You Don’t Have To Be Right

In the world of feminism, if there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that you don’t have to be right to declare a set of beliefs. You see, in this new era of post-modern discourse, the only important thing that you need in order to stake a belief is feelings — emotions.

I see it every day- in colleges, on television, and in the news: Science and objective reality come second to subjective experience and the self. Want to see a news report about rape? It’s not authentic unless there’s a rape victim doing the speaking.

I’m the head moderator of the reddit forum: TheRedPill, and though we’re young, I’ve already watched over or participated in countless thousands of debates on just about any subject: rape, marriage, relationships, religion, politics, science, even philosophy.

Without fail, whenever a debate happens, there is a clash of these differing debate styles. It begins with two people making their claims and providing their respective supporting evidence… but it ends when the victim arrives with the unquestionable wisdom that only their experience can bring.

“You see, the reason pickup artistry is rape….” the rape victim will lead with their conclusion, “…is because I have been raped, and I know how easy it is to be raped.”


This bit of reasoning wouldn’t hold up to any scrutiny 50 years ago, but as our culture has grown more and more hyper-sensitive to victimhood, it has now been elevated to default status in women’s studies courses world-wide. Your feelings on and relationship to a subject are now just as relevant as any fact, in fact more so.

Since TheRedPill resides on a primarily liberal site, we’ve become no strangers to trolls and haters: a self-proclaimed forum of “blue pillers” who adamantly disagree with anything the masculine bloggers write, and certainly everything that men discuss between themselves. The tell-tale mark of these so-called “blue pillers” is their adherence to post-modern discourse.

What strikes me about this is that their entire mantra is that the people who read and visit these blogs, forums, and books are inherently manipulative, mistaken, abusive, and most importantly: wrong.

How these men have decided to live their lives, what goals they’ve made for themselves, and what personal beliefs they maintain are all presumed wrong.

And sure enough, we’ve seen every type of shaming tactic they can throw at us. “Man-children, peter-pans, boys, insecure children, sociopaths, assholes, rapists…” We’ve heard them all.

At the core of their belief system, these men that are going their own way are wrong. They have to be wrong– in their thought processes, in their conclusions, in their observations, and even in their experiences. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! And boy do the fembots and white knights ever spend a lot of time trying to convince everybody of just that.

They must be forgetting something: the very lesson that our fem-centric society taught us! We don’t have to be right.

It doesn’t matter how much men are shamed. In fact, that makes men stronger in their beliefs.

It doesn’t matter how much men are taxed. In fact, that makes men stronger in their actions (or inactions).

It doesn’t matter how much men are told they’re wrong. Because they don’t have to be right.

I don’t speak for everybody, and I know that the “manosphere” is loosely knit and widely varied. This aside, there is still a common theme– a sort of brotherhood network of idea and philosophy sharing. If these ideas, blogs, forums and people are the fabric of the manosphere, then the thread tying us all together is our discontent.

In the words of Rollo Tomassi:

“You cannot negotiate Desire.”

Truer words have never been spoken. I can’t reason a woman into loving me any more than she can convince me to be happy with the status quo.

Every day I wake up to another group of people and another group of posts all trying to prove the same thing: Men going their own way or embracing game are wrong. But that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that we are discontent and taking actions to rectify these problems. I mean, we are talking about emotions here, feminism, we don’t have to be right.

In related news, the mods of TheRedPill just recently launched our new site: to address this so-called movement of men who aren’t manning-up. Check it out.

Previously: Can The Red Pill Subreddit Survive?

