The red pill is a philosophy based upon a set of observations which emphasises the utilisation of logic as a tool for explaining the reality around us, as such it is accepting of many ideas and stances, however one thing it is most decidedly not accepting of is ideology which presents a faux sense of egalitarianism out of unsubstantiatable idealism, such ideology operates on poorly constructed reasoning and it is for this reason alone that the ideology in question is unilaterally rejected by the red pill, the most prominent of said rejected ideology of course being that of feminism.

Feminism and irrationalism tend to go hand in hand, this is the core basis behind why feminism is prominently rejected by red pill philosophy, however the relationship between irrationalism and feminism is not exclusive, any position which is not backed by solid logical reasoning is ultimately rejected by red pill philosophy. Fallacious ideology such as feminism, which often makes demands and claims of strength when something is to be gained for the ideology whilst equally (pardon the pun) claiming weakness when something else can be gained for the ideology, is an ideology that we can only reject as being philosophically absurd and thus rationally incoherent.

Feminist rationalism lays in its consistency: it entrenches its ideology by making successful power grabs, this is rational and consistent of any ideology, its irrationalism however lays in the arguments it presents (its methodology) in executing these power grabs, and it’s the fallibility of the methodology which exposes the ideology as being fraudulent. You cannot argue “different but equal” and claim weakness where it benefits you (divorce laws/appeals to tradition – argumentum ad antiquitatem) but simultaneously claim equality to be benefitted in other areas (job opportunities/sexual “liberation” – rejection of tradition) and not expect your system of thought to be deemed deliberately hypocritical, implausible and fallacious in nature by those of rational mind.

The red pill is poignantly anti-egalitarian, incorporating a self-improvement approach built upon self-reliance and personal accountability to one’s self, the red pill is pro-meritocratic rather than pro-egalitarian, some members still hold out hope for egalitarianism, but those are the few who hold on to idealism and dewy-eyed dreams of a better tomorrow, it is an idealist notion that goes against everything the environment teaches us and essentially what the red pill as a philosophy and a collective believes in. We’re a hierarchical species, women attach themselves to powerful men and weak men get left with nothing, that’s how it is, and no amount of rationalisation or declarative to the contrary will change such a notion. Egalitarianism is a mythological idea that has been co-opted in all its incredible irony to benefit a privileged subsection of the population, mainly, those who identify as feminist and utilise its power and influence to get ahead.

I’m an intellectual myself, but I embrace pragmatism and realism, that is to say, to see things for what they are and form opinion as well as a mode of operation based upon the nature of my environment, when I say “nature of my environment” I refer to the most logical method of interpreting my immediate reality, that is to say how it functions at the bare bones, not the illusion or lick of paint that “civilized society” glosses over it to make realities harshness seem more palatably accessible; and most definitely not the perceived nature that propaganda and cultural indoctrination commands that one should perceive. It is thus that when a fellow intellectual starts espousing idealistic nonsense about fairness, cohesiveness and equality I simply cannot be bothered to engage with such a buffoon, literally, for what is the umpteenth time, in debunking this completely unsubstantiated line of Mickey Mouse reasoning that the person in question has been indoctrinated with.

Through encountering many people who are indoctrinated with politically correct/feminist dogma, I’ve learnt to assess when my mental faculty and logic will be wasted in argument, if I assess that someone is not sufficiently open-minded or will be far too ruthlessly demanding of my mental faculty (E.g.: claims they want to be convinced of my position and that it is merely up to me to adequately justify my position, but is seemingly already combative, very intellectually stubborn and resistant in opening up to my line of reasoning regardless of its logical validity) then I deduce the endeavour is a bad use of my time and I refrain from discourse.

