Tag Archives: frustration

Ex-Red Pill Members Describe Cult-Like Indoctrination

However organic and benign a group might appear to begin with, it seems most, when co-opting a large number of members, end up in roughly the same manner.

The Red Pill, based on the Men’s Rights Movement, appeared (at least from the outside) to counter toxic feminism, which has been an intensely discussed topic over the last few years (many times, deservedly). At first it seemed to base its line of thought on the fact that men are not what modern feminists claim (dangerous, led by instincts only, angry, prone to raping, abusive, manipulative, sociopathic, set on dominating women etc). And of course, any sensible individual can agree this is not what half of the human species stands out through, and that extremes should never be used for generalisations.

However, things quickly escalated.

This Reddit page details the effects of belonging to such a group on men who initially thought they were joining the “cool and strong crowd”, becoming empowered by its attitude.

To start with, the group attracts men in a vulnerable state of mind, freshly out of a failed relationship or marriage, or frustrated over not managing to secure a female partner. These guys already carry a substantial amount of anger and use the group for venting (much like some women who mistakenly end up on forums about narcissists and psychopaths after a hurtful experience).

From there on they are led to believe women are naturally infantile, that “no” should not be taken as a “no”, and later on, that women actually get something out of being raped, on a subconscious level.

After enough brainwashing, some guys have ended up divorcing or abandoning their male friends who apparently shared the views of “beta cucks”.

You only need a short dialogue with a proponent of this line of thought to understand the venom; anger oozes out of their words; they are no different than Antifa or other leftist extremists, but merely at the other end of the spectrum. Politically, since they hate the left and afferent “beta” culture, they tend to be right wing or libertarian; many are angry enough to embrace the far right.

Akin to any group based on an iron-cast ideology, diverging an inch results in ostracism. After taking the bait of “enlightening” (red-pilling) themselves and experiencing a sense of empowerment, men who don’t want to go far enough are shamed with accusations of being covert betas, and are thus made to think they are the abnormality, and not the limiting, extremist group they are part of. Which is classic cult manipulation. “You’re with us or against us.”

And labels come to be taken very seriously when coming from people the holders have placed a lot of trust in. Even if the rest of society would discount them and would not regard these men as weaklings. Some sort of attachment keeps them going back to the group for feedback. A dynamic many of us have experienced with one group or another.

As this article in the New Statesman details, abandoning this guarded approach to women is equated with imminent failure.

By following the subreddit’s advice, its subscribers are promised a life of successful sexual encounters. If they ignore the Red Pill, they will undoubtedly be rejected, cheated on, and dumped.

In the same article, a former member describes a well-known dynamic.

“I believed everything, everything. And if you didn’t believe everything… if you go on Red Pill Reddit and you disagree with someone they either delete your comments or they try to make fun of you and shame you. You can’t criticise anything because people will quickly try to diminish you. So I really believed every little thing.”

Needless to reiterate, as the article’s author remarks, everyone has a story and these men should not be taken as a monolith. Their movement is fluid; people come and go on a frequent basis, and whilst what they say might be identical at one point in time, they, as human beings, are not identical.

It’s the philosophy that is toxic, akin to any that is fuelled by bitterness.

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.


Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.


Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.


This Stranger Is Not Your Abuser

The world is currently full of little Hitlers who have lost all trace of humility, seeking to adapt everyone else’s lives to their personal inner reality, from their moral unicorn (as high horse doesn’t cut it anymore), regardless of the devastation they leave behind them.

There is no room for ”I could be wrong”, ”the truth might be somewhere in the middle” or ”this is not my call to make”. There is no longer a middle ground, only extremes. In this reinvented socialist view, internationalism has become reality as one is no longer considered an ”enemy of the state”, but an ”enemy of humanity” if they disagree with them. They are the ones promoting international standards for what people should do, consume, say, believe or express in the form of art, as well as the creation of institutions to enforce these standards. 

Reminding them of their own fallibility disrupts their narrative and fantasy of heroism.

Social justice warriors are in love with abstract concepts, even if they are empty of true meaning since their meaning keeps being changed by the system as time passes. Equality, inclusion, civilisation. They refer to a civilised society when describing acts of revolting cruelty such as the state tearing families apart without good cause and fail to see their verbal confusion.

