Red Pill TheoryRace, Globalism, Conspiracy Theories, and TRP (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed Contributordown_with_whomever


My best history teacher when I was a wee lad once told me a maxim by which you can understand the world: he said “/u/down_with_whomever, follow the money.” If you want to understand why something is happening, follow the money. From where is it flowing, and into whose hands.

I’ve been a social studies teacher now for quite some time. And after a lifetime of studying history, economics, politics, and culture on a daily basis, I have entirely lost my faith in coincidences. Many things appear as coincidences on first glance that reveal themselves not to be coincidences once you add more data points. Especially not when you follow the money.

Remember when we were told that the purpose of the Iraq War was to stop terrorists, and then it was to build democracy (whoops we switched narratives). But anybody who followed how money was changing hands in the war had to wonder whether it was about democracy. If you followed the money, it stopped looking like a coincidence.

Remember when we were told that the 2007 world financial crisis was caused by banks being “too big to fail?” This was the narrative. Banks too big to fail! We didn’t talk about the collusion between the federal reserve, the ratings agencies, and the banking executives that remained un-fixed with no correction to the laws after. When you follow how money changed hands in this crisis, it stops looking like a coincidence.

Remember when the government, with no regulation on prices, started colluding with banks to offer endless amounts of credit to college students, and then the price of tuition started exploding year after year? After this (very predictable) process harnessed an entire generation into hopeless financial indentured servitude, THEN we got to ask. “Oh Gosh! Maybe we should fix this!” But, we didn’t. And now that billions and billions of dollars of debt that you cannot legally discharge with bankruptcy are already contracted, it stops looking like a coincidence.

Narratives and Conspiracies

We live in the information age. The people with the access to the power to control the flow of information are the most powerful people. A way of thinking or talking about something can be called a “narrative.” The people who control the flow of information can be said to construct a narrative. The narrative is how those who control the information want you to think about the world.

Everyone on each side of the political spectrum has figured out that the major news media organizations are not unbiased. But they are not randomly unbiased. They put certain thoughts in your head and by repetition this guides your thoughts. They can kill an idea from mainstream thought by simply denying it airtime. And they can inject a thought into the mainstream simply by repeating it enough times in enough places.

The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it can easily lend itself to conspiracy theories. People who are too skeptical. However, conspiracy theories are themselves a narrative, constructed by someone for a particular aim. I’ve been working for a few years in a former USSR country and watching the Russian conversation about the world. The Russian propaganda machine is brilliant. It uses people’s suspicions and skepticism of the establishment and the establishment’s narrative, to create a NEW narrative for the sake of a different establishment. Every problem you can name in the world, a huge portion of Russian people can be very easily convinced that this is an American/CIA plot. This narrative herds the people into pro-Putin nationalism. A lot of “conspiracy theories” are like this. They are another narrative intended to push your thoughts towards someone ELSES goals.

But what I’m talking about is not about being conspiratorial, it’s about being critical.

“Who profits from this?”

But that doesn’t mean that we should not question the narrative. The narrative that has been brought to the attention of many, many people in the world recently is the immigration crisis in Europe. It is not a conspiracy theory to ask, “Who profits from this?”

Most false narratives pushed by the establishment should invoke this question. Who profits from this?

The narrative, in this case, is as follows: The people coming to Europe are refugees in need of help. It is morally wrong to deny them because they are in need. People who question this are racists, who must be shamed, censored, or arrested. The dangers of the people coming are irrelevant because they are no more dangerous than the average European citizen. Any dangerous sounding things in Islam should be ignored because there is also some dangerous sounding stuff in the old testament of the Bible. The host countries are enriched by the addition of foreign peoples because this makes them more diverse, and diversity is a good thing as a rule.

Now, if you’re here reading TRP, you probably understand that these narrative is a gigantic lie. But you also must have heard it repeated hundreds and hundreds of times in the last year. On your facebook feed, on TV, in newspapers, from people talking about it. Isn’t it crazy that something so obviously false you’ve heard repeated infinite times? It might sound like a conspiracy theory to suggest that there is a massive amount of collusion taking place between certain governments, media organizations, facebook, police organizations, in the way they handle this. But if you watch, you can see it happening. The question that someone with a critical mind should be asking – who profits from this?

The Immigration Crisis Payout

It appears to me that the establishment benefits from division among the people. In the US, the news media are largely split between left-wing madness and right-wing madness. And the level of divisiveness between people has been increasing for years, with the help of the media. And there’s a lot of benefit to keeping people this divided. They will battle each other instead of uniting for a common goal.

