Tag Archives: indoctrination

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 disappointed women end up on forums about narcissists and psychopaths).

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.

Refusing Doubt – The Mental Barricade Of Religion

Having had many conversations with religious people over the last few weeks, Christians to be precise, I have come to some conclusions regarding their attitude towards the idea of an equal society, where all beliefs or lack thereof are respected in the same manner.

Religions based on proselytism seek the political domination of the area they exist in.

When living in the midst of a religious majority, in countries where laws are generally inspired by secular principles , non-believers are tolerated as long as they are not too vocal or, Heaven forbid, they try to influence or change the status quo by eliminating dogma from laws or politics, seeking to ensure religion is not imposed in any neutral environment, shared by all.

If and when non-believers raise concerns in that sense and try to diminish the imagined superiority of said majority to dictate how things are run (as it happens in the case of LGBT rights or contesting the role of religion in education), the backlash is immediate and comes with a seasoning of moral outrage.

They have no doubt regarding their right to impose their dogma on others. They refer to tradition, as if it were unheard of for traditions to change. And suddenly, they refer to themselves as a monolith, throughout history, although nothing could be farther from the truth.

Respecting others’ beliefs is a false claim, when what they really seek is to “save your soul”.

Intricate mental gymnastics are employed when trying to justify to themselves that agnostics or atheists, when formerly religious at least, are automatically wrong to have abandoned their beliefs. I will paraphrase some of the replies given to me:

Your soul is, really, crying out for God, otherwise you wouldn’t have this preoccupation of sharing your opinion on this subject. Those who contest God the most are those who need him the most.

You must’ve had some emotional problems, of feeling unloved, so you turned against God and all you claim as evidence is just confirmation bias for your decision.

It’s all about your ego, as if you had a brand new toy you want to show off.

All this, as if searching for truth were not a purpose in and of itself, as well as the refusal to believe in a lie (or a potential lie, when at the doubting stage).

This brotherly love, in this particular context, turns queasy, since one realises they are sometimes treated with kindness in the communal hope that they might one day be brought back to Jesus.

Respect for a person’s mental faculties does not enter this context, let alone and admission of the possibility that the person might be correct, at least partially. This so-called goodness is a masturbatory exercise, anticipating to be proven right in the near or far future.

Which makes sense, really; you don’t apply a modicum of consideration to someone else’s processes when you are convinced your point of view will be vindicated sometime by an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Which is why religion is so toxic when it comes to human interaction.

They accuse others of Neo-Marxism while arguing for the propagation of potential falsehoods “for the good of the collective”.

The world would crumble without religion. We would revert to a beastly nature and society would dissolve. Everyone arguing against the respect for dogmas is playing a part in a Neo-Marxist conspiracy to deprive mankind of its divine connection.

It appears as though this modern red scare, becoming clearer by the day, could not have succeeded in adding to the ideological tension, internationally, without the aid of religion. Whereas the left does exaggerate (and it often does), a new type of hysteria has arisen over the last few years, proved to be partially pushed by online Russian propaganda. Namely the right and far-right’s conviction that there is an international conspiracy, rooted in atheism or satanism or both, to eradicate the “true religion”, namely Christianity, through reforms demanded by the left.

Whilst more eccentric theories such as the belief in reptilians or a flat Earth are not so widespread, for obvious reasons, the theory of a sustained persecution of Christians in secular countries is something in the vein of Ebola. It stretches from lamenting the so-called war on Christmas (which they still see as genuinely connected to Jesus, despite undeniable evidence to the contrary), to congregations warned of the dangers of vaccines, seen as a tool of depopulating the planet (again, in spite of all evidence of the diseases now eradicated through vaccination).

There is no end in sight to this. Just as the radical left is driven by a false sense of knowing it all and having absolute moral superiority, the religious right is driven by the presumed need to defend the status quo “in the name of God”.

There is a truck-load of cognitive dissonance regarding what is known and unknown about God.

On the one hand, when discussing this world’s atrocities and the apparent divine uninvolvement in them, Christians for instance claim God’s reasons are unknown, and therefore cannot be judged by us mortal, limited humans. That is the basic response to every question involving why does God allow so and so to happen.

On the other hand, and sometimes in the very next breath, a Christian will claim to speak for God, by claiming this is what God wants or does not want, this is what God feels and this is what God will do.

No comment needed here.

The unwillingness to doubt implies a lack of basic intellectual honesty in debating non-theists.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of religion is its power to provide unwavering convictions to its propagators, to the point of rendering them unwilling, and through that temporarily incapable of opening themselves up for an honest debate.

