To my brothers in the red-pill community,

Red-Pill: A (Necessary) Stepping Stone

I remember a few years back when these red-pill videos started gaining popularity, I, like many men, tuned in to hear what these prophets were preaching. And I will forever be grateful to them for opening my eyes to things I hadn’t noticed before. I found that the red-pill name was very accurate because the facts were all around us, one simply had to look with perceiving eyes; at the end of the day, these were not profound, mystic revelations, but observations of group dynamics between men and women. I have noticed that many of the insightful truths of the world that popular thinkers bring to light are simple, and it is because of that simplicity that they become popular. To contrast, there are truths in physics, in neurobiology, and so on, that are complex truths: they require a technical understanding of the system they are a part of which is lacking in the general population, for the concept to be grasped properly. And so that particular truth or interpretation can only spread within those communities that have the prerequisite knowledge to digest it. However, with other truths, especially those of the “social sciences” and human behaviour, the general population has the same observation data and ability to process it. These truths are more easily spread because we all have the same dataset, maybe even a partially built theory in the back of our heads, but it takes an individual to put all the pieces together and share that idea publicly with the world; when this happens, we get that “Aha!” moment where we finally process those separate data pieces we’ve been staring at into the full picture that it is. I want to be clear: this is not at all to discredit those specific thinkers or the ideas they uncover; as anyone who deals with data will understand, the difficult part of the process is not the gathering but the processing of it to see patterns and distill meaningful action from it.

I always describe the red-pill community (or the manosphere, or whatever else it’s called now) to people as a necessary stepping stone, but not the end point. Especially for my generation and younger, I have found it necessary because it shakes you up and makes you look at the world around you for what it really is. As with many popular voices on the internet (in various areas), the facts and statistics presented on these red-pill platforms are mostly correct, a decent portion of the reasoning is good as well, but the jump to the final conclusion, the actionable point, is what I find falls short. This is not a new phenomenon or exclusive to this community, it is simply one of the inefficiencies in the human process of analyzing information. There is a stark difference between those who have never been exposed to the red-pill community’s breakdown of the sexual marketplace, for example, and those who have. There is a naïveté in those “uninitiated”, an outcome of the environments we grew up in and the messaging around us, intentional and unintentional (a discussion for another letter). And again, this is not to say that other, more credible, less abrasive voices hadn’t already made these observations, both in public forums and via academic studies; but the red-pill community gave these ideas a platform to reach people and encapsulated with them some conclusions and life-lessons based on the perspectives of the speakers. The reason I describe it as a stepping stone and not the end goal is that, in my estimation, there is a lack of wisdom, self-awareness, or both from many of the popular red-pill voices. I think the space can change over time (one example being possibly Andrew Tate given his recent discussion with George Janko, time will tell), but until that happens, I recommend simply passing through the community to shed the blinders put on by society as you continue your individual journey of self-development and seeking the truth.

Culture Trickles-Down From Leadership

There are many areas of the red-pill community’s thinking that I believe need correcting so I’m sure there will be many letters that follow, but let us start with one here today. There is an idea that comes up frequently that men lead in relationships. I don’t disagree. In fact, I would take that thought as far as to say that men lead in society. This is a whole topic of discussion so I’ll save it for a separate letter, but, for today, assume with me that there is a role of leadership that men need to fill; not tyranny, not domination, not oppression, but true leadership. Follow me on this train of thought because the crux of this letter is not one of morality (although that is another interesting matter that is worth exploring separately) but instead one of bad reasoning; the argumentation itself is not coherent. If you’ve seen any clips of red-pill shows you’ll know that one of the common points of contention that comes up is that of body count. I won’t go over the whole analogy with the key and the lock, but it boils down to how society treats body count between men and women as they engage in the sexual marketplace. These people will argue that women having a high body count is bad and undesirable while it doesn’t matter for men (again, we can argue morality in a separate letter, for now let’s just stick to the argument itself). On the other hand, because a man’s body count doesn’t matter, casually hooking up with girls is not discouraged in the community; in fact, depending on the platform, sometimes the argument is made that men should have higher body counts because women seek experience in a man. There is clearly some overlap between the red-pill and pickup artist communities. Recall that I mentioned earlier these same people also claim that men should lead. The issue I’m arguing in this letter is that all of these arguments cannot cohere together.