48 thoughts on “You Don’t Have To Be Right”

  1. You are absolutely correct. That’s the problem with the world. Feelings > Logical Debate.
    I am a huge fan of the Myers-Briggs instrument. I believe it goes a long way towards explaining much of the insanity in the world today, and in the world of the past.
    SJs are society’s minions, and make up around 40-60% of the population. Everything they do is based on emotion, groupthink, feeeeeelings, rigid hierarchies, cults of personality, rigid and arbitrary laws/rules, being a joiner, etc. They trust authority rather than reason, strive for a sense of belonging to social groups, and are often critical of others who don’t share their own myopic view of the world. Sound familiar?
    The second largest group are the SPs. “They are excitable as children and they never seem to get less excitable as they grow up.” Artisans prefer to live one day at a time, and often don’t see the larger picture in life.
    These two groups, SJs and SPs make up 70-80% of the population.
    Unfortunately, those with the “logical” temperament only make up around 10% of the population, at best.
    So, when a logical person figures out they’re vastly outnumbered, they can either withdraw, or find a way to manipulate these masses, as happens in business and government now. It’s why those at the top of pyramid schemes like modern corporations and governments can maintain their power, almost without question. These idiots believe anything they’re told.
    It’s also why things will never really change in the grand schema of the world. The cycle just repeats, as it has done for thousands of years.

    1. I just took the test again… I’m an INTJ. Thanks for reminding me about MTBI. It’s a great classification system.
      Made sense why my goal of Buddhahood and Immortality when spoken of is wasted on most ears. Most people are too emotionally attached and argumentative when facing Dharma logic.

      1. Yep, that’s the first refuge of those who don’t have an ounce of logic between their ears. Become argumentative and ridicule ideas they can’t understand.

      2. INTJ here too.
        I believe the rational type (see the “Rational Male” blog) is common here because it highly values knowledge, has to integrate everything in his logic mind (so “pretty lies” don’t last long) and because of it’s “N” in “INTJ” it searches for new information constantly.

      3. “Most people are too emotionally attached and argumentative when facing Dharma logic.”
        That’s the J in you, all right…..

    2. Insightful analysis. I think there is hope of breaking the cycle. SJs and SPs don’t matter culturally unless they are farmed, which they are on purpose for the logical at the top to conquer the logical outsiders like you and me. As Frost says, there has never been a crowd of philosophers. I believe that day will come (I’m thinking Ragnar Danneskjold/sovereign-minded philosopher x 10,000). It could be a long, long time, but it is the bottleneck in human development, and might makes right. Hell, maybe that is exactly what the NWO will accomplish, though I resent being left out.
      As an aside, this synopsis of intellectual outsiders (
      “To justify his cynicism, he tells her about his three most promising
      students years ago, when he taught physics at Patrick Henry University.
      One, Ragnar Danneskjold, became a pirate who robs government relief
      ships. A second, Francisco d’Anconia, became a worthless playboy. And
      the third [John Galt] dropped out of sight, not even making a name for himself; but before leaving, damned Stadler for launching the State Science Institute.”
      That has nothing to do with us, with all that bigger-than-life imagery: dark enlightenment and enjoy the decline, pua, mgtow. Nothing at all…

      1. Thanks for adding to the discussion and for the link. I do hope you are right about breaking the cycle someday.
        I’ve often thought a group of philosophically inclined NTs needs to break off at some point and form their own society based on ideals that are the polar opposite of the society we are living in now. Ahhhh…to dream.

        1. I have the same dream, Relampago2013. What made modernity (as opposed to post-modernity) possible, I’m hypothesizing, was the white man pleb frequently seeking maximum result consequences for his life, preferring to enjoy the fruits of his creative creation but as a fallback destroying the fruits of exploitive others in his way with creative destruction. Cf. beheading of Charles I (active), and Atlas Shrugged (passive). Yah, the shit has to go. Glad to find one person thinking along the same lines of philosophy. Dogmatic dreamers are a dime a dozen.

        2. There is a possible way to live the dream- we must encourage space exploration and technology, hopefully to the point where launching people into space is convenient and inexpensive. If we can get off the planet, there may be a way.
          Heh, I’m writing an epic novel about just that very subject.

    3. When you phrase it like that, it becomes harder to hate those at the top of the pyramid who are like “These idiots are so reprehensible for following me, they deserve what they get”.

      1. Yes, it does. It almost makes me have sympathy for the devils in society, if I wasn’t also subjected to their tyranny.

