposing that.

[-] DeGENZerate 3 Points 2 months ago

JBP worked for the UN writing marxist laws. He also attends globalist conferences. He is a nonopposition who dilutes the pool. He is being payed by those who are integral in the system. There is only a minute ammount of Red in that Purple.

Ride the Tiger is about fighting from lost positions. So what we are doing. Read it and you will understand what I am talking about in its entirety

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

I’m doubtful Peterson is writing truly Marxist laws.

And all I’m arguing for is a more pragmatic approach. I would take Evola with a grain of salt. He is definitely an important alternative viewpoint to the leftist philosophy of the academies but he was also kind of a nut and his ideas get pretty outlandish at times.

I don’t think out real project will take shape for another 5-10 years. We need more unraveling to occur. Until then a Rollo/Peterson approach is pragmatically reasonable for most.

[-] DeGENZerate 2 Points 2 months ago

Jordan Peterson Dismantled. This is the part where I call you a retard. Retards argue without reading. Dont be a retard and read the hard book

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

Just watched that Peterson video thanks for linking. I think it’s overly critical of Peterson and strawman’s him, but I also think Peterson is trying to preserve a dying order. So I see his errors. Peterson’s opposition to the alt right is more of an opposition to radicalism generally. Ultimately I think Peterson is again fundamentally on our side in opposing the Cathedral. That video didn’t show all the times he spoke out against mass immigration.

Ultimately we are gonna have to get more hardcore as China asserts its growing dominance and civilizational identity as supreme as the West degenerates. All of this euro identity stuff makes most sense in response to the 21st century threat of Chinese ascension which will be a major problem come 2040.

[-] augustopinochet27 1 Point 2 months ago

Jordan Peterson is not only a coward cuck. He is actually manipulative and deceptive. He knows very well the implications of ethnic differences of IQ, temperance and other qualities . Of the tribal nature of men. He constantly talks about hierarchies yet when it comes to the hierarchy or any kind of comparison of races he starts autistically screeching and crying about muh locke and muh individual. He doesnt even ever mention the most controversial book of his favorite author Alexander Solszchenitsyn “200 years together”. He is not a centrist. He is an enlightenment light leftist cuck Working for the globo homo. Hell even Fascists or nazis are not right wing or traditional for me. We are going above right here. For they are concerned with materialistic notions of nation and “the people”.

Most of the dying men of the “redpill” are part of the decline and the degeneration. As all “alphas” are not supposed to have kids and have some “purpose “ bla bla bla. All I hear is weak men controlled by their masters. Not willing to submit their women to their will, not willing to take control. The appropriate response to hypergamy and degeneracy is not to play by it . This is actually being beta to the chaos and the decadent system. I am not even saying definitely be in monogamy. Go for polygamy and really unfair arrangements, but in which us men have total control and right to punish deviance. And not bullshit actions like “dread” and “being able to walk away. What the fuck kind of a pussified world is it that I cannot deliver justice if I am betrayed. Walking away from a. Cheating wife is not an alpha behavior, it is acceptance. Killing her and the perpetrator would be actually alpha and just. I do not care how many sterilized pussy you penetrate with a condom. If you are not willing to rise to the occasion, defeat your enemies, submit your women, children and everyone into behaving. You are not a man. To try to game and plate and fuck and destroy an entire generation of mothers is not alpha, its mindless and what a chimp would do given the chance and condoms. The appropriate response it is to reestablish a radical patriarchy that which existed in every great civilization. All of Your fuckfest will end soon. But it will all be for nothing and your unborn descendants will curse you for your spinelessness.

[-] scissor_me_timbers00 1 Point 2 months ago

Eh not really. I never said I’m against Evola. I’ve read a synopsis of his views. I already acknowledged I should and will be reading him directly. But even based on a synopsis of his stuff I can tell he gets pretty “out there”. That doesn’t make me a “retard”.

