Red Pill Liberalism

What is a Red Pill man, if nothing other than hyper-individualistic. And at its core, classical liberalism is all about such individualism. A fierce defender of things like free speech and due process. The problem is that modern Progressive liberalism no longer resembles that. So does that mean our only refuge is to re-align all of our political views in order to reconcile with Red Pill (TRP) theory? To turn away from Liberalism? Is there no other way?

Or, perhaps, does TRP tell us something entirely different? That it is not about taking refuge, but rather about reclaiming what we’ve lost.

The-Red-Pill

First off, I should make clear that I don’t necessarily have issues with the Alt-right or other newer political philosophies. I, in fact, agree with many things they say … the reality is that both conservative and liberal ideologies are some variant of classical liberals in the modern West. But at the end of day, there are many things I don’t align with – e.g. the anti-science rhetoric (evolution, climate change) and homosexuality … I’m a trained PhD scientist, so sorry folks evolution is a real thing stop being naïve … and no I don’t give a shit about what gay people do in their own bedrooms as long as they don’t bother me.

The Right has an authoritarian streak just as much as the Left. They both want to tell people what to do. That is an affront to true Classical Liberalism. An affront to Individualism. No, I am not advocating for or against Democrats vs. Republicans, or Left wing vs. Right Wing … I am advocating for the principles of Liberalism.

Railing against Progressives as extremists (as I often do) is not an invitation to simply become right-wing extremists in response, a la Paul Joseph Watson. You don’t fight extremism with more extremism. Because, as Horseshoe Theory tells us, we just end up with an equal level of ridiculousness, only from the opposite side. No, you fight extremism with moderation.

The recent death of U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a good example of this. In the aftermath, we have partisanship run amok. Republicans are trying to stall the nomination process for a replacement until after the next Presidential election, and Democrats are trying to get President Obama to put forward a “liberal” candidate to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court going forward. And in the midst of all this, American confidence in the Supreme Court continues to erode. Respect for the court has always been rooted in its objectiveness, its impartiality. It was always intended to be a moderate voice in a sea of partisan politics … because most people view moderates as a voice of reason.

I would contend then that even the whole left-wing/right-wing and liberal/conservative Booker-T-Washington-Liberalismsplit in America and Western Europe is just a distraction. As mentioned above, both of them are just variants of classical liberalism. But now we have people arguing over evolution and religion and gender-neutral pronouns like their life depended on it, rather than issues like sound fiscal policy and due process rights.

A Red Pill man cannot be distracted by such things. His strident belief in individualism cannot be shaken. Modern attempts by those who want to distract us seek to paint Liberalism as a philosophy of the weak. But there is no stronger philosophy than that of the Individual … and Liberalism is inherently rooted in the Doctrine of Individualism. Indeed, such Individualism requires an iron-clad frame, a willingness to put faith in properly incentivized individuals who we have little to no control over, rather than the state or the King or some oligarchy or what not.

As such, Red Pill Liberalism has one unshakeable mantra: You are not a victim. Raise Yourself up.


Red Pill Liberalism as a doctrine is defined by several principles. These principles differentiate it from Progressive Liberalism. To put it simply, Red Pill Liberalism is a doctrine of strength, rather than weakness. It is a reassertion of the classical liberal ideals of Adam Smith, John Locke, Voltaire, and others.

Four Principles of Red Pill Liberalism:

1) Individualism – Red Pill Liberalism is rooted in the Doctrine of Individualism. The idea that society should be structured to empower individuals, by creating proper incentives that align individual behavior with the greater good. If an individual succeeds, then so should society. And vice versa. Red Pill Liberalism rejects Progressive ideas around collectivism or group Identity Politics or Political Correctness. It favors free speech, free markets, due process, and individual rights. The outcome of the group average should not be emphasized over that of individuals. Moreover, all individuals (unless mentally disabled) are capable of full agency. Red Pill Liberalism fully rejects the concept of hypoagency as it relates to minorities, women, or others. The victim mentality is a corruption of power, one that breeds mediocrity, not individual empowerment.

2) Bigotry is Universal – We are all bigots. It is part of our in-group/out-group preferences built deep into our psychology by evolution. It is unavoidable. The real question is how we act on that innate bigotry. In a Progressive/SJW/Feminist world, the idea is that some forms of bigotry are socially acceptable. Okay to act upon, in response to some perceived historic slight. Some individuals are shamed or punished for their behavior, purely based on their group membership, while members of other groups are absolved of such criticism for the same behavior. But this is an affront to Classical Liberalism, and thus an affront to Red Pill Liberalism.

3) Truth is Always Interpreted – The truth is never directly observable … it is always interpreted. As such, the true danger lies not in the “other side” of the debate, but in extremism in any form. Extreme interpretations of the truth serve as vehicles to limit the freedom of individuals. Moreover, they undermine the strength of the principles we espouse from within. It is often not the storm, but the cracks within your own walls, that prove your undoing.

4) Everything in This World is about Power – Even things that claim to not be about power, like feminism or SJWs or Progressivism, are really about power. Turning their “position of weakness” into strength, into control. A corrupted form of power. But power nonetheless. The problem is that many fail to see the power struggle that lies beneath. Why? Because they have grown soft, too trusting, too gullible. Freedom gave them the opportunity to indulge their own feelings absent of reality. Absent of the harsh truths of life. Absent of the power struggles most face. And their naivety leads to disillusionment. Ironically, those who benefit most from freedom are often the worst defenders of it. Red Pill Liberalism explicitly recognizes that power is inherent to all things … and that any situation of “equal power” is an inherently unstable situation. Inequality is inescapable … rather, the goal should be to empower individuals to help themselves. Teach a man to fish, rather than simply giving him a fish.