      2. No need to hate them. Just recognize that, since they have proven their willingness to do whatever it takes to others, in order to climb to the top; they have implicitly volunteered to participate in a game where any moral constraint at all is outdated. As in, no “Thou shalt not…..”‘s apply to them and theirs anymore, in any context whatsoever. All that is left is pure risk-benefit calculation.

        1. Hence why people with psychopathic traits or personalities tend to succeed in business or whatever else they want above all else.

    4. xNTP reporting in.
      The level of unthink is shocking; I am surprised humanity lived as long as it did and that I am able to type this comment out at this moment in time. The amount of imagination and structure that goes into the Universal Machine alone is staggering; imagine your grandfather’s tube radio miniaturized to 1/1000 the volume of a grain of sand, then multiply that 1/1000 volume until you have a square silicon wafer.
      That is the scale in size. To get an idea of the time scale of a Universal Machine, a photon exiting your screen will have traveled ~10 cm for each clock tick of a 3Ghz processor. If a trace line on the die is 2 cm if unwrapped and straightened, then it will take 1/5th a cycle for a voltage change on the die in one location to affect the other location on the die, meaning fast processors have size constraints.
      How the hell we came to this from the mud hut is a testament to the imagination and ingenuity of highly intelligent men; men I would consider myself an idiot in comparison if I were around them, even with my +2 standard deviation IQ. The more I learn about the NWO, the more I realize that if the slaves allow themselves to fall into abject hell that they deserve every bit of it. I had spent the better part of 10 years trying to wake people up, and so many fight it’s not even worth it. Slamming my head into telephone posts was fun at first, but after a while it was just leaving me with a headache…

    5. “they can either withdraw and do their own thing, or find a way to manipulate these masses,”
      It’s not either / or.
      Do both.

      1. Yeah, the Founding Fathers actually despised democracy and thought that only people of a certain caliber should be allowed to vote. Slowly voting rights got liberalized, and now people that are totally unqualified to vote (remember, at the heart of every vote is a command on how to use force) get to vote. Just today I was all over NYC doing a video for work asking people if they were going to vote in the city elections.
        Predictably they answered yes.
        Predictably they also loved to talk about issues that were important to them.
        Then we asked whether they knew who the best candidate was for the issues that were important to them. Not one could answer. Not a single one. I mean we try to do our best where I work but it’s really no use.
        In many (but not all) ways I see the decline of the West happening starting in the 17th century, when King Charles I failed to defeat the Puritans in Parliament in the English Civil War. Political and cultural changes from that point forward led to the egalitarian and narcissistic whitewash of today.

  2. If you subscribe to this line of thinking, do you continue along it when it comes to pro-White politics as well?

    1. 6 rules for feminist guests at return of kings
      – Shut up and listen
      – Ask me, don’t tell me
      – Prepare to be wrong
      – Call fellow women out on problematic behaviour
      – Never dismiss the lived experiences of men
      – Do not attempt to take a leadership role

  3. This was an interesting point of view based on what I’m sure are interesting experiences moderating a subbreddit.
    When you stand firm in your beliefs even after dealing with hundreds of barbarians at the gates, it’s got to give you new insight.

  4. This article has all the intellectual content of a Youtube comment.
    Get it together, ROK – you have a _few_ insightful articles, but it’s 10% at best.
    If this guy wants to talk rhetoric and philosophy, he’d better do his reading and know where he’s coming from. All this shit (subjectivity/objectivity) was pretty much solved by Kant. Go read it.

    1. I tried to read some Kant online one time. Took me 10-15 minutes to read the first three paragraphs and determine he was mocking anyone who could not work out his arrogance of complicated expression. I’m willing to give Kant credit: he’s a big name and Wiki says he made an important contribution: “We never have direct experience of things, the noumenal world, and what we do experience is the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses.” True enough, but instead of employing the Voluminously Denying the Antecedent argument and putting an impossible burden on us, why don’t you dispense some actual wisdom here? Go write it. If you can. I was not aware that some aspect of philosophy was solved once and for all. That is news.

