Blue or red pill?

Red pill! all the way...



I’m a staunch realist who knows that life is a permanent and harsh Darwinian struggle and that human nature isn’t precisely benevolent. In contrast, I think the so called blue pill (i.e. “ignorance is bliss”) is the epitome of self-delusion and intellectual cowardice to deal with the world as it is. Free will isn’t a gift, making decisions entail the responsibility to accept the consequences of one’s own actions, whether glorious or tragic.

Excluding that PUA bullshit? Definitely in the red. The slave mentality is real.

In terms of relationships Im center-blue and judge individuals instead of leading a life of exploitation, insincerity, emotional/physical abuse, psychopathy and so on. Its just like the political spectrum but on one extreme youve got feminist milksops and from the other side you get off the wall advice like "oh yeah you should definitely rape your wife to keep her in check" so in my case I cant sincerely use either term to describe my views.

If i'm forced to chose I'll take the red pill. To me this knowledge is about the reality of the world, about how our actions have consequences on the planet, and about how the world is a cruel place and humanity is evil. Chosing the red pill doesn't mean I'm going to do something about it, maybe, maybe not, I just choose the red pill so I won't live in ignorance and at least be a decent person on my suroundings.

However I'm not interested in knowing the deep secrets of the world. I don't want to know about the details on still current sex slavery, child labour, the crimes of every goverment on the planet, war inhumanities, etc. But I guess I would still choose the red pill in this scenario if I'm forced to take one.

The Wee Free Man said:

“The secret is not to dream,” she whispered. “The secret is to wake up. Waking up is harder. I have woken up and I am real. I know where I come from and I know where I’m going. You cannot fool me anymore. Or touch me. Or anything that is mine.”
I’ll never be like this again, she thought, as she saw the terror in the Queen’s face. I’ll never again feel as tall as the sky and as old as the hills and as strong as the sea. I’ve been given something for a while, and the price of it is that I have to give it back.
And the reward is giving it back, too. No human could live like this. You could spend a day looking at a flower to see how wonderful it is, and that wouldn’t get the milking done. No wonder we dream our way through our lives. To be awake, and see it all as it really is...no one could stand that for long.

Click to expand...

.

I don't actually believe the truth, the real world is hidden from the perspective of our human affordances.

There is a long trend of upsettingly wrong thought in Western philosophy, mostly surviving into the 20th C from the German idealist tradition, but few serious, mainstream thinkers or realist phenomenologists in the Anglo-Austro-American traditions have bothered with this historical quirk, other than to refute, in as much detail as necessary, any errors in their way, and to continue to produce their results, which, as you all know, are of considerable practical value today.

So, there's some errors in thinking that some non-mainstream academics probably persist in, certainly among literary and cultural critics, although there are exceptions I can count on one hand among my generation of literary comparatists, and there's the correct way of thought, which is generally solved for gross epistemology, gross ontology, and gross theories of language. By 'gross' I just mean taken broadly -- there are disagreements, but not about the material existence of the world, or the kinds of knowledge one could have, or the fact that language works. If there are fundamental questions, it would be coming from somewhere in the non-deductive natural sciences (for example, astrophysics or particle physics -- not relevant to medium-sized, middle-distanced objects, except perhaps in building gadgets and so forth) and so everyone would just have to wait until the data are in and then revise their opinion, if necessary.

Anyway, I only have a guy in this town for mushrooms, and would have to dig around for some acid, which is too much work, since I'm not eighteen years old anymore, so if I were to take a pill, it would have to be probably, I don't know, a few xanax chased with some beer. And then go have a nap. Also, stay off my lawn.

When defense mechanisms begin to come down and one is able to suppress their biases enough for critical thinking and information gathering, all of us have the ability to find and discern the truth. I think it's becoming fashionable in some circles to deny the truth. And, sadly, some truths - especially emotionally charged ones - are too hard to face for many people without defense mechanisms.

I'd not take either pill as I enjoy the search for truth; it gives me a feeling of completion that I don't think I'd have if I took either color pill.

Judson Joist said:

On top of that, I believe vigilantism and chivalry should be the law of the land and it should be legal to hunt rapists and pedophiles for sport. Lawful Good doesn't always mean "Lawful Nice."

Let us Purge.

Click to expand...

That is completely idiotic...

Take a personal example, what if someone decides that they dont like you that much and makes up a story about how youre some really sick motherfucker who hangs around playgrounds and gives out candy?

How would your system solve the problem of people hiding their personal agenda under this free pass of vigilante justice?

The reason why we have courts and why people are innocent until proven guilty is to prevent exactly those things. By making your white knight fantasy a reality, you would essentially be legalizing murder, slander, coercion and so on. Says a lot about who you are as a person if you know that and still hold such views.

Skeletalz said:

That is completely idiotic....

Click to expand...

I was being ornery. Of course, I don't advocate that. At least not the way you describe it. I do, however, advocate proper civil D-FENS. But keep in mind that if we truly advocate "power" for "The People," then we can't leave the execution of Justice solely in the iron fist of "the state."

what if someone decides that they don't like you that much and makes up a story about how youre some really sick motherfucker who hangs around playgrounds and gives out candy?

Click to expand...

Pacifists always make this argument. Anyway, doesn't that already happen under our current legalistic system? The word "vigilante" simply means "watchman." Those who bear false witness are as detestable as the most loathsome degenerate Moloch-worshiping child-sacrificing goat-raping globalist parasites.

How would your system

Click to expand...

It's not "my system." I was just being ornery.

The reason why we have courts and why people are innocent until proven guilty is to prevent exactly those things.

Click to expand...

Hey! I'm supposed to be the one who quotes and/or paraphrases Dustin from the first season of Stranger Things!

white knight fantasy

Click to expand...

How do you know I'm not a black knight?



Anyway, knights were whores of the state. Basically glorified tax collectors just like samurai in feudal Japan (who murdered peasants for sport). That's the opposite of what I'm about.

you would essentially be legalizing murder, slander, coercion

Click to expand...

False. The People should have the power to defend themselves against murder, slander, and coercion. Defense against murder is not murder, it's Natural Law.

Says a lot about who you are as a person if you know that and still hold such views.

Click to expand...

What does it say about a person if they assume that the state is actually competent or caring enough to deliver Justice to The People? Awfully naive if you ask me. I side with George Washington. The People are not sheep, not peons, not sacrificial offerings to be slaughtered in the name of Moloch.

Alexander Hamilton was a cuckpuppet of internationalist bankers. Aaron Burr did nothing wrong.

Judson Joist said:

Alexander Hamilton was a cuckpuppet of internationalist bankers. Aaron Burr did nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't remember the Chernow bio of Hamilton, but I do remember my Ezra Pound, who was wrong about some things, but right to have called Hamilton the "PRIME SNOT IN ALL AMERICAN HISTORY."

Here's something a little more recent I was reading the other day, don't remember why: "The majority of Americans now recognized that the Hamiltonians held a Tory ideology and were using the same methods and tactics as the British had used earlier. The friends of order had more in common with the enemies of the Revolution than with most Americans." -- "The Fall and Rise of Puritanical Policy in America" *The J of Libertarian Studies* (spring 1996)

There are so many things to despise Hamilton for. I'm glad the little mental-patient parade over that musical-for-dummies (bit redundant) has passed over.

So, thanks for the chance to say a few not very insightful, but fun, things about AH.

Like many of my INTJ compatriots, the red pill. I would rather face an uncomfortable reality than enjoy an easy delusion. If we accept the delusion and act on the basis that it is true, sooner or later your decisions will fail on account of being based on false information. Just look at the "poll unskewers" who were convinced that Romney would win back in 2012. They chose to believe what they wanted to, without regard to what was borne out by a clear-eyed view of reality, and their model was ultimately proven wrong.