[-] GayLubeOil 2 Points 2 months ago
[-] cupshadow 0 Points 2 months ago

If you expecting Rollo to be a leader or a guru, you are probably looking at the wrong way. And that's for anyone who are looking for that too. I see him the same way I see scientists, as someone who cracked some "universe mystery" and laid out for us to understand. Amazon is already filled with cooked-up recipes for life and there's always some self-help book reaching the Top 10 best sellers of the year. Remember The Secret?

And besides, aren't we supposed to be our own leaders?

[-] DeGENZerate 1 Point 2 months ago

Yea good point maybe the betas will just unbeta themselves tee hee

[-] cupshadow 1 Point 2 months ago

Yeah you're really don't wanna argue this logically. You just came here to preach.

[-] DeGENZerate 2 Points 2 months ago

What I'm hearing is you are butthurt that I logically dismantled your entire point in one sarcastic sentence tee hee

[-] cupshadow 1 Point 2 months ago

Are you delusional? You just confirmed the need of having someone telling you what to do. And that your way is the right way too. Like I said, there's millions of self help gurus out there.

[-] DeGENZerate 2 Points 2 months ago

Unlike you I am not a liberal and understand that the collective work of millenia of my ancestors is important. We all need to be told what to do because right now what we are doing is transvestites and you may be okay with that but I am not

[-] augustopinochet27 -1 Point 2 months ago

I agree, I think this forum is actually blue pill and degenerate on a civilizational level. The whole amorality and hedonism is blue pill liberalism. Its not about empowering men. It turns them into mindless consumer of pussy and money instead of porn and soy.Ignorance of tradition, identity and culture and most importantly GOD and mindlessly pursuing false idols such as “ purpose”, “lots of pussy” devoid of any actual virilitas, family or honour.

Edit: The real redpill realization lies beyond pursuit of pussy and money. Man is above these and must seek the metaphysical.Only through blood and struggle, and integrity can he truly become a “man” thus gaining power, status, respect, and achieve divine status as true alpha figures like Ceaser, Christ, Muhammad, Genghis did. True Great men werent amoral nor created their own “purpose”. They seeked glory in the name of God and of Divine purpose, for they believed greatness was their destiny and moral imperative. This fuel in their hearts sparked and burned the flame of history.

[-] DeGENZerate 7 Points 2 months ago

The Red Pill metaphor can be taken far beyond sexual strategy and I agree here. The irony is guys who arent smart enough to understand that first paragraph will read and downvote when, in fact, that isthe fastest way to getting laid. But at that point you are far beyond the use of vaginas as validation source as you have replaced that with an inner tradition

[-] redpill77 1 Point 2 months ago

The red pill is not about hedonism. I've even been seeing much less 'enjoy the decline' in the last half a year.

It's a focus on sexual strategy because trying to be a man without having sex, is like trying to become a coach without ever playing pro: who the fuck wants to listen to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

The first step to being an empowered man is freeing yourself from your slavery to pussy, which like money or nourishment, can only be done by having sufficient supply. Once you have that, then you can get started on other important things without being an easily manipulated sucker.

[-] DeGENZerate 5 Points 2 months ago

to be a man without having sex, is like trying to become a coach without ever playing pro

Your conflation of manhood with sex is exactly what I am talking about. The overt message is: men need to be able to satisfy their sexual needs. This is true, however this implies something terrible. This is the point where stupid people fall off the logic and get triggered. Your covert message is: manhood is defined by your ability to sleep with women. This is so blue pill that the very idea undermines the existence of the entire subreddit.

Inner consistancy and a legitimate masculine grounding, not missionfirst^^tm is a need more essential than sexual success. Or else you will become this.

[-] redpill77 1 Point 2 months ago

I never said sex defines manhood, it is a physiological prerequisite to free thinking, and free thinking is a fundamental component of manhood.

Unless you really don't have a sex drive, there is no ignoring it. You master it, or you are a slave to it. It would be an extremely rare case that you can guard against your impulses, thoughts and even philosophy being affected by an unfulfilled basic need.

The red pill is not a moral philosophy, which is what you are seeking. It is tool to help you be self sufficient enough that we are not influenced by the falsities of the system. It provides a guide to overcoming one of the obstacles to being a true ubermensch. After that, we are each on our own.

