At Red Pill University and Red Pill Expo, the only belief on which agreement is required for participation is that individualism is superior to collectivism. That is the conviction that binds our coalition together. Beyond that, the sky is the limit.

It is impossible to provide objective information on liberty, politics, health, and corruption in high places without challenging conventional wisdom and ruffling feathers. This is especially true when opposing views on controversial issues are welcome. We do this, because the only way to discover or confirm truth is to allow it to do battle against its enemies. Truth always wins in a fair contest. When advocates of an idea insist on using coercion to forbid any challenge to it, we can be sure it is not truth.

Allowing competition among ideas does not mean we do not have favorites in the contest because, in most cases, we assuredly do. Where the issues are particularly vexing, we feel an obligation to let it be known what our viewpoint is — at least what it is at the present time. We are all truth seekers, which means we are not embarrassed to admit we don’t know everything. We reserve the right to be wrong, and we are not too proud to change our minds upon discovery of new truths.


On Twitter, 2021-04-14, from THE1STGREENMAN to G. Edward Griffin:
“I would love to know your perspective on Lifeboat ethics in terms of overpopulation of the Earth-ship. As for myself, I look at the passengers in terms of asset vs. liability and the compound cost of delaying ejecting the liability at the detriment of the asset. … I contemplate the logic of the inventory of what makes a human an asset. I see no reason to expend capital as to what makes them a liability. The only question is the hygrading itemization for life worthy of life in descending order to the point of useless eaters.”

Mr. Griffin’s response:
One could fill a book with all the ramifications of this question, but my short answer must be restricted to two issues: (1) limitations of the lifeboat analogy and, (2) misunderstanding human nature.

The lifeboat analogy is appealing because it is dramatic, and there are elements that do, indeed, apply to the dread of overburdening the Earth with too many passengers. However, while it is true that a small boat can be swamped by too many passengers, as verified every year in water-side communities around the world, the concept of swamping the Earth-ship with too many passengers is entirely theoretical. It has never been witnessed, and there are good reasons to think it is impossible – not because a mathematical projection of such a thing cannot be created, but because those who create it never consider the feedback factor caused by human involvement – such as the expansion of resources from improved agriculture and more efficient energy sources – in other words: “More rabbits, less food. More humans, more food.”

Mathematical projections also fail to consider the fact (as demonstrated by population and fertility statistics) that reproductive rates decline to sustainable levels (and sometimes even below) whenever the standard of living improves to the point where mere survival is no longer a dominant concern, and it does so without state intervention. It appears that human instinct and intelligence include a control mechanism that sociologists do not yet understand and, in some cases, are loath to even consider because of their belief that all large-scale problems can only be solved by state intervention and scientific modification of instincts.

The second troubling issue is that many of those who have embraced this scenario imagine themselves as high priests of wisdom put on this planet to decide who will be allowed to procreate, who will not, and who must be exterminated. They also see themselves as administrators and enforcers of the system who will decree punishments and penalties for those who do not comply. They think of humans as mere assets and liabilities. Like trees in a forest, humans are to be culled and hygraded based on their utilitarian value. The high priests also intend to write the grading standards that will determine life or death for every passenger in the Earth-ship. It never crosses their minds that, if such power is tolerated, inevitably it will fall into the hands of someone who could become their executioner. Anyone who has read a history book knows that such power is heady wine to those who have it and that their utopias always turn into nightmares of tyranny.

My conclusion is that Earth is not our lifeboat, it is our natural habitat. It is where we are supposed to be and, because of that, we are born with the aptitudes and instincts to flourish indefinitely without war or pestilence. To me, the most terrifying thing on Earth, is not overpopulation or famine or pandemics or wars or crime, or terrorism or drug abuse, or environmental decay. It is the threat of a ruling oligarchy of intellectuals who are hell-bent on using all these threats as excuses to enslave the rest of us while virtue signaling that they are saving us.

Concern over Earth overpopulation is unfounded, because instinctive human behavior causes a decline in birthrates to sustainable levels whenever the community standard of living rises to the point where mere survival is no longer a dominant concern, and this happens without state intervention. The Earth is a natural habitat for humans in which they can flourish in perfect balance with other species, indefinitely, without war or pestilence. Any attempt by the state to interfere with this natural and instinctive balance will fail, but the tyranny required to administer such a policy will remain long after the failure is forgotten. (99 words)

G. Edward Griffin


Theology and Religion

The advocacy or denunciation of a specific theology or religion is not allowed at Red Pill University and Red Pill Expo. This is not because we have no interest in such discourse or that we are hostile to spiritual themes. It is because there are many faiths represented in our coalition, and participating in theological debate could have the effect of polarizing those of one faith against another, and that would shatter the unity of our coalition. The concept that God is an expression of energy in vibration and that variances in all things are determined by the frequency of that energy, is considered to be Frequency or Resonance Theology and is subject to the same policy as the world’s traditional religions.


Cause of building collapse on 9/11

There are four theories to explain the cause of building collapse on 9/11: (1) Fires weakened the steel structure; (2) Controlled demolition severed the support columns with high heat and explosives; (3) A directed-energy weapon destroyed the support columns and just about everything else; and (4) Controlled demolition and directed energy were used together.

We do not claim to know with certainty which of these theories is correct, but we can say with certainty that the fire theory is too riddled with contradictions and anomalies to be credible.

The directed-energy theory has in its favor several facts that are difficult to explain any other way, such as the burned and melted vehicles parked at a distance from the collapsed buildings and the near instant disappearance of building debris. However, not having an explanation is not proof that an explanation does not exist. A weakness of the directed-energy-weapon theory is that, although it is widely assumed today that such weapons probably exist, it is a stretch to assume they were in existence and deployable on such a grand scale in 2001.

We favor the controlled-demolition theory because it has the most fact-based evidence – as opposed to theory and conjecture – and it is based on technology fully deployable in 2001.

However, the most important aspect of this issue is not which theory we favor, but that all theories – other than the bizarre theory of fire – lead to the mind-crushing conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. That is what we should be talking about, not which theory we favor. We do not intend to let the perpetrators of this horrific crime get us sidetracked from the main issue and become ensnarled in disagreement on the secondary issue. Our policy, therefore, is to provide access to analyses and documents on all views of this issue and then ask everyone to move to the main issue, which is that we have a lot of high-level housecleaning to do.