      1. He’s not. Kant is the cancerous root of German idealism, which is directly responsible for creating the environment for this ridiculous, emotionally based political discourse you see all over the West.
        Worse, it’s spreading beyond the West.

    2. An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
      Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
      Person A makes claim C about subject S.
      Therefore, C is true.
      Funny how such an intellectual heavyweight as yourself is using a logical fallacy. Either you didn’t know you were doing it, and did it without thinking. Conclusion: intellectual lightweight. Or, you knew exactly what you were doing and did it anyway. Conclusion: evil fucker who doesn’t care who she has to step on as long as she can find a citation to support her current emotional state.

  5. Feminist Jokes:
    If a man is alone in a forest, and says something, and nobody hears it…
    Is he still wrong?
    Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    A: That’s not funny!

  6. It’s amazing how Feminists don’t seem to care about men until the men decide that they want nothing to do with them.
    Then the fish needs the bicycle and will do anything to get it. The humiliation of being forgotten or marginalized is too much for these women to handle.

    1. Forgotten? Marginalized? Hah. The torrent of white knights and beta orbiters ready to give these women all the validation they want and more is increasing and shows no signs of slowing down, thanks to years of feminist brainwashing. There is no hope my friend.

      1. You’re half right. The “torrent of white knights” is there…but women go for quality and having a torrent of Beta and Omega losers ready to bow and scrape to you is actually worse than having no one. Because it’s an embarrassment. And it sends a message that you’re a loser-magnet. In some ways it’s easier not to attract anyone because you figure you can always improve.
        I see the white knight fanboys on Facebook all the time. Women have their little fan clubs. Seems nice at first, but it’s not that way if you look closely at who is in the fan club. And sometimes it seems the more Alpha the female, the more Omega her fanboys.
        Roissy once mentioned how it depressed him when fat girls chatted him up because if the fatties felt he was on their level, well, what did that say about him? Now apply that to women and their Cult of Omegas…

        1. I think women have degenerated and don’t go for ‘quality’ from what I’m seeing. As long as you’re in the same social group and have a lot of free time, at least the younger inexperienced ones will date the biggest useless retard. These guys are not alpha males, nor are they beta providers. They are some third type of guy, whose only purpose in life is to be dictated to by the women (they hold the power in these relationships). And they reflect the degeneracy of the women.
          So if you reject such women, they have a lot of useless cocks around. Well, that is until this whole party of free shit ends.
          “Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for life,
          Give him someone else’s fish and he’ll vote for you”.

        2. Per Roissy, getting laid is definitionally alpha. In a sufficiently dystopian society, XYs recast as mindless, but always available, dildos, may well be the most alpha of all.

    2. This goes way beyond feminists. Pretty much the entire West (and most of the rest) is nothing but parasitic leeches these days. Only the most hardened few seem to still realize that for anything resembling a civilized society to survive, each individual inhabitants need the ability to secede, should he no longer find the deal it offers to be advantageous. Anything less is the simply Berlin Wall recast in guns and propaganda, rather than concrete.

  7. I followed traffic from my site back to the r/BluePill reddit.. and engaged a few of them ever so briefly before bowing out due to it simply being to taxing to get involved in a debate that had already been rendered moot by me saying
    “Live your life how you want, i’ll live mine how i want. The only reason you get pissed is because in the free market of idea’s you feel my message is winning guys over. If you want guys to ignore me.. put something better on the table’
    Thats the heart of it. They can’t compete with redpill thinking and just want everyone who is redpill marginalized. But it doesn’t matter. Just keep plugging at it. Keep telling men about the redpill. Keep unplugging one by one. Critical mass will eventually be achieved because there is no truer statement than this:
    If a woman wants a hot blooded, strong, dominant, redpill cowboy of a man, she better adopt the redpill way of life. Because there is no way she’ll get a natural redpill man to submit to her whim or authority, especially when it comes to what he does in his own life.
    Those bluepill women can easily find mangina’s to hook up with. Argument over.