Since their stance is combative from the very beginning, coming from a point of presumed moral superiority, there is no getting through to them with hardcore data or logical arguments. These just do not penetrate that shield of apriori “nothing you say will ever make me doubt”.

Which renders the whole conversation rather pointless.

Confessions Of A Former Homophobe

Religious tolerance is on everyone’s lips nowadays, yet increasingly difficult to sustain, depending on the circumstances. Tolerance is far more easily attained when equality is present – when a religious group cannot push back the rights of others, justifying it as a crusade and needing no other reason than that.

For me personally, as an agnostic (regarding the possibility of a universal order, yet not regarding the artificiality of existing dogmas), this is not directed at one in particular, but rather at the concept of having a state religion, whether officially consecrated in laws or not.

This comes in the context of my country of origin, Romania, being in the process of “defending the traditional family” by modifying the Constitution to have it state that marriage is “between a man and a woman”, by this making sure that any attempt of legalising gay marriage will not be successful in the near future. As things are now, 70 to 80% of voters agree to this measure, partly driven by the feeling that there is an international conspiracy to subvert Christian nations. This is disseminated through part of the media and on a large scale, in churches.

And I can say, not without a fair amount of shame, that a few years ago I used to think like them, when this delusion added to the Christian base of my education. In order to see religion realistically, one must step outside of it and look at it from a distance, just like one has to when wanting to see the whole mountain and cannot do so while sitting under a tree at the foot of it.

In order to see the poison, the distortion and brainwashing one is subjected to when growing up in a religious country.

In this political context, of the need for a culture shift in order for everyone to have equal rights, a false need for preservation is foisted in people by propaganda, which makes them think a so-called soulless western world seeks to upturn their values and impose a Neo-Marxist tyranny upon them. Nothing could be more false.

They are arguing for a fossilised ideal, which was never a reality and can never be – the so-called sacredness of the traditional family, which is, as we speak, laden with a large number of divorces, child abandonment, infidelity and insecurity, on every level.

Moreover, their views on gay people are even more divorced from reality. Their main argument resides in the Bible, in a country which is not a theocracy, yet has managed to maintain a level of religiosity and ignorance enviable by Middle-Eastern theocracies.

For a member of Parliament to cite the Bible as a reason for discriminating against part of the population they are representing seems unreal in 2017, yet that is the reality.

And this reality is quite grim. Because gay people cannot wait for a few generations to enlighten themselves. They need these rights now. In this day and age, they are living as couples in secrecy, because of the risk of facing a backlash if found out. In the current year, in Europe, this is totally out of place. And yet, when this is debated by politicians, Biblical views are cited as relevant.

It’s quite baffling, really, the influence these archaic, unfounded views continue to have.

That other people’s sky goblins have to be shown reverence, or at least a modicum of respect, by those who do not believe in them.

That anyone should think an infringement on their presumed right to discriminate is an infringement on their “freedom of religion”.

Religious brainwashing is not limited to the countries where violence against infidels is encouraged. Christians lead their own “holy wars”. And some of them explicitly target people who are born with a different sexual orientation, and who have done so throughout history.

 

Social Justice: How To Brainwash Your Kids Into Insurgency

Hush little baby, don’t you cry,
Just throw a rock at a passer-by;
Take that Batman hat off your head,
Here’s a balaclava to wear instead;
And when you’re bored with that toy gun,
Momma’s gonna buy you a real one;
A few Molotovs are always tops,
You can just fling them back at cops,
And if your great plans happen to fail,
A Swiss knife to dig yourself out of jail.

 

No, this commentary is not based on a documentary about Chairman Mao’s young supporters or the Leninist period. It is based on enthusiastic advice given to parents of white children by people who live in a democratic, developed country, namely the USA, in our current year.

Forget the “racially unaware uncle” at the Thanksgiving table (though fears of this particular type have generated so much material over the last few days, with feminists handing out emotional methods of coping with opinionated relatives). Move straight to your children; after all, indoctrinating them about “privilege” and “oppression” will be so much easier.

You can start by enthusiastically presenting violent, quasi-terrorist groups as role models.

That advice involves, among other things, listing Black Lives Matter as an inspirational movement, which can be a great source of education for them. Yes, the people who lute and vandalise their own cities, calling for the death of police officers (even while provided security by them in real-time) and carrying out racially motivated assaults on random strangers. Apparently, these are the people youth should admire and actively support. Or even emulate, as I understand it.

And remember: if your child is not interested in this type of activism, just insist some more. It’s not like this would ever be classed as indoctrination and setting them up to join the ranks of rioters, before they can properly tie their shoelaces.