A lot of Americans actually agree about what’s right for the country. We don’t actually hate each other and our ideas as much as we think we do. But they don’t know they agree because they’ve internalized the anger of this left/right conflict. And this conflict is really profitable. The ways in which our country is broken is very profitable to some people. A lot of money changes hands in the drug war and prison-industrial complex while the left and the right argue about legalizing marijuana slowly, state by state. A lot of money changes hands in the endless war machine while we argue about transgender bathrooms. Millions of people die from obesity and heart disease because we provide billions in subsidies to corn syrup and allow a few megacorporations to control almost our entire food supply, while we debate endlessly about regulating 'assault weapons' which are used used in only a negligible percent of crimes. A lot of money changes hands with the most expensive healthcare system in the world, while the left and right argue whether or not healthcare is “socialism”. I don’t know how to fix the healthcare system – but I do know that as long as it remains as it is, a lot of money is flowing into certain hands. And they have a huge vested interest in seeing it not fixed.

Remember when the Tea Party movement looked like grass roots but it turned out to have been planted by the Koch brothers, who wanted to resist healthcare reform?

This is actually my theory as to why the powers that be in Europe want the immigration crisis to happen. The public conversation is always driven towards race, Islam, etc. But I don’t think it’s about this. Countries like Germany and Sweden have very large, very comprehensive welfare states. Public healthcare, public education, strong benefits. It is hard to take ownership of, and profit, from something which is a public good. What Europe is doing is intentionally creating a permanent underclass. They will always be disproportionately reliant on welfare, they will not contribute to society, they will create social tensions. This is going to create a resurgence of the far right. But I think this was the point. I think they are going to attempt to bankrupt the welfare system so that down the road (how many billions of Euros is Germany spending on this shit?), they can start privatizing. And they will use this division between the left and right to do it.

And as we know from what happened to the former Soviet state industries in Russia in the 90’s, privatization of large state apparatuses can bring gigantic profits for the right oligarchs.

In the US, the image of the “welfare queen” (we all know who she is and what she looks like) is rolled out every single time that we discuss increasing the welfare state. This is such a powerful image because we have such an innate disgust at the idea that the state is forcing us to pay for lazy and useless people. Eventually this feeling is going to kick in Europe, and it is the perfect pretense for an ever-shrinking number of Svens to wonder how they can keep paying for an ever-growing number of Akhmeds. And once they wonder this, they will suddenly find out that the system bankrupted itself. Time to roll out the privatization. Cha-ching. Imagine how much money you could make if you privatized a completely public healthcare system? And then started charging tuition for a formerly free higher education system? And then cut welfare, while keeping taxes as high as they were before?

But I don’t think that privatization is the only target.

It seems to me that the powers that be in Europe are in the process of intentionally ghetto-izing their population centers in the way that American cities have been for years. But this one will be even more extreme. Urban blacks in the US are plagued with social problems, but even I would take the crypts and bloods over ISIS. I’ve actually lived in the ghetto before. Even the angriest thugs from the hood don’t want to see our society destroyed.

I cannot think of a better pre-text for expanding the police state than intentionally importing entire communities of ISIS sympathizers and then attempting to force their distribution equally among the entire continent. Which is exactly what’s happening. I expect that the security problem this creates is going to create some of those “reforms” that the US saw post-911. Remember just how much the establishment in the US needed 9/11 to implement all kinds of changes? The boogey-man of "Islamic terror" became absolutely essential to the growth of the police state and the "patriot act"-ification of our laws. They had created this boogeyman and then it was too late, this was the brave new world in which we lived. The refugee crisis is the powers in Europe creating their own 9/11, their own little tool to manufacture a bigger police state and seize greater powers.

In this regard, the disruption of communities of Europe, the creation of this security problem, and the deepened divide between the left and the right are all profitable to someone.

Conversations about race, privilege, refugees, moral responsibility, these are all just a smokescreen to distract people with useless and idle conversation. Do you think that NATO is really incapable of securing a few kilometers of sea and land? Imagine if instead of Arabs, it was young Russian men loyal to Putin flooding into Germany, raping children and bombing airports. Instead of 5% of them being ISIS, we found that 5% were KGB. You would find the border closed with such speed and force that your head would spin. It isn’t a coincidence. It’s not that they can’t or don’t know how to secure the border, that is absurd. They don’t want to secure the border.

As we watch the fruits of this crisis, I predict that you are going to see two changes: changes to the welfare state that bring huge profits to the groups that benefit from privatization, and a massive increase to the police state and gradual chipping away at freedom of speech.

Virtue Signaling

The thing to understand about the people who support the narrative I described is that their intention is not really to help the needy. How could it be? It’s been proven a hundred different ways that most of the people coming in this crisis aren’t the ones in need, and that money spent on them would benefit far more people if it were spent in other ways. If your goal was to be a moral utilitarian and help as many people as possible, building camps in Germany to house unemployed twenty-somethings from Africa is not effective at helping those dying in Syria, how could it be? No one is dumb enough to think it is.

