First and foremost, thank you to Roosh for recording this excellent podcast. If you haven’t listened, it can be found here.
The purpose of this post is to offer alternate framework for viewing the progression towards the “black pill.”
First, as Roosh notes, the “black pill” perspective almost invariably begins with taking the “red pill.” We can define the red pill as something like a shift in perspective which emphasizes certain biological and psychological processes that are active in humans and that the current culture either claims do not exist or are minimally influential. These processes were primarily identified in the scientific fields of evolutionary biology, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. As such, the framework is one which claims that these processes are observable, repeatable, and (most importantly) predictable. If women utilize pre-selection bias in choosing a sexual partner; we would expect men with a history of dating high-status women to currently date high status women, we would expect to see this continue in the future, and we would expect an intervention that results in the perception that a man has a history of dating high status women to increase the likelihood that he succeeds in doing so in the future.
From this point; the idea of PUA or “game” begins, with the goal being to successfully use this knowledge to create situations favorable to the PUA. While this usually begins as a means towards having sex, the application of this knowledge also extends into other social situations such as business, politics, and non-sexual relationships. However, the end remains the same: the implementation of the “player’s” will. The nature or content of this will is taken for granted; all that is emphasized is its implementation.
From this perspective, we can also point out the change in how this “player” must regard other humans. He begins to see himself as the possessor of a will independent of, and often in conflict with, others. His project then becomes the manipulation of the environment and other agents to ensure that his desires are fulfilled. He learns which techniques work in this or that situation, with this or that person. Other humans become objects to be utilized if he applies his knowledge efficiently. Display the correct body language, tell the correct stories, initiate physical interaction at the appropriate time, etc.
After a while (and especially if he is successful), he finds that something is amiss. He wanted and got sex with beautiful women, but he still doesn’t feel fulfilled in any meaningful sense. He now turns his attention to the broader social sphere and environment. Maybe he becomes interested or active in politics and finds that his knowledge is also useful here. He recognizes that he can create situations favorable to the implementation of his political will by “priming” others or “framing” things in a certain way or displaying dominance. Yet; even as the political victories mount, all is not well. He still cannot help but feel something is off and that something he desires is lacking. Here, he decides that it is society that is wrong, that some conspiracy of more powerful wills has halted the implementation of his own will and happiness. And he comes to accept that this is his fate, and swallow the “black pill.”
Let’s go back to that change in perspective that is required to implement the “players” new found knowledge. He goes from being a passive member of society living out the role in which he finds himself into an active agent whose will is primary. But in so doing, he also re-conceptualizes those around him from members of society with various roles into something like “putty” for him to shape and then utilize. Why does this matter? Precisely because he now views all of the aforementioned social roles he craves to fulfill and interact with simply as masks that actors wear. The player can “create” the sexual encounter, the winning side of a vote, the sales pitch that secures his bonus; but can he “create” the good wife, the wise king, or the honest businessman? Are these concepts even his own, issuing from his independent will? Or did they come from the very point of view he has since been required to reject?
The purpose of this post is to offer alternate framework for viewing the progression towards the “black pill.”
First, as Roosh notes, the “black pill” perspective almost invariably begins with taking the “red pill.” We can define the red pill as something like a shift in perspective which emphasizes certain biological and psychological processes that are active in humans and that the current culture either claims do not exist or are minimally influential. These processes were primarily identified in the scientific fields of evolutionary biology, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. As such, the framework is one which claims that these processes are observable, repeatable, and (most importantly) predictable. If women utilize pre-selection bias in choosing a sexual partner; we would expect men with a history of dating high-status women to currently date high status women, we would expect to see this continue in the future, and we would expect an intervention that results in the perception that a man has a history of dating high status women to increase the likelihood that he succeeds in doing so in the future.
From this point; the idea of PUA or “game” begins, with the goal being to successfully use this knowledge to create situations favorable to the PUA. While this usually begins as a means towards having sex, the application of this knowledge also extends into other social situations such as business, politics, and non-sexual relationships. However, the end remains the same: the implementation of the “player’s” will. The nature or content of this will is taken for granted; all that is emphasized is its implementation.
From this perspective, we can also point out the change in how this “player” must regard other humans. He begins to see himself as the possessor of a will independent of, and often in conflict with, others. His project then becomes the manipulation of the environment and other agents to ensure that his desires are fulfilled. He learns which techniques work in this or that situation, with this or that person. Other humans become objects to be utilized if he applies his knowledge efficiently. Display the correct body language, tell the correct stories, initiate physical interaction at the appropriate time, etc.
After a while (and especially if he is successful), he finds that something is amiss. He wanted and got sex with beautiful women, but he still doesn’t feel fulfilled in any meaningful sense. He now turns his attention to the broader social sphere and environment. Maybe he becomes interested or active in politics and finds that his knowledge is also useful here. He recognizes that he can create situations favorable to the implementation of his political will by “priming” others or “framing” things in a certain way or displaying dominance. Yet; even as the political victories mount, all is not well. He still cannot help but feel something is off and that something he desires is lacking. Here, he decides that it is society that is wrong, that some conspiracy of more powerful wills has halted the implementation of his own will and happiness. And he comes to accept that this is his fate, and swallow the “black pill.”
Let’s go back to that change in perspective that is required to implement the “players” new found knowledge. He goes from being a passive member of society living out the role in which he finds himself into an active agent whose will is primary. But in so doing, he also re-conceptualizes those around him from members of society with various roles into something like “putty” for him to shape and then utilize. Why does this matter? Precisely because he now views all of the aforementioned social roles he craves to fulfill and interact with simply as masks that actors wear. The player can “create” the sexual encounter, the winning side of a vote, the sales pitch that secures his bonus; but can he “create” the good wife, the wise king, or the honest businessman? Are these concepts even his own, issuing from his independent will? Or did they come from the very point of view he has since been required to reject?
