The White Pill

You’ve probably heard of a certain red pill and it’s antithetical cousin, the blue pill. The terms originated from the 1999 movie, The Matrix. Nowadays it’s internet slang for truth and lies; the red pill stands for truth and the blue pill stands for delusion.

In such a dichotomy there is no third option; there is only truth and lies. There may be shades, but they exist between the two poles. So why is my post named the white pill?

The reason is that the red pill community is fundamentally blue pilled, and so there needs to be a new, improved pill. I am not saying that the red pill community is as deluded as the blue pilled horde of soy consuming, blue pilled transhumanists, but it’s fundament is flawed, and will therefore never achieve much in line with truth.

In fact, there’s a term coined for people who try to mix the red pill and blue pill ideas called purple pill, and to reiterate in a more salient manner; the red pill is purple pilled. It has always been.

The conformity to the truth which is needed for a man to be truly red pilled has been selective; the majority of red pillers accept the truth in so far as they believe it will benefit them in order to pursue vanity. Everything from the understanding that meat is part of a healthy diet, to the truth about female nature is only acceptable to the average red piller if it benefits them. Not strange considering that Rollo Tomassi’s book The Rational Male (one of the red pill’s core books) is largely written from an evolutionary point of view; survival of the fittest is not conducive to the self-sacrifice required for truth.

As an aside: I am not saying that it is better to be blue pilled. As stated before, these two pills lay between two binary poles, which I will discuss soon. The red pill is a shade better in this sense than the blue, and Tomassi’s book is certainly worth a read to the uninitiated.

My purpose with this post is to bring your attention to each pole. I am here to expand your view further up toward the macrocosm so that you may look down and see more than you saw before.

Before I begin, I'm aware that the concept of a white pill has already been coined by involuntary celibates. I don't really care. My concept is better--and completely unrelated.


There are two poles: truth and lies. The white pill represents a commitment to ultimate reality; to God. It is accepting the truth at all costs. The black pill represents a commitment to lies; to the Devil, accepting truths only in so far as your indoctrination permits or your self-serving ego requires you to (it is most often a mix of both.) Each person will find themselves somewhere along the spectrum, and perhaps we can even call them “blue pilled” or “red pilled” to mark their position, but what sets the “white pilled” person apart is the acknowledgement of ultimate reality; the Truth; God.

The reason that the red pill community is not much better than the blue is because most of the red pillers are simply trying to get laid or to access material gain. They are using the truth and perverting it for their own gratification–and the destruction of society by using women as if they were cheap condoms.

Each pump-and-dump (one night stand) creates a scarred, dysfunctional woman who is whittling away at her ability to bond with men, creating further destruction in society as she inevitably releases her frustrations upon other people. The abused always becomes the abuser; in time she will become more radicalized along the lines of feminism and other destructive ideologies as a means of getting revenge. This is only scratching the surface of the countless amounts of ways a woman is capable of getting revenge.

If these so-called “red pilled” men were to look at themselves, perhaps they would understand that they are not fundamentally different from a woman who lies in court about having been raped. Both the red pilled man and the woman are only trying to serve themselves. The man is trying to gratify his own sexual desires, and the woman is trying to get money (or just destroy the man who happened to dump her because she has become vengeful.)

Both of them have not, at any fundamental level, grasped truth. And in particular, the red pilled man is only using a surface layer of truth in order to advance himself.

The truth is that sacrifice is the only road toward the Truth. Putting aside one’s own self–the gratification of the ego and all passion-fueled frivolity–is absolutely crucial if one wants to accept the Truth and begin to reshape society into a better place. In this sense the truth is not about accumulating external knowledge, but understanding oneself; self-knowledge.


The man, because of his masculine nature (comprehension of such things as logic) must bear a greater burden toward the truth. Men need to lead the way. There is absolutely no use in expecting a woman to even be able to handle the truth if you can not hold it up for her.

So before the resentful feel the need to chastise me for not holding men and women to the same standards, just remember that this mentality is only part of your indoctrination of equality.

Social Definition – Lies, Lies, And More Lies

Humans learn language mainly through exposure from social settings. This can prove a problem when emotional signals become associated and attached to the words which are used instead of their true meaning.


A social definition is a process used in memorization of language and substitution for meaning within language. It is mostly an unconscious process.

The process starts with the subject hearing a word used within a social setting (TV, video games, and YouTube all count as social settings in this case.) The word has a connotation attached to it (stigma, merit, disapproval, approval, etc,) which the subject unconsciously adds as the definition of the word.

The context is then added to the value of the word, just as the connotation was, and now serves as the mechanism for association (If you ever had a teacher tell you about finding context clues to figure out what a word might mean, then you understand what I’m talking about.)

Instead of associating based off of meaning within context, the subject searches for similarity of context and then inserts the connotation as meaning. This is will always end up with a misunderstanding, unless both the speaker and listener are using the same connotation as definition–though that is an effect of chance, and not sentient communication.

As I’m sure you understand, this is a very shallow and inaccurate way to learn new words, but nevertheless, I would wager that this is one of the most popular methods by which people learn language.

I believe some may argue that all language, no matter what, is learned through this method because all language comes through other humans. I’m not going to bother going down that path of argument. It’s wrong. Let’s continue with an example to clarify my aforementioned definition.

Jane said “The federal banks are printing money because it becomes a hidden tax through inflation. There are people which control this system in order to keep us in a form of slavery.”
John laughed, waved his hand dismissively and said “That’s just a conspiracy, Jane. Don’t be silly!”

“Conspiracy” is a very loaded term (infused with emotion through connotation,) which is exactly why I used it. Let’s look at what the word really means, and not what some people think that it means.

Google Definitions Conspiracy
Merriam Webster Dictionary Conspire

Although I am not here to argue on the particular point of conspiracies, let’s say for arguments’ sake that Jane is correct; the government and banks knowingly use inflation as a means to extract a hidden tax on the unsuspecting, dumbed down populous–which will very gladly print more money to “create jobs” (or whichever fancy slogan happens to work at that particular time.)

We can then logically derive that she is, by definition, talking about a conspiracy; a group of people (the banks and government) acting toward a harmful end. Why is it that John seems to think that he can dismiss her statement on the basis that it is a conspiracy, as if there was something intrinsically wrong with the word conspiracy?

He is implicitly affirming what she is talking about: “I understand that what you’re talking about is a conspiracy.” But then decides that she is being silly on that very basis.

It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that a government is based on conspiracies. Do governments not, by definition, conspire?

Now that we’re done understanding what a social definition is, let’s look in to my previous two questions.


It is clear that John doesn’t understand the word he is using. He has probably never looked it up in a dictionary, and probably doesn’t bother looking up any words at all. He’s the type of person that just believes he ~gets it~ without putting in any work at all.

Nevertheless, let’s say that he did look up the words which he used. Would he still be capable of misusing them as he does? In other words, are we dealing with a simple misunderstanding from a simpleton, opining in ignorance through a bloated sense of pride, or are we dealing with something more malevolent? It is clear that, either way, there is a malevolence behind such action.

The first case is very straightforward: Jane is dealing with a complete idiot that thinks rhetorically. In other words, John thinks by way of his emotions. If the word is infused with a connotation within a social circumstance, then John would rather listen to the connotation’s emotional/rhetorical content than the word’s true meaning.

He may do this as a result of peer pressure (others have connoted or alluded to that conspiracies are stupid and non-existent, and therefore he also feels compelled to believe that conspiracies are all stupid and non-existent,) or simply because he enjoys the feeling of superiority he gets when he guffaws and dismisses a person; my point is that he could do it for any multitude of reasons. In any case he does it because of his emotions: pride, fear, hatred, etc.

The second case is more difficult for me to put my finger on because I haven’t had too much exposure to such a mind, but I will do my best to describe what may be lying behind the more malevolent sort. In order to describe this as accurately as possible I will resort to two anecdotes.

I once knew a guy that said he “flowed in and out of definitions.” He was a very intelligent man, apparently registering at 127 IQ–and I definitely believe he was somewhere around 127 IQ based off the conversations we had. At such a high IQ you would assume that he was fully capable of grasping logic, and I believe that he was; as he said, he flowed in and out of definitions, meaning that he was at least sometimes bound by them. This suggests that he could, at will, stop caring about the definition of a word–but it could also be a case of wordnesia? Probably not.

If this doesn’t strike you as a more complicated form of saying “I lie when I feel the need,” then I don’t know what you’re smoking–but it’s probably green and reducing your IQ by at least 30 points, ~maaaaaan~.

Hey, maaaaaan

The second time I came in contact with such a blatant display of linguistic abuse was when I was in a debate and someone said that Sweden was a very nationalist country. I immediately told them that they’re producing verbal excrement. I gave the definition of the word and pointed toward Sweden’s social policies. It’s fair to say that Sweden is the antithesis of a nationalist country in it’s current state as it is sacrificing it’s own culture for immigration which disproportionately outnumbers that of any surrounding country–except perhaps Germany? Either way, compared to the rest of the world it is one of the least nationalist countries.

The person in question simply responded with “well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” This isn’t an argument of any kind, and it certainly isn’t an admission of being wrong. But more than this, it is telltale sign of the psychology of the individual in question.

You see, to them facts or arguments are just opinions. Opinions have no factual basis, no external standard of right and wrong.

If you have ever heard anyone say “my truth,” then you can be very sure that they are on a road of opinionated opinion-ness, floating about in the aether of “Whatever, man, that’s just, like, your opinion, dude.” Apart from being a very cowardly way out of an argument from a debate–yes, it was a debate, not just a social gathering–it is intellectually dishonest.

Both the guy with 127 IQ and this latter, opinionated person have at least one thing in common: they are both asserting their wills over what is external to them. They are narcissistically choosing their own opinions in favor of what is external and true. The malevolent factor, I find, grows with the amount of intelligence a person has. With great power, great responsibility is expected.


I am going to hit you with an incredibly anti-climactic ending. I must confess that I made this all very, very complicated. But at least it was very fun, right? Right?

Basically we have intelligent and deceptive people lying through the use of emotional content in words. When their lies get spread, they become absorbed by the dumber, yet also deceptive people. The intelligent kind are intellectually deceptive. I don’t know whether they are as emotionally governed as their dumber counterparts, but they certainly have no problem governing their dumber counterparts by way of emotion–perhaps the intelligent are just better at hiding it behind weighty rationalizations.

This is one reason why I believe that truth has nothing to do with intelligence. The acquisition of what is true isn’t based solely off intellectual rigor, but also off the intention of one’s heart. But that’s a topic for another time.

Mindset Madness

I've read many books on mindset and mindset related topics such as business and philosophy. At this point I've come to a few mindset principles of my own. Although you have probably heard some of them before, you will not have heard them all.


“In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notions held by one or more people or groups of people. A mindset can also be seen as arising out of a person’s world view or philosophy of life.” –  Wikipedia

Not every mindset has the same tint or color, but they all serve the same function; determining your path through life. Any belief (political, philosophical, religious, or otherwise) will automatically create a feedback loop into your mindset. The mindset itself tends to be the origin of many beliefs, too. Mindset is belief; belief is mindset.


Before we continue, I would like to note that the two mindsets which we are about to discuss are not the only ones. Mindsets are only constellations among specific beliefs, and in this sense everyone’s head is a different universe. What I mean by this is that a constellation is not the stars, and that it doesn’t encapsulate all the stars, only some of them. Each person also has their own unique set of beliefs in their head, even if we share many in common. Keep this in mind.

A growth mindset is, in essence, the mindset of a winner. The person with a growth mindset believes that challenges make them stronger. They believe that any challenge can be overcome. They believe that new things, people, places, and ideas are exciting and fun.

