Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc
HOW RED IS THE RED PILL?
HOW RED IS THE RED PILL?
In my view the most significant idea to come out of the MGTOW movement (not from the masculist movement) is that of the “red pill” i.e. the idea that women DO NOT LOVE MEN, THEY LOVE MEN’S EXPLOITABILITY. This idea is so revolutionary that it will shake up our whole global culture as the idea penetrates the minds of the billions. It runs counter to our whole traditional gender role culture and our pop song, love-love-love brainwashing. It will have deep implications on relations between the sexes as men increasingly wake up to its truth.
It is its truth that I want to examine in this flyer, because so much is at stake if it is true, so I will play devil’s advocate with the idea, trying to refute it, and will then refute my refutation, arriving back where I started, i.e. that the red pill is true.
I spend my afternoons in the neighboring park with my camp chair and a pile of math/physics books, so I’m utterly accustomed to reading – Definition, Lemma, Theorem Statement, Proof, Corollary, i.e. my brain is thoroughly programmed (every day) to think in terms of tightly logical reasoning (typical of pure mathematicians) so its not surprising that I apply the same skills to the most critically important idea of the MGTOW movement.
So, I will give you two arguments. The first is an attempt to refute the idea that the red pill idea is true. The second argument refutes the first argument. You may ask so what! Well, there are probably lots of people who have the same doubts I had about the red pill when I first came across it. So if you hear the second argument, that may help you overcome your doubts, and hence be more open to the red pill idea, so that it can change your life, so this flyer might be very important for you.
Here’s the first argument. “The red pill argument is false, i.e. women DO love men and will only drop her man, who loses his financial exploitability, out of sound, RATIONAL reasons, not because she has EVOLVED (over millions of years) to behave like that.”
She has not evolved to behave like this. She is just making a rational decision to drop her current manslave, who no longer provides her the protein/money she needs to allow her and her kids to survive. By dumping him and moving on to another manslave, she is just being consciously rational. She wants to survive, and the same for her kids, so if one man cant pay for her, she will move to another, and have him be her manslave that she rewards with her vagina.
This first argument definitely seems plausible for a FLUFFIE. If some woman studied fluffie crap at high school, and then more fluffie crap at university, so got a fluffie crap diploma that does not give her a skill that is highly valued by the economy, then she will be a fluffie in her thirties and hence will consciously, rationally, start looking around for some manslave who did NOT study fluffie crap at high school and university, who studied a FIP (financially independent person) major (math, and sciences), so that he earns a good salary, and is therefore a good target for a fluffie’s vagina.
A fluffie will be attracted to such a FIP manslave and willingly give her vagina to him in exchange for his protein/money to pay for her and her kids she wants from him so she can fulfill her genetic destiny as a female to raise the next generation. So, when a fluffie seeks out a FIP male, she is making a RATIONAL choice, i.e. a conscious choice (a non evolved choice), and if the relationship is compatible, she may learn to love him.
OK, now for the counter argument. It uses a style of logic, of proof (in math) called “proof by contradiction” i.e. you assume the opposite of what you’re trying to prove (e.g. you’re trying to prove P, so you start with ~P (i.e. not P)), derive from it something Q that you know from prior knowledge is actually false (i.e. you reason ~P -> Q, but you know that ~Q is true, so ~P is false, so P is true), so there you have it.
I use the case of my own Chinese wife as an example of the second argument. Many of you may be able to find examples in your own lives that are similar to mine, that reinforce my conclusion.
If the red pill is false, i.e. women are NOT evolved to reject men who lose their protein/money exploitability, then a woman who is a real FIP, who has plenty of money to take care of herself, should NOT be too pissed off if the man in her life loses his protein/money. That loss should not be life threatening event to her, because she is a FIP who can take care of herself.
My second Chinese wife is a professor with her own apartment, a good salary, her own car, a good pension, so if the red pill is false, she would NOT feel pissed off with me much for becoming a lot poorer when I got fired from my prof job in China (where I was earning 2.5 times her salary. She has a bachelor’s degree and is an associate prof. I have a PhD and was a full prof. My university president said I had broken the law by telling him that western researchers would not come to my city to build up China’s brain building center, due to the fact that China is not a democracy, and that the Chinese government has over 1000 concentration camps today (laogai) for political prisoners, and that the CCP killed 80 million of its own citizens under Mao, history’s greatest tyrant.)
But the reality was, that she WAS pissed off, greatly. This means that this reality refutes the idea that the red pill is false. She soon stopped the sex. She didn’t give a shit about my intelligence level, nor the importance of what I am doing in my retirement (i.e. pioneering the making of YouTube lectures in PhD level pure math and math physics for PhD level students all over the world to teach themselves FOR FREE, which is something I think, even if I say so myself, is very important and will revolutionize high level education.)
She nagged and became very bad tempered, putting me down all the time, until my patience and civility ran out, and then I really smashed her ego by calling her “You third world chink! You low class, inferior intellect. You bad tempered, untraveled, uncurious, unintellectual, fat, 5 out of 10! You only care about a man’s money and not about his intellect, nor his personality. You’re just another bloody fluffie, the enemy of the masculists. If you keep up this negative fluffie behavior, I’ll move out. Since you’re fat and mid fifties, you will very probably not find another man to live with you in China, so you’ll spend the next 30 years of your life with only your dog. Your parents will die soon. You’ve lost your son to the US, and I’m your only “family”, so treat me in a civilized manner or I’ll dump you, you bad tempered, fat, third world, uncivilized, uncurious, untraveled, mindless, idea-less, chink, bitch!”
She stopped the bitchiness after that, but the point is that she displayed typical red pill behavior, typical fluffie behavior. She judged me only according to her “does he have money” criterion, not giving a damn about my other valuable qualities. I, and men in general, hate being measured by women, according to how closely we resemble cash machines. We hate it and we hate women for doing it.
So my Chinese wife confirms, via a double negative argument, that the red pill appears to be true. Its true in her case. Its probably true in general, i.e. that women EVOLVED to dump men who lost their protein/money exploitability, i.e. women DON’T love men, they love men’s exploitability, they love men conditionally, i.e. only if he continues to be protein/money exploitable.
Let this be a lesson to ALL men.
Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis