As I was running some errands this morning, my thoughts started to wander, as they often do, and I was carried along a thought train wondering about the connection that seemingly exists between red-pill philosophy and support for Neo-Reactionism. I briefly explored the foundations of Neo-Reactionism in a previous blog, which I’ll link to here. I think there is a brief stop-off on this bridge at the Alt-Right, but that bit is for another blog. For now, I’d like to briefly outline my thoughts as to why Red-Pill Men often become Neo-Reactionists instead of Anarchists.
Reading through blogs like Return of Kings, The Illimitable Man, Black Label Logic, The Family Alpha, or Return of Virtue, I noticed a pattern using that very word – virtue. It appears quite often in the writings of these fine gents, and often enough, that virtue is used in a classical sense – an amalgamation of other idealized and romanticized words pertaining to a medieval-era, or one based on the fantasy genre. Virtue is composed of things like honor, honesty, ethics, chastity, integrity, hard/smart work, chivalry, and is often combined with strong sense of national and/or ethnic identity. National, or ethnic identity aside (some Anarchists identify largely with those things, others not so much), one thing almost all anarchists can agree on (especially those of the right-anarchism persuasion, that is, Market based Anarchists, Libertarian Anarchists, Agorists, Voluntarists, etc…) is a need for virtues like honor, honesty, ethics, integrity, hard/smart work, and chivalry, especially if we want our systems of anarchy to actually function. Certainly here at 3PA, I advocate for those things, or some form of it.
But for Red-Pill Men, those virtues are embodied in a tradition that may or may not have existed as they think, or believe. That isn’t to say these things are bad, but perhaps not always based on gritty reality, but some idealized version of it. And this leads many RPM’s to embrace a philosophy that is starkly at odds with their own red-pill awakening.
Perhaps a quick overview of what “red-pill philosophy” is and what it is based on is needed. So, the idea of the red-pill is taken from the movie “The Matrix,” in which Neo is given a choice. He can choose to take the blue pill, and leave and go back to his miserable and mundane life. It is interesting to note that his life already was the blue pill; it was the reality he had always known. Taking the blue pill was just symbolic of his now being aware of it and consciously choosing it. But it was his default status, whether he knew it or not. Or, Neo could take the red pill, and be shown that his whole reality was a sham, an illusion, and be instead shown the world not as he always thought it was, but as it really is. Taking the red pill allowed Neo to escape the Matrix, the system he had been placed in, and see his life for what it was, which was as nothing more than slavery; he was a tool used for sustenance for those greater than himself. But a grand veil had been placed in front of him, blinding him to the truth. And his day to day life was a reflection of that blue pill fakeness.
That’s what these terms are based off of. They are used within Male Red Pill circles specifically in regards to men’s relationship/s with women, and how to understand the sexes, and our proper roles in regards to those relationships. The standard RPM view is traditional, in that men are supposed to be masculine, women are supposed to be feminine, we complement each other in this way, and in honoring this natural state, men and women achieve happiness in a more meaningful and potent way. I consider myself a proponent of this ideal, actually. Some RPM’s take it in the direction of “game,” – that is, how to “score” with as many women as you want, with no real desire for monogamous or sustained relationships with only one woman. Some RPM’s apply the philosophy to their marriages, or use it when deciding to get married. It may mean living in such a way that the Man/Husband is the one who works, while the Female/Wife is a stay-at-home wife/mother. And there are a variety of interpretations all in-between as well, with various shades of gray and specificity, from my understanding. No two versions of it are exactly alike, despite the philosophy as a whole being generally consistent fundamentally. I don’t believe it is designed to be good or bad, but rather, a reflection simply of what is. In a sense, it is very much about recognizing the inherent yin and yang features of Men and Women, and living according to those natural dispositions. It’s when the two genders mix naturally occurring traits (Males taking on feminine traits, and vice versa) that problems in relationships arise, and imbalances are created. It’s a fascinating philosophy, and I highly recommend people who might be interested to google some of the blogs I posted above, or on this blog entry from a few days ago, to become better acquainted.
After taking the red-pill, accepting the fundamental nature of the two sexes, and seeking to live accordingly, these types then begin to look for what made modern society fall into the decadent filth it currently finds itself in. These reasons range from democracy and egalitarianism (which is in opposition, it is largely believed, to the “traditional order” of males and females), to consumerist capitalism, multi-culturalism, 3rd world immigration into the West, feminism, women in the work place, no-fault divorce, and so on. While there may be some truth to these claims, some of the conclusions are fundamentally at odds with the Anarchist mind-set. But more than that, it is my belief that what comes next is actually and fundamentally at odds with the red pill philosophy, itself.
If the things listed above are the result of men and women having lost their way, then a return to a more traditional setting is needed in order to make things right again. But this ends up extending further out than just a family living this way for themselves. It extends to a political arena in the form of Neo-Reactionism, which seeks the return of the monarchy, complete with Kings and Queens, Barons, Nobles, etc...Again, this is all a highly romanticized version of these things – more Arthurian than King Henry VIII, for example.
For me, the problem stems, as it almost always seems to when discussing these kinds of things with people, not so much from the ills recognized, but in the solutions looked to “to save us.” Whether we need socialism or communism to save us from the Bourgeoisie, or the King to save us from the barbarians, tyranny is tyranny. Communism and Monarchism are, fundamentally and at their most basic level, no different. Despite this, more Neo-Reactionaries I know or read from, seek smaller, “constitutional” government, and tend to support candidates who advocate for those ideals. While those ideals aren’t necessarily anarchist ideals, they are better than returning to a state of kings, and idol worship. After all, Anarchy means no ruler. But if Red Pill types, who tend to align with Neo-Reactionist traditionalism, want smaller, more constitutional government, why support Kings? A monarchy may be, by definition, one ruler. And yes, that is quite a bit smaller in terms of people ruling over you than in a constitutional republic, or communism, or decadent and egalitarian democracy. But that one ruler has all the power. All of it. It is all concentrated on the whims of that one person, who can order your beheading on minute, while giving away all of your land and property to his best friend the next. And if the red-pill mindset is designed to free us, grant us liberty in regards to the awful situation we find ourselves us, why then is so much time spent supporting people, to an almost fanatical degree, who very well could end up getting rid of any liberty we have left? Especially if the idea is to actually make them into some sort of king? If being an alpha man means being in control of your life, your family, and being “top dog,” why seek to delegate that authority to someone else for all people? Where does that authority even come from? Being a red-pill man or alpha means being in control, taking responsibility, and not allowing anybody else the privilege of doing your job for you. So how the natural conclusion, ostensibly, is to then support/vote for people like Donald Trump (or Hillary, or anybody), while at the same time long for a return to Kings (of all things!) absolutely baffles me. For me, it seems to be such an obvious contradiction!
In closing, it is my belief that the tenants espoused here at 3PA are perfectly compatible with the desire to return to virtue. Hell, I think they are completely necessary, in fact. But let’s not lose sight of the goal of freedom and liberty on the way to achieving these ends by demagogues and romanticized versions of historical eras that weren’t always as virtuous as we’d like to believe. The tale of King Arthur is nice and fun, but it’s a myth. There are no righteous kings, at least not for long. Take the red pill. Use your eyes for the first time, even though it hurts, and recognize the state of liberty in which you find yourself. Then recognize it in others, even if they haven’t recognized it in themselves. And if they haven’t awoken yet, work to help them. In the end, let them choose. Fight when fighting needs to be done. But let’s not think for one second to force our way onto someone else, and believe we can come away the moral one. There are no benevolent dictators. The one thing we know about power is that it corrupts absolutely. If you want to the freedom to live your life the way you want, and take responsibility for your choices, enjoying the fruits thereof, and to lead your family to success, then become an anarchist. That’s where your ideas, and the red-pill, naturally take you. Don’t trade one form of decadent filth for another.
Edited for grammar fixes, and correcting/adding links @7:09pm on 11/7/2016