I am all for discussing philosophical ideas, but words have standardized meanings so that we can have conversations that make sense. Leftists employ doublethink when they attempt to redefine racism so that it retains its status as a pejorative, but cannot be applied to the racism they espouse. It is convenient for their purposes, but it is not truth-seeking. It is power-seeking. (There is nothing wrong with that here, but the doublethink needs to be weeded out in a red pill forum). You are doing the same thing here: inappropriately wielding the high status of a term- 'red pill'- to aggrandize your own philosophy.

Your philosophy may very well be red pill based, but as soon as you develop a systematic approach, if you're lucky, you're on your way to developing a system that future generations will want to unplug from when it becomes bastardized and controlling.

Red pill does not tell you what to do. It tells you how to be free.

[-] DeGENZerate 3 Points 2 months ago

Your first paragraph redirects the big implication of what I quoted you on in my original reply. The freedom you are talking about is not freedom of being it is freedom of the individual which is by definition liberal. The red pill got punched in the face and now we are in a fight whether we want to be or not. What you are suggesting is an anti-values value structure, your values are ones that will lose and are suboptimal for getting men laid as I wrote in my original comment.

[-] redpill77 1 Point 2 months ago

I reread your original comment. I like what you say about Peterson ( and maybe Rollo) wanting to revert to an earlier stage in the decline. I had a small worry about Rollo's participation in that silly promo, but you see the ethic outlined or displayed often enough by endorsed contributors here: there is no leader here, you learn from other men and think for yourself.

My point still stands. The red pill is not a value system.

By the way, I agree with your ethic that something should be aimed at with red pill men. I just don't agree that it would count as red pill at that point, it would be its own thing, as the more it is developed into an ideology and plan of action, the further it is from universal truths and acceptance. I like to think of the red pill as a starting point.

[-] DeGENZerate 2 Points 2 months ago

Traditions are universal truths and very Red Pill. Your "think for yourself" shtick is pure liberalism from the last 300 years only. We have ancestor after anscestor that compiled wisdom over millennium and you are too liberal to give that any credence.

If you would have read Ride the Tiger, which I linked, before writing that comment we wouldnt be having this discussion. Thats why Evola should be on the sidebar. Some EC's talk about needing a mission without the essence of a mission and here you are ignoring everything I said because you hear HumanSockPuppet doesn't agree with me. Well guess what some RP endorsed actually agree with me. You want red pill to be coffee without the caffine.

[-] augustopinochet27 3 Points 2 months ago


Tradition is THE reality that you wake up to. That is the true realization of man on his journey to seek the Whole as stoics would refer to it.

Not the moral nihilism, hedonism, materialism nor the cucked liberal englighment faggotry.

Edit :

The reality is those who cannot grasp these concepts DeGENZ mentions that is tied to manhood, tradition, integrity, dignity and honour would never become the ruling spiritual aristocrats of the old. They would be the ruled over castes. The slave, the merchant at best. They would not be deemed worthy enough to be the warrior class, the wise aristocrats yet alone the divine priests. It is in vain to explain to a desperate reformed Incel or a sex obsessed chad what inherent spiritual nobility is. But for those who feel more inside, you should read Evola, mythology and real culture and history.

[-] strikethrough123 4 Points 2 months ago

Treat yourself like you are your own child.

[-] NASCARnormie 1 Point 2 months ago

this has passive nihilist written all over. to be purely oneself one must accept his will and say yes. Oneself is defined by your culture, your ancestors, not "realistic assessments." Realistic based off whose view? Why even have a realistic assessment. Why not attempt to transcend.

i know an existentialist when i see one. An existentialist is one who projects man within crisis, not beyond. Rollo doesn't care about metaphysics or the transcendent. All his advice lies on the existent side(the physical world), instead of the transcendent.

He's failed to grasp the concept of mastering ones fate and as Hegel would say, is a slave to life and its materialistic concessions.

[-] [deleted] 2 months ago
[-] AutoModerator 1 Point 2 months ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] RealMcGonzo 1 Point 2 months ago

Is that Nicholas Cage in the bikini?