But the “REFUGEES WELCOME” types have a different motivation, known as “virtue signaling.” Social Justice is the new religion, and diversity and multiculturalism are now Jesus and Mother Mary. Refugees welcome posters are the new rosary beads. They are showing what upstanding citizens they are by displaying their loyalty to their new Jesus. It actually has nothing to do with a desire to help the refugees because if this was the desire, they would want to take measures to make sure that resources are used effectively and on people who are in real need. They don’t want that.

But this “narrative” that the establishment has constructed, to which the left has sworn its allegiance, is extremely useful to the establishment. Because it’s got people arguing about islamophobia, white privilege, and other fake bullshit instead of talking about the real question – which is why the fuck do the governments of Europe want to fill the continent with hostile Islamic ghettos?

Social Justice Warriors in the US

The “virtue signaling” process works the same way in the US and this is the reason you will find so many white people in the US who seem eager to believe in things that don’t make sense and are completely inconsistent.

A very good example is Black Lives Matter and the white people who support it. The “narrative” includes the idea that black people are victims oppressed by racist white police and killed with immunity. The facts, however, are that even though blacks are responsible for most violent crime, they are killed by police at a LOWER rate than whites.

So, how can you accept this narrative knowing that it doesn’t fit the facts?

Because accepting this narrative is virtue signaling. They believe they will be rewarded with higher social status by showing their allegiance to the Jesus and Mother Mary of the Social Justice religion. This is the purpose. And this is why it is not possible to argue with them. Because they are not attempting to evaluate facts – they are, functionally, proclaiming how much they love God just so that the rest of the congregation can hear them.

Remember the “you’re a fucking white male” guy, from the Trump protest? The most telling part of this video was this:

AIDS Skrillex: Let’s talk about all the black people killed by police [he is surrounded by black people]

Trump supporter: Okay, let’s talk about all the WHITE people who are killed by police!


Most conversations with SJW’s will follow this format to some extent because they aren’t debating, they are displaying the strength of their faith in their religion. You can’t argue with that. And that's why they are comfortable breaking the rules, violating free speech, silencing people, shaming them, and using violence. Because it's not a conversation for them. You can't question God, and when you think you have God on your side you can make up your own rules.

If you’ve paid attention, you’ve noticed that any attempt to regulate illegal immigration is viewed as racism. Now, any reasonable person can see this is insane – it is racist to enforce your own laws? How can that be? How does that make any sense? How can “didn’t obey the law” be a race? How can any person really think that it is?

Bu the word “racist” is to the Social Justice religion as the word “heretical” was to Christianity in the old days. It doesn’t have anything to do with race. It simply means that you are not allowed to talk about this. Which means that illegal immigration is something the establishment has found profitable. So they have used their information machinery to add to the SJW narrative that "criticizing illegal immigration is racism" and those who accept this narrative do so because they believe it signals virtue to do so. They believe they will be rewarded with social status and viewed as being "good."

They don't actually care about immigrants. If you did, you would WANT to enforce the law so that those most deserving could come. Have a conversation with a person who tried to immigrate to the US legally. It's a horrible, hellish, expensive procedure. People who are against regulating illegal immigration are, by the converse of this, in favor of fucking over all the honest, hard-working immigrants who try to favor the law. Would you want to fuck over the honest and law-abiding immigrants and reward the law-breaking ones, if your main desire was to help immigrants? Of course not. Because, as in all cases with the SJW religion, their goal isn't to help people it's to "signal virtue."

One very useful thing to note about the logic of the SJW religion is that it is now illegal to "generalize." If you've ever attempted to have a conversation about a group of people and their behavior (and this group isn't white men), you will be met with the comment "You can't generalize." Or, "Not all __ are ___ !" This really is a very clever strategy. It gives useful idiots the chance to feel morally superior and intelligent when what they're really saying is that "it's forbidden to observe the behavior of this group." These people are the self-appointed "morality police" of the Social Justice religion, telling you who you are, and are not allowed to observe. Pay attention to this - notice which groups of people you are not allowed to observe.

The Red and Blue Pills

The Blue Pill has created a tremendous amount of social disruption in the US. I have been trying very hard to figure out the answer to this question: who profits from this?

We’ve created a philosophical system in which men are viewed as morally lesser than women, and taught this to men so they don’t argue or resist. Then we’ve created a legal system which reflects this, so now men figure that divorce rape is normal and natural. Then we’ve created a culture in which single parenthood is normal.

I genuinely wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that, statistically, in families, men earn more money than they spend, and women spend more money than they earn. Women are the bulk of domestic spending. Most commercialist bullshit is aimed towards women. In other words, a divorce-rape culture is good for capitalism. Bad for society but good for commercialism.

I wonder if the purpose of the establishment's Blue Pill Propaganda is simply to decrease the distance between a man's paycheck and the corporation to whom his ex-wife will give his money.


A lot of the time we argue about gender, politics, and culture, we are just caught in the trap of comparing narratives. There was a narrative constructed to get people to think and act in a certain way, and another one that sprung up in response to this. Most of these are a distraction, a smokescreen. Don’t get caught up in them. Realize that in the information age, information is a weapon and the battlefield is your mind. Think for yourself.

Because it’s not really about white / male privilege.

[–]xandersvk 83 points84 points  (7 children)

I am from Slovakia (middle Europe) and I know something about the immigration crysis. And I can tell You, this post is probably the best piece of insight to manipulation behind it I have ever seen. I agree 100% on everything there. I almost had a fight with my own father because I was against the wellcome refugees movement. This shit is so powerfull because as You said, they don't listen to facts but they obey something higher.

I also agree on guys here telling that this kind of thinking which is presented here on TRP is applicable to much wider spectrum of things than just women and dating stuff. I think this is the kind of critical thinking and intelligence that modern man needs to be able to understand and succeed in the world around us.

[–]camenossaber 19 points20 points  (5 children)

It would be of great benefit to discuss more topics like this. We have more than enough of the typical TRP theory on women/game and such. We all know AWALT- let's expand our discussion further.

[–]TomHicks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your father is more leftist than you are? Strange.

[–]squizzlebizzle 69 points70 points  (14 children)

You're definitely right about the "you can't generalize" thing. This one has become such a big part of our culture that even children and teenagers have started doing it with smug self-righteousness.

[–]incans 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Schopenhauer said it right... If you wanna win an argument never generalize.

[–]AceofRains 32 points33 points  (9 children)

I ran a mock scenario in my head about speaking with one of my typical liberal friends. I ask "Why do [insert social minority here] do such weird shit." Response: "They're not all like that, people are unique and aren't cookie-cutter shapes." Now, "Why do white people do weird shit." Response: "Idk man, so white lol." I know if I ask those kinds of questions those will be the kind of responses I get.

[–]Future_Alpha[🍰] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

When someone tells you, "don't do sweeping generalizations", tell them that 'sweeping generalizations' are the basis of science - called external validity.

Once had a Sociology prof tell me to not do 'sweeping generalizations'. Told her the above. Her response, stunned silence.

[–]AceofRains 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I usually use one example I read here. 'We don't look at the individual raindrops in a hurricane, we look at the over all trend of its path.' I'm so sick of hearing "yeah but everyone is different." It's like trying to argue that 7 billion different genders exist and we should cater to each one uniquely. It makes no god damn sense.

[–]Endorsed Contributordown_with_whomever[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Once had a Sociology prof tell me to not do 'sweeping generalizations'. Told her the above. Her response, stunned silence.

That sociology professor's name?

Albert Einstein.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. It is very difficult in certain conversations when you toe the line of political correctness to have to clarify that you are genrealising in every fucking sentence in order to not offend the person who is just waiting with their gun cocked to call you out as soon as you make a blanket statement to get a point across.

[–]FinallyRed 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah I've noticed if you ever wanna crack jokes about a group of people they have to be about white people or Asians to be received well. People won't necessarily call you racist when joking about others but they won't find it funny.

[–][deleted] 185 points186 points  (86 children)

Once you swallow the "race realism" red pill, more of this women/sex/dating stuff makes sense. And there will be more red pills to swallow. In my opinion, TRP theories of women, sex, and dating become part of a larger theory - and to focus solely on women/sex/dating is to miss the bigger picture.

[–][deleted] 87 points87 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (5 children)

There's a reason TRP is an integral part of the 'Dark Enlightenment'. The Red Pill on women opens a whole can of worms that leads to a new understanding of feminism, political ideologies, race realism, cultural subversion and globalism.

[–]dirtysuede 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Im researching the Dark enlightment. i didnt know that was a thing.

[–][deleted] 36 points36 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed Contributordown_with_whomever[S] 48 points49 points  (13 children)

If "the red pill" is waking up to these realities, are we trying to fight the machines or become the machines?

I have no conclusion. I, as many here, am driven by curiosity. I notice these things and I feel compelled to communicate them and learn more about them. I'm not advocating any kind of reaction.

We have so few places in the modern world where we can talk about such things honestly. That in and of itself has some value, even if it's not prescriptive in that I'm telling you what to do with this information. I'm not.

[–]1lurkingtacopiller 11 points12 points  (2 children)