Fuck your pet ideal

In the aftermath of my last essay on this blog dealing with adaptability and Law 31, I received some criticism, in the wider sphere I create content on, this essay addresses those criticisms. The central theme of the previous essay was the dichotomy between politics and realpolitik, with the added variable of success of the best adapted. “The success of the best adapted” is somewhat of a hijacking on my end of the central principle in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, of which my interpretation is that as we are living in a Universe which is in a state of constant change as we perceive it, the “most fit” organism is that which can best adapt to these changing circumstances, quickly.

To summarize that in a manner that is generally understood, if species do not adapt to changing environments, they die. The criticism leveled against the concept of being adaptable to your present circumstance was that this makes you all sorts of nasty things, a traitor, a collaborator, a quisling, not for being successful but for not perishing with your fellow men who are unwilling to adapt. They are incapable of adapting not because their family line ran for a few hundred thousand years of men who adapted from being hunters, to being farmers, to being industrial workers, military men, leaders and countless, but because this particular generation has decided to sit on their ass and go “WAAAH”. They identified a pet ideal or a pet cause, and they’re sticking with it even if it means they die broke, alone, fat and unsuccessful as long as they can bitch on twitter.

I do realize that this is somewhat of a Patton style speech to the rogue’s gallery of dialing autism to 11, so let me break it down. A cornerstone of being a “red pilled” man, has always been letting go of your blue pill ideals, usually these are limited to “the soul mate myth”, “the story of The One”, “the white picket fence” and so on. However, it goes much farther than that. If one breaks the soul mate myth or The One down, those things are stories that act as carrots in order to make you act against your own best interest.

That’s not isolated as a concept in intersexual dynamics, it goes much beyond that. Trads are conforming to a blue pill idealism, so are the guys championing Evola, Vegans, Carnivores, Religious people, Nationalists, Globalists, Right-wingers, left-wingers, centrists, all these things are blue pill ideals, with their own dedicated narratives, hero’s journey, set of rules, morality and much more, designed to make you work for the best interests of someone else other than your own.

I would argue that every time a group forms, that group lays the foundation of their leviathan, that will grow with the group as they recruit more members to their way of thinking. The Leviathan transcends the group and becomes something beyond the mere practical and pragmatic. It becomes a thing in itself, that develops it’s own goals, ideals, wants and needs, then one starts doing things without knowing why one is doing those things. His name was Robert Paulson.

This does not mean that groups cannot be respected, I have respect for people who are vegans, carnivores, money twitter, PUA guys, religious men, regardless of our principled disagreements so long as they offer useful tools without requiring you adopt their blue pill ideas along with said tools.

Mental Point of Origin is a central Red Pill Concept, and I would argue it transcends the red pill, it got that name here, but the concept goes far back in our history, it means being the protagonist in your own life. This doesn’t mean that you can never cooperate with anyone, reasonable, limited cooperation on select issues with aligned individual incentives is what drives our species forward.

Closing thoughts and summary

Realpolitik was a term invented by a German writer named Ludwig von Rochau and it advocates politics and diplomacy based on given factors and circumstances rather than ideological notions or ethics. It’s the introduction of pragmatism and the practical as replacements for the ideological or ethical. Most of the blue pill ideals I see men cling the most to, aren’t related to women, they are related to “am I a good man”. They’ve been told “Good men do X”, “Good men think like ABC” their whole life, they’ve absorbed it, and they have acted it throughout most of their life. They are Boxer of Animal farm, steadfast, loyal, believe any problem can be fixed if they just work harder, but as they end up working for other people and causes than their own best interest, their end is being sold up the river for a pint of whiskey. However, in death they are elevated as the ideal by those who in life used them in order to inspire the next generation.

These men often think they are the protagonists in their own life, but in reality they are extras in the life of others, if they are lucky they may occasionally get to be a supporting character. However, going against this type-casting, they batter against their ego defenses, instead of doing what they deep down know they must do to get the part, they find something larger than themselves and attach themselves to it, hoping that this will finally solve their problem.

They would rather attend 1000 rallies than clean their room.

As a finishing though, I don’t really care about your blue pill ideals, in fact fuck ’em. I care about helping you get the practical tools you need in order to establish the pragmatic life you want. There are no knuckle-pushups, no compulsory Evola courses, no slogans, no t-shirts, no mugs, no Truck nuts, just a rejection of ideology and ethics as the Star of Bethlehem of your life.

If you’re going to ditch 1 blue pill ideal, you may as well throw the others out with it.

Fun with fallacies 12: The Red Herring

redherringI was going to save this fallacy for later, but in writing the pieces on some other fallacies, I found myself wanting to reference this fallacy so it got expedited in my posting schedule. The Red Herring is a relevance fallacy and thus falls into the same class as straw man arguments. Now unlike the straw-man that is based on misrepresenting your opponents argument. The red herring is ultimately a distraction tactic to draw an audience away from the arguments being made.

As a general rule, the red herring will tend to lead an audience towards plausible but ultimately false conclusions that are not relevant to the topic at hand.


Participant 1: We need more focus on the suicide epidemic among men and boys, and we also need to focus on men’s health to look for reasons for the “life expectancy gap” between men and women.

Participant 2: I agree with participant 1 about the focus, but it is important that we remain focused on the rape culture as we are in a time where women are under attack.

As you can see from participant 2’s argument, it is not a response to the argument made by participant 1, as the second part of the sentence distracts away from the primary argument made by participant 1.

To write out participant 2’s response in a more clear manner:

“I agree with you, however I disagree with you completely now look at my issue”

Unfortunately, I have no good techniques to respond to red herrings except being brutal in following the red thread of the discourse and steering the debate by staying in control. This can be done by either:

A) Introducing your own red herrings to bring the debate back to the focus you want.

B) Ignore that the red herring took place, and what came of it.

C) Pointing out that the person is shifting the focus of the debate away from the topic (provided there is a defined topic for the debate).

There is also a second form of red herring that I’ve frequently seen politicians use that I refer to as the digressional red herring, where a politician will knowingly switch the subject with digressions a few times to draw focus away from the central topic.


On the subject of gun control, I think it is important to bear in mind the second amendment rights that our founding fathers built into the constitution. Our founding fathers were wise men, and their legislation has held up remarkably well, I remember when my father first read the constitution to myself and my sister by the campfire at our roaring fire at our cabin by the Lake in North Dakota. This is why family values are central to this country, by having strong and secure families, we can prosper and regain our competitive advantage in exports.

As you can see from the above text, the politician switched topic from the second amendment, to the founding fathers, to family, to family values and finally to the economy.