Power-Struggle


“The impediment to action advances action … that which stands in the way becomes the way.” – Marcus Aurelius

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” – Oscar Wilde


Or to put it simply, such Individualism requires strength and awareness, NOT weakness and victimhood. Only then is an individual’s full potential achievable. To quote Pook from the Book of Pook:

“The difference is simple,” said the Pook. “The first young man is facing TOWARDS infancy. The second young man is facing AWAY from infancy. The first one wishes to climb back into the womb; the second one wants to fly from it. The first wishes a cushioned place in the world while the second one leaves the cushions behind. The first one is ordinary; the second one is extraordinary. Thus, the second one becomes the Great Catch while the first one merely becomes a filler of a void.”


Red Pill Liberalism is a doctrine of strength, a rejection of the “victim mentality” so prevalent in the modern West, a rejection of Progressivism. It is about true Classical Liberals reclaiming Liberalism from the Progressives. Reasserting the principles of Adam Smith, John Locke, and Voltaire … free speech, free markets, due process, individual rights over all the Identity Politics bullshit.

liberalism-is-rationalismIt is based on four principles:

1) Individualism

2) Bigotry is Universal

3) Truth is Always Interpreted

4) Everything in This World is about Power

Progressives are NOT liberals … they basically violate every tenet of liberalism. They were able to hijack liberalism with the rise of cultural Marxism during the 20th century. Which just goes to show you: The danger is not from the “other side”, it is extremism in any form. The Horseshoe Theory is a very real thing.

Any Red Pill man in this environment has to ask tough questions about the reality of the “issues” of the day. They needs hard edges, unwithering frame in the face of all storms. Individualism cannot exist without such a mentality, and nor Liberalism without it. Freedom is a thing that derives from boundaries.

Share: Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Red Pill Liberalism

  1. All very well said. I have long wondered how this celebration of the “nanny state” that supposedly saves us from ourselves became the trend. It encourages weakness, reliance, insecurity, dependance, victim hood. Then like a self-fulfilling prophecy its advocates then argue the individua NEEDS govt. protection, most of all from independance. No. The nanny state enslaves, it does not save. It is a trap. Reject it’s shackles at all cost.

    Have you ever considered running for office? We could use more leaders who think like this!

  2. copperfox3c says:

    Ha, well thanks. But I doubt I’d be electable … I’m too honest lol

    It is a trap. I think just as you’ve seen the decimation of men at the interpersonal relationship level, you are seeing its effects at a societal level with this “nanny state” mentality. And it is detrimental to both men and women. The two are mirror images of each other, a macrocosm/microcosm of the other.

    I think what we really need is a return to men being men. Men drawing boundaries, men having principles, men saying “no”. And women there as first mates to help steer the ship, but NOT domineer it. I think that is where TRP bleeds from the personal to the societal. These gender dynamics don’t just effect the way we date, but also the way we live our lives … societal structures, government, etc.

    There is a deeper philosophical meaning to the Red Pill, which I think is worth exploring.

  3. Cill says:

    I like the 4 principles. Knowledge that Truth is Always Interpreted is particularly important I think. The advent of the internet has not lead to much improvement in the knowledge of the nature of knowing.

  4. copperfox3c says:

    @Cill, yeah you know this issue comes up a lot on Reddit and elsewhere – people who are moderates or left-leaning rejecting Progressive/SJW ideas, but then not really having a clear alternative. They are torn between throwing out ALL of their principles (e.g. shifting to the alt-right), or siding with extremists on the left (e.g. Progressives, SJWs, Feminists). Seems like there is nowhere hardly left for a rational person these days …

    Perhaps formalizing some of the ideas, taking a Red Pill lens to things like Liberalism, will provide some sort of alternative.

  5. Cill says:

    In addition to the 4 principles, there’s also a need to distinguish between definition and fact. Most disputes that appear to be about facts are really about definitions. Feminism is good at confusing the world in this regard, e.g. conjuring up a growing rape crisis by expanding the definition of rape.

  6. copperfox3c says:

    Agreed. A perfect example is the word “equality”.

    “Equity” refers to things being fair, i.e. equal opportunity. Whereas “equality” refers to things being the same, i.e. equal outcomes.

    When most people say equality, what they really mean is equity. But Feminists often use the term to mean equal outcomes. And most people don’t understand the difference. It’s almost a sort of “bait and switch”.

  7. Cill says:

    “A perfect example is the word “equality”.
    EXACTLY

  8. Pingback: Double Bind – This is what Feminist “Equality” looks Like | The Illiberal Liberal

  9. nargun says:

    Great Article except for the fact I don’t think you’ve been skeptical enough of climate change – why won’t Mann release The hockey Stick Data under court order? Why have the models all failed? Why has the historical temperature record been adjusted to fit the narrative. And in any cost benefit analysis Carbon Dioxide is a net benefit for the planet. The Global Warming scam is the keystone of international collectivism – the redistribution of wealth from countries that generate it to parasites that do nothing

Leave a Reply