Ultimately, the type of person I have just described is the type of person who finds themselves incredibly disappointed in life. They do not live in reality, they live in a projection of fantasy of which they have convinced themselves is a tangible possibility, they overlook much and rationalise that which they do not overlook in order to reconcile fantasy into a form of digestible “truth”, this “truth” not being truth in the truest sense but rather a subjectively flawed interpretation of truth that is held as being a fair representation of “the truth”, when in reality such ideas of “what the truth really is” are far removed from anything close to indicative of the human experience.

These people are what we call ‘bluepillers.’ These are the people we (believers of red pill philosophy) do not tolerate sharing their views, their views lack value to us because they are based in what we perceive to be fantasy rather than reality. The #1 rule of the red pill community is that if you’re going to talk, it better not be with bullshit. If you talk with bullshit, you will not be tolerated. Just because we have a succinct stern posture on this doesn’t mean we’re a community of dim-witted handymen limited to speaking in “straighttalk”, what it means is that we’re accustomed to dealing with the truth and anything that carries the potential to be perceived as a possible truth regardless of whether rhetoric is used to present such truth, or not.

Many times someone with an above average ability to argue the semantics out of something will come onto the red pill subreddit, nit-pick at a crevice in an argument, and take part in what I like to refer to as “academic antagonism” by arguing possibilities, definitions and all sorts of tangential pedantry in order to chip away at a position through a bombardment of questioning that can only be described accurately as inquisition. Ultimately it always concludes with the bigotry that in the absence of evidence (a scientific study which they find to be of repute) that the hypothesis must be deduced false/incorrect. The irony to this is, science sets to either prove or disprove the hypothesis but claims no certainty until either has been achieved, these people use the absence of scientific proof to say the hypothesis must be wrong, this is a hasty generalisation, as there is no proof here to say these things are wrong and the scientific method has not debunked them as much. It is quite hilarious when ‘bluepillers’ and red pill critics alike think the absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself that something is wrong by the merit of being unproven, they irrationally conflate the state of being “unproven by scientific study” as being “disproven by the absence of scientific study” this is fallacious thinking, ultimately the absence of evidence means that something has neither been proven nor disproven, however the person positing the hypothesis has a predilection or leaning in one direction or the other as a hypothesis must usually take a position in order to be tested (especially common in the realm of the social sciences).

Much of the hypothesis within red pill philosophy is based upon social observation, it is not completely unsubstantiated and made-up, sure it is subjective and not subject to scientific rigour, many things are not, we don’t all exist in an academic bubble that is the educational establishment, it is simply elitist to deduce that if an idea does not stem from academia, that it is not credible and is to be immediately disregarded, I see this argumentum ab auctoritate all the time from people on Reddit, especially our detractors, when you corroborate many similar observations across a vast cross-section of the population from multiple cities and nations of similar culture, plausible sentiments start to overwhelmingly present themselves as ideas which demand respect regardless of whether the scientific powers that be will confirm or deny such observations by giving them validity via the academic process and the educational institutions.

What one needs to be very aware of is that, in the market of free ideas, educational establishments have become increasingly politicised, they are not the objective bastions of free thought that they claim to be, if you’re not allowed to oppose an ideology in the realm of so-called intellectuals, then said establishment can hardly claim to be objective or really intellectual in the truest meaning of the word. Institutionalising feminism is like institutionalising religion, it is subjective, intellectually dishonest and inconsiderate of those who do not follow, conform or otherwise abide to said belief system.

What one must be aware of is that the institutions of education themselves are pro-feminist environments, this essentially politicises the administration of the educational environment and the social science faculty therein with ideology that holds their respective disciplines hostage to the tenets of its belief system, rather than promote the legitimacy of objective scientific processes. You must then must bear in mind how many professors and lecturers start to identify as being feminist, it is then that you start to build up of a picture of just how many of these people in fact cannot profess to be teachers in the objective sense of the manner as they infuse their teachings with their personal values and beliefs, passing their bias off as “education” when the intellectuals among us in the truest sense of the word, those with a critical mind, are capable of piercing the veil and seeing this display of bullshit for what it really is, a farce.