A fixed mindset is, in essence, the mindset of a loser. The person with a fixed mindset believes that challenges wear them down. They believe that challenges can not be overcome. They believe new things, people, places, and ideas are best to avoid.

Naturally, I do not subscribe wholeheartedly to either one. Nobody does. However, I am partial to a growth mindset because I know that it’s what’s best for me–and it’s the most true.

In my estimation a stereotypically fixed mindset is complete lunacy and a weight put on the individual through childhood trauma. It is almost always wrong about everything.

That said, some people with a growth mindset seem to avoid certain dimensions of reality like IQ or body types. Not everyone can be the president; like them or not, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have IQs above 130; some people are born midgets, and will never play basketball for the NBA–unless it’s some sort of “make a wish” thing, or an imposition of social justice upon everyone’s sanity and enjoyment.

Stay positive, but don’t try to break reality, is my point.


Here are some of my stars you could add to your universe.

No pain, no gain.
There are absolutely no drugs, supplements, technologies, or anything else that will ever give you any gains in the long run. No gains in wealth, health, attractiveness, or anything. If you do not work for it, you don’t get it. Apply this to absolutely everything and see how it works.

You take testosterone supplements? Your body will stop producing as much testosterone.
You drink coffee to stay awake and be productive? You get worse sleep and lose productivity in the long run.
You lied to her in order to sleep with her? Here come the rape allegations.

With great responsibility comes great power.
Spiderman only gave you half of the truth; the maintenance of power. The other half is that great power comes when you take great responsibility. Once you start holding yourself accountable for EVERYTHING that happens in your life, then you will gain great power as a consequence. The mark of a person with oodles of power is that they start holding themselves responsible for other people’s mistakes–Isn’t that what a boss is supposed to do?

Your girlfriend is terrible or left you? You chose her. Your mistake. You made it happen.
You lost your job? You sucked too much. You didn’t get friendly with the people at work or provide anything your boss needed. You failed.
You’re depressed? You eat too much junk food and spend your leisure time smoking weed and binging cartoons and video games. You don’t exercise. You don’t try. You are the problem.

A caveat: There's no reason to beat yourself up about anything. Feeling bad about yourself is not taking responsibility. Just take responsibility.

There are no mistakes, only opportunities to learn.
Obviously mistakes exist, but the way we frame them is important. Do not dwell on them as mistakes, but as opportunities to learn. Yesterday I learned that while using photoshop to make my blog art, I need to rasterize my layers (I have no clue what that means,) before outlining everything. If I don’t rasterize first, then I just waste my time outlining an object. Why do I remember this lesson? Because it was 5 minutes of my life that I wasted by not rasterizing. At this point I have become so efficient at transmuting feelings of frustration into fuel for learning that I hardly care about the mistakes. All the energy you spend caring about the mistake is supposed to go into learning the lesson.

If they won’t take a bullet for you, they aren’t your friend.
Having more than ~12 friends is shallow. Facebook is for the vain. Instagram is a waste of time. Nobody really cares about you. It’s all very true, you know. If you can not be entirely honest with your friends, they are only acquaintances. If you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them in order to not push certain buttons, then they are your enemy in disguise. If there is no truth, there is no friend. Honor is what binds people together, and there’s no honor without truth.

Benevolent Dictatorship and Anarchy Are The Same.

Perhaps this will be a big leap for most of you, but I have been informed that my readers are intelligent people which enjoy looking at things from different and open-minded perspectives. After all, we are all here to learn new things.
But enough buttering you up to swallow the uncomfortable truth, here we go.


It is not always true that we stand upon the shoulders of giants. Sometimes we stand upon giant foreheads; I will be relying upon the work of a very popular internet-philosopher, Stefan Molyneux, in order to leverage my initial point. For those who are unfamiliar with Molyneux’s work and want a deeper look into the logic behind why governments are morally wrong, you may want to read Stefan’s book Universally Preferable Behavior.

I will give you a summary of Molyneux’s book here and now:
There is no logical way to justify the initiation of force (coercive force) against another person.

Governments obviously rely upon the initiation of force in order to exist. One example of this is taxation. You must pay taxes or eventually end up in jail, even if you have never done anything morally wrong.

When we follow this logic to it’s conclusion we arrive at anarchy. It’s simply not logical for one human being to initiate force against another; and so we must all throw our rings of power into mount doom and stop trying to force our wills upon others.

Of course, I understand that many people are unwilling to swallow this pill. That’s fine. I’m not here to convince them, nor does it ever behoof me to throw pearls to swine.


Anarchy requires a submission of the self to reason.

Whether you want anarchy or dictatorship, both require submission. A dictatorship such as Stalin’s or Lenin’s requires that the populace submit to the dictator’s will, just as anarchy requires the vast majority of the populace to submit their individual wills to reason. Democracy, too, requires that a good half of the people submit to the will of the mob–which always ends up being the will of a few oligarchs and a shadow government, but that’s a story for another time.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Stefan’s UPB (thou shalt not initiate force) is the most reasonable law. Everyone must submit to this law in order for there to be anarchy. Anarchy can only exist under this law.

Where there are laws, the laws must be enforced. I am not saying that the non-initiation of force becomes self-defeating–it doesn’t. You could perfectly reasonably enforce this law at gunpoint without there being any logical contradiction. I merely want to point out that anarchy requires submission, and is not in any way a form of freedom. Anarchy is only freedom from a government by human will. In fact, freedom is a lie. It is always a lie, whether promised by anarchists or by statists. You must always submit to something.


The heart of man is bent on evil.

What is reason? It seems self-evident to many, yet on any given day people are very divided about what is the most reasonable thing to do.

Is reason an object or a being which we can submit to? Is it a standard by which we can measure things with? Some would say so. Others would also say so, yet disagree with the metric to use, or which object should be submitted to. Some even deny that logic and reason are real things. Some say that the only thing which exists is matter.

By merely looking out at the division among people one thing is very clear: most of them have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, yet they all firmly believe that they do. This is the main issue. It is the heart of man, unwilling to understand that they do not know. They confuse their own will for that of a cosmic dictator. Man has always made himself the graven image, trying to put himself up as a god.


“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”

The only way to achieve reason is for people to submit to God. Why is this? It is because when a person admits they are wrong, and that they need to change their ways, they let go of their ego; they let go of their self. Once the self, full of pride and vanity, has been let go of, people can naturally start to see things more reasonably.

It is the very act of selflessness which is a necessary precondition to the act of proper reason. Reason is to put aside you and focus on what is. All else becomes rationalizing, which is what I previously mentioned when I described how everyone has divided and different beliefs on things.

Most people believe they are reasoning when they are simply rationalizing.


I am aware that Stefan Molyneux has his own solution to the problem of unreasonable people, which is peaceful parenting. Peaceful parenting raises kids to be more peaceful (and reasonable,) which I don’t doubt. My point is that a belief in God is a necessary precondition for the masses to adopt anything remotely similar to peaceful parenting.

Coffee (caffeine) is a drug and it is bad for you.

I’ve been on and off coffee for about half a year at this point. Most recently I went through very bad withdrawals after quitting (again) about 2 weeks ago.

The reason I quit this last time, and have become completely convinced that coffee is an overall net-negative for almost anyone, is because I did some research outside of the box. The research has also been backed up with testimonials and my own experience, which I will get to in this post.

As I share this information with you, I will probably rub up against commonly held beliefs about coffee–many of which are misconceptions–, so before proceeding to pass off my information because it doesn’t fit society’s current paradigm, let’s remember that addicts will do and say anything to get their drug, especially when they are not even aware that it is a drug.

This leads me to my first line of argument; trying to make people aware of their own experiences.

What initially sparked my want to be free of coffee was reading Nikola Tesla’s biography, My Inventions. Tesla mentions both caffeine and nicotine as being bad for your thoughts, at least in so far as it regards inventing stuff.