The blame on these platforms is often placed on the women, and I can see why this might make sense looking at near-term actions; but if you believe that men lead society, then the ultimate blame falls on the men (whether this current generation or those of previous times) that allowed this environment to exist. For example, many point to the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s as being the start of the downfall, how the introduction of the birth-control pill put sexual freedom into the hands of women to lower the restrictions they used to impose on sexual activity. The knock-on effects of the pill is a whole other topic I want to discuss in future (there seem to be a lot of those coming up in this letter), especially in regards to how it affected men and their roles and motivations in society. Back to the point though, last time I checked, sex was a two-player game; for any given willing woman, there must also be a corresponding willing dance partner. Just like most people do not refuse free food, what man would refuse free sex? Now, the man who is on a strict diet and workout plan may reject most free foods and adhere to the more expensive, premium grade materials he consumes because he has a higher goal in mind; he sacrifices the convenience, the money, and the time for that vision of the future. The weaker man, he who doesn’t have a vision or self-control, is the more likely customer of those free muffins at the office. It is similar with sexual offerings. If men truly believe that they are designed to lead, then they need to shift their perspectives and see how their actions at all times impact and shape the society they live in, even when on the surface it may seem to be women making the decisions (especially in sex where a partnership is required).

Jocko Willink is famous for saying that all problems, in life and in the workplace, boil down to leadership problems. I used to think this an overstatement, but the longer I live the more I agree with the statement. The issue I see is that these men tend to describe leadership as a right when it is in fact a responsibility. And even when they do describe it as a responsibility, the actions they preach go against what they seek. Going back to the body count debate: for every woman a man sleeps with that does not become his wife, that woman now has an extra notch on her own body count which she will carry with her to the next person she dates. And, if men prefer women with lower body counts, then that woman is slightly less likely than she was before to find a man for a long-term, stable relationship. That same man who committed the act will complain that the girls he meets have high body counts, not understanding that this is because his friends and his community are doing the same thing he’s doing. This approach is not only extremely myopic but also non-coherent. You can only advocate increasing your own body count and complain at the high body counts of your potential future partners if the two pools are separate (say, separate countries). But we lived in a shared world with shared communities and so there is bound to be some overlap between the pools of women you sleep with and those you then look to date (in fact, you could argue that because you slept with them they were at some point in the potential dating pool to begin with). This is irrational from a matter of principle at the level of one man, but at scale where there are multiple male players the impacts are even higher. Say even that you are playing this game across multiple countries, your actions in that distant country affect the local men in that marketplace, and they, in theory, can affect your local pool in the same way.

To Be A Leader, You Must Lead

Mathematically, celibacy offers the perfect solution to keep body counts low until you decide on a long-term partner. Pandora’s box though, once opened, cannot be easily closed; so this solution, while it may have worked in the past and may work elsewhere, is no longer an option for the average population unfortunately. Even the definition of long-term has changed; ten years ago I would have used words like “spouse” or “forever” but these concepts are no longer universal today. A version of this that could work in our modern era would be for men to be more self-controlled in spending their sexual currency: just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. There is an overall decline in modern societies when it comes to self-restraint. There are many reasons for this change in culture, but for now we can simplify it to the idea that humans, like many systems in the world, tend towards the path of least resistance. Actively putting resistances in our lives seems counterproductive in the short-term, but it is necessary for the long-term, for those who have the foresight.

This letter is directed to men, coming from a fellow man who passed through the red-pill phase and onto greener pastures beyond. To any women reading this, feel free to take what you wish; I’m not saying here that women shouldn’t exercise the same sexual self-discipline as men (that obviously would be a positive good to society as well). But if these red-pill platforms want to advocate that men should lead, then show some leadership: shape the world into what you want it to be; don’t just take advantage of its current deficiencies, meanwhile complaining that you don’t like the current state we’re in as you contribute to that same corrupted environment.

Sincerely,

A man who is indebted to the red-pill community, but had to look outside for the wisdom to guide my life.

P.S. You may have noticed a few tangents that came up in this letter that I flagged for future discussion, some related to the manosphere, others not. More letters to come to address these topics.