  8. Good post. And it does need to be repeated over and over that emotions are at the crux of modern western thought. The most insidious aspect is that people who employ emotional arguments think they’re perfectly justified in doing so.
    See, most people know that basing one’s position on things like anger or hate is not reasonable. But, if you base your reasoning on morally righteous emotions, like love, tolerance, empathy, decency, etc, then it’s just fine, if not encouraged. Of course, good feelings are no more logical than any other emotion, but it seems like the majority of westerners try to mold worldview in order to suit those feelings.
    Here’s a mental tip: If anyone ever tries to shame you in debate, remember this. No one with a clear and rational position resorts to mockery or name-calling. (What does that tell you about feminists?) They only do this because they aren’t confident in their own logic. In other words, shaming is a sign of internal weakness.

    1. Shaming is the time honored way of raising children to behave according to social norms. Logically explaining to a 3 year old why relieving himself in a swimming pool isn’t a good idea, is simply not very efficient.
      Women retain much of their intellectual childishness, simply in order to relate better to the children they are purpose built to rear. Having one foot in both the child and adult worlds, they are ideal creatures for bringing children across the bridge from childhood to adulthood.
      Of course, being half adults, half children in their makeup, makes them less apt at playing either role in isolation, than those who are 100% one or the other. Which is why it behooves societies with aspirations of sustainability, to relieve women of such ridiculous roles (being spoonfed like a child with no demands for any kind of performance by omega orbiters, and partaking in highly abstract decision making alongside men) ; to instead focus on that which they are uniquely suited for.

    2. Couldn’t have said it better myself, man. The winning move is just not to play their game. Aurini said this in one of his videos. Maintain the frame as if you’re talking to a petulant child, because that’s what they are.
      I made a comment that got a high rating on one of Thunderf00t’s videos (the one about men being raised to hate women) and got a predictable reply full of shaming tactics and how I was atop the privilege ladder because I was a white heterosexual man. I told her it felt great to cause other people problems and that she should join me.
      Then I told her to go to the gym and stop looking at videos about smartphones (literally this girl’s channel feed is full of comments on videos about different smartphones). She didn’t reply back to me.

    3. I like your comments. You should go over to Chinasmack and share these views with all the people that shame your fellow Chinamen.

  9. >It doesn’t matter how much men are shamed/taxed/told they’re wrong
    This. Us “red-pill”-men have good reasons to believe in our values. We believe that the majority of society is delusional and therefore if they scold us, we grow stronger in our belief.
    Would you believe a little kid that elephants can fly? Hell no, the fact that it’s a kid disqualifies it’s opinions already. Similarly, women (children in adult bodies) can cry and bitch all they want, they won’t influence a man’s path the least.

    1. “…can cry and bitch all they want, they won’t influence a man’s path the least…”
      Perhaps unfortunately; but for most men, this statement is empirically categorically wrong.

  10. “I can’t reason a woman into loving me any more than she can convince me to be happy with the status quo.”
    Sure you can, by reason you mean…game.

  11. Let them hate.
    The only reason they hate mgtow is because they can’t gtow, because they don’t have the balls. They are stuck in a relationship they can’t get out of, because they know the consequences of divorce. Or they think being a white knight will help them land a relationship.
    Their only hope is to convince (re: shame) men back into the herd, so we no longer remind them of their lost freedom.

  12. It is so refreshing to have found this site! I have often felt like a ship with no port. But I have seen America feminized, the removal of accountability, cause and effect. Liberals demonstrate this through their misuses of social justice i.e.. amnesty for illegals, food stamps for women who choose have fatherless children and conservative illustrate this through support for leaches on Wall Street and corporate greed.

  13. Women hate to be ignored just as much as they hate to be told their wrong. I’ve pulled this move during an argument on several occasions.
    A woman said I did something wrong and I agreed. You could see it in her face that she still wanted to continue arguing but there was nowhere else to go with it. I admitted to the mistake (owned it) and that was the end of it. She said ok and walked away. It was classic (just the look on her face).

Comments are closed.