This got me thinking that perhaps coffee is simply bad for your thoughts overall. I began realizing that coffee had an effect on my thought process–not just my mood. I had noticed that my thoughts were a bit faster than usual, but upon examining them further, I noticed that they weren’t necessarily of the same calibre as my non-caffeinated, slower thoughts. It’s not a drastic difference, but it’s there.

I have had a similar experience with amphetamine, which also happens to be a central nervous system stimulant, just like coffee. Of course, amphetamine has a much more prominent effect than coffee.
In short: you get a lot done, but it’s not quality work. (You don’t actually get more done in the long run, but we’ll get to that. And this regards coffee, too.)

The reason I think most people don’t see this is because coffee (like amphetamine) increases dopamine in the brain, so you feel happy. When you feel good you are less likely to question your performance critically enough to see whether it’s better or downright dishevelled. Of course, feeling good has a beneficial effect, but not in the long run (as I will explain.)

The second part which makes it difficult to reasonably assess whether coffee is good or bad is time. Time can reveal a lot; if we spread our analysis out over longer periods of time we can come to diametrically opposed conclusions compared to when we only analyse a short period of time. Coffee is nice in the short run but eventually the habit catches up with you. And just like any other drug, it’s painful to quit in the short run. This is why the long run is important to take into account.

This leads me to my second line of argument; nothing is free.

You must try going without coffee (and with coffee) for longer periods of time in order to truly gauge if it is a performance enhancer. This is because the short-term effects will delude you completely, making you happy and content with yourself. It may even boost your performance in the short-term, while some of the long-term effects may completely bog you down and make you realize that you are worse at performing on coffee.

Let’s say that you just recently started drinking coffee. Your body hasn’t adapted to the caffeine yet, so the coffee still makes you feel awake, and you don’t need much of it to get a kick. You also feel more productive while on it–and happy!
What eventually happens is that your body will become accustomed to the caffeine, and the coffee will only help maintain a state of “normalcy”.

During this latter phase, both I and Alex Becker estimate that you will lose ~20% of your overall productivity as a result. This is an estimate, of course, but it goes to show that both Alex and I have had a similar loss of productivity with caffeine.

You see the same results with any drug. You will need more and more to get the same effect, and very quickly you become completely dependent upon the drug just in order to stave off depression/withdrawals because NOTHING IS FREE. NOT MONEY, NOT FOOD, NOTHING.

This leads me to my third, and final, point; homeostasis.

Your body always wants to level out to normal levels. If you pump yourself full of caffeine it will give you:
1. Dopamine, the feel good chemical.
2. Adrenaline, regulating visceral functions.
3. Cortisol, the stress hormone.
4. Caffeine, the chemical blocking your adenosine receptors/”sleep-receptors” in the brain.
Once you’ve pumped your body full of these ingredients, it will try to regulate itself back to a state of normalcy through 2 different ways.
1. Your body will try blocking the incoming chemicals (like dopamine,) making you LESS RECEPTIVE to such chemicals.
2. It will grow MORE adenosine receptors because it’s clogged with caffeine, making you very, very sleepy unless you get your cup of joe.

And here’s what cortisol can do to you. In short, it can cause memory loss and weight gain. Of course… we’ve all heard that caffeine is great for staving off alzheimer’s, haven’t we? I wouldn’t be quick to jump to conclusions either way. Stimulating the nervous system may help, while the cortisol does the opposite very opposite.

And there’s that. Coffee is absolutely a drug, and should be viewed as such. Now I’m aware that there are certain articles out there which list amazing benefits of coffee. Personally, I don’t believe it. I believe it sounds like a bunch of addicts desperately trying to hold on to their beloved drug. Either way, my point is not to disprove whether coffee reduces suicide rates in women by 50% or reduces alzheimer’s by 65% (both numbers sound WAY too high to be true.)

My point is simply to point out that coffee is a drug. It’s certainly not the worst drug to be addicted to, but I think many people would benefit greatly from not drinking it. Is it possible that coffee possesses seemingly magical abilities to cure mental illness by extraordinary numbers. Sure, it’s possible. Curing depression with mountains of cocaine may also be possible.