Today, besides overtly violent extremists of all kinds, the ones to fear are these tyrants in hippie ”skins”, constantly talking about love, tolerance and human rights, while being capable of or supporting radical acts without batting an eyelid. You see some of them gnash their teeth, snarl or shake with anger when they talk about love and harmony, whilst others are as jolly as they would be on Christmas morning before other people’s unimaginable misery. 

And you know they’re not all there just by looking at them.


Today I’m angry. Really angry.

Understandably, many abused people pour their frustrations out on-line, sometimes seeing their situation reflected onto others they come across.

However, they should think twice before publicly convicting those who are accused of wrongdoing in dubious circumstances, just because some of the details look similar to their own saga. Their inner need for justice is understandable, as long as they don’t drag potentially innocent people into their repetitive game of seeking satisfaction, to the point of having a wank at the thought of someone else’s life being destroyed.

People with a perpetual ax to grind can truly be dangerous. What is it with this phenomenon of the oppressed becoming oppressors, losing the need for objectivity? Why don’t they even question their radicalism and motives?

It seems some of the countries considered the epitome of European civilisation have run out of tolerance for Christians. Not being one myself, I can’t be accused of bias, but I do see how parents are cornered by schools for teaching their children what is ultimately a peaceful dogma. It seems youngsters should be increasingly careful not to mention their religion, for fear of staff accusing their parents of indoctrination and reporting them to the nanny state, full of benevolent bureaucrats who sound like genuine psychos. From there on it’s an effort to pin crimes on them and separate their families forever.

However flimsy such a case may be, taking shortcuts around laws to accelerate matters, there will always be gleeful spectators applauding what they call an efficient system. In their eyes, if there is any suspicion of maltreatment, even if there is no evidence at all or there is  more evidence against the claims, it’s best to ”be safe”. Because tearing children from their parents’ arms or kidnapping them form school, as a preventive measure, is a ”safe” and ”civilised” thing to do.

The ease with which some people affirm that is truly disturbing. I wonder if society itself is becoming sociopathic on some level, by conditioning people to accept inhuman acts as normal. 

The fact that one can remain passive before the account of a heart-breaking forced separation, reminiscent of what the Nazis and communists did in olden days, indicates a frightening lack of empathy, coming from those who show it in other situations. If a state institution arranged such a radical measure, in their view it must be justified, however horrible the consequences are for those involved.

In fact, rules-before-decency is an all-pervasive mentality in the numerous occasions of SJW’s getting people fired for laughable trifles. They have no empathy whatsoever.

Instead of hoping for the best, it almost feels like they want investigators to scrape some kind of evidence together and make the separation permanent, just so they can sleep more easily by confirming the state was right after all. 

People with a harsh upbringing or who have been blatantly abused tend to worship this kind of institution and by default demonise the people it targets, regardless of how the case actually looks. They are joyful whenever children are taken from their parents, even without a shred of evidence. They all but clap with this sinister, vomit-inducing satisfaction, as if all the suffering were somehow wonderful.

When planning their utopia, socialist types leave nothing to chance – or choice. They will ”keep people safe” from birth to death, even against their will. Even if it destroys them. Even if it kills them or makes them commit suicide.

They will make victims out of those who argue – to the point of shouting – that they are not victims. They will attempt to save those who don’t need or want to be saved, just to feel better on their white unicorn.

Take this situation for another relevant example; it’s a Red Pill video entitled Social Justice Warriors: Helping People to Death (And Getting Rich While Doing It). It details a marital incident the media got involved in on behalf of the wife, against her will, resulting in her husband losing his job and no good coming out of it whatsoever.

The same happens on those blessed recovery forums, which are basically break up assistance services, not caring about the truth but always applying the same formula to any case brought to their attention. Time and time again, members lash out and get back (in their own minds anyway) at the ones who hurt them by influencing others. And when they successfully do so and a couple splits because of their direct intervention, they congratulate themselves and each other for that accomplishment .

There is something morbid about social justice warriors. They seem to feed on misery – including when obviously avoidable – and glorify it.