It’s not like that’s what ISIS types do to their young generations, drumming ideological justifications for indiscriminate violence against strangers into their heads since they start understanding spoken language.

Even if conversations don’t go quite as you planned, make sure to keep talking to your kids.

They may not understand everything right now, but as they get older, they will slowly get it.

Also, you can convince your children that their president is a monster and the responsibility is theirs to change the country in the future.

In this article titled “How to talk to your kids about Donald Trump’s win“, the author envisages a grim picture of frightened, disenfranchised children with no hope for tomorrow.

And that’s the thing: Kids will be sad. And scared. And confused. And rightly so. (…)We can let them share their fears, and soothe them, but we also need to understand that this should not be theirs alone to carry. They should not have to bear the burden of this day as adults do.

Aside from the fact that this is dramatically presented as a natural disaster or war situation, one can’t help but wonder why those kids would be so scared in the first place; surely they didn’t wake up like that the morning after the election.

If this fear is real, it must have come after a long time of incessant fear-mongering from the adults around them, presenting this neutral situation (a change in political leadership), which kids otherwise might not have cared about at all, as the end of the world.

Of course, then come the words of encouragement and comfort. Not consisting of, let’s say, reassurance that life is very unlikely to change substantially and it will follow its course. Although mentions of that possibility are made, the author writes this below:

We can explain that we will continue to write and create. We will continue to advocate for what we believe in. We will march and protest and rally.

We can tell them we know that so much of what we are up against is systemic, and that we’re not going to be able to just usher in a hopeful new way of being unless we proactively tear down these systems we’re up against. (…)

And once we do this, then we can begin to rebuild.

Nothing to see here; just the planning of a socialist revolution in which kids are invited to partake, at least psychologically. Comforting indeed! Oh wait…

We can liberate our children with our vision for the next generation. “I wanted it to be my generation,” we can tell them. “But now, I can work towards making sure it is yours who makes this change.”

This of course does not take into account the possibility that said generation could have a completely different vision for the future. I don’t suppose that idea can ever penetrate a progressive skull – that once they are able to think for themselves, their kids might actually not share that political persuasion. They’re already working towards making sure that never happens.

This is a dark, dark time. But we need to hold our children close. We need to let them be children. We need to empower them. And we need to take a deep breath, regroup, and show them with our actions that we are continuing the crucial activism work that has never been more important than it is right now.

It’s almost as if kids had these expectations of activism, as opposed to the adults around them. As if they couldn’t just be left alone to enjoy life.

So there you have it. Off with the baseball cap, kid; on with the balaclava. You were born a revolutionary.

 

Religion And Creativity

Some say religion, as a spiritual matter which does not interfere with most other aspects of a person’s life, is relatively harmless if one does not engage in proselytism and bigotry. There is at least one instance, to my knowledge, of it interfering with someone’s vocation, when said vocation is artistic and involves creativity, which is based on free thought.

Below I will detail a few qualms I personally dealt with as a writer, for years on end, back when I considered myself a Christian (though never a practicing one).

Unless it glorifies God, all art is supposed to be pointless

Writing for the love of it is therefore a fruitless endeavour one only wastes time on, unless their purpose is to convey a message which is in accordance with religious teachings. Which basically invalidates everything related to purely human experience, including the dubious and sinful, from religion’s point of view. Logically, it would put writings which are intended as morally neutral in the same category. Investing one’s limited days on Earth, energy and emotion into something vacuous would therefore be a waste of time.

One is told they are either “of God” or “of the world” and should not become attached to anything the world offers, as it is a distraction from salvation. In this context you can end up asking yourself if writing is really worth it, if it may well be in vain.

The energy flow and writer’s block

Being stuck in a restrictive paradigm means filtering every thought through your value system, automatically, without even being conscious of it. This leads to strong internal conflict as you’re actually repressing and censoring yourself. For a person who naturally thrives on the creative act, that can be soul-destroying.

Writer’s block, I suspect, might be directly related to this process of limiting or stopping the transcendental flow of energy and the connection to the collective subconscious, which allows access to ancestral wisdom. Dismissing intuition; stopping budding thoughts and hypotheses about the world can only lead to stagnation, which is an unnatural state for the creative mind.

We often hear of  artistically prolific people using substances which stimulate the mind, making it race, to the point of achieving revelations (non-religious ones) about this confusing human experience. More often than not, when expressed, their findings ring true to many others; they are relatable as they strike a chord inside their very core. They gain access to timelessness, to values and ideas far beyond the preconceptions every human being is brought up with.

Filtering thoughts through the tight net of religious permissions means slowing the mind, missing the mark, being constantly thrown off course and never reaching those higher states, unless they can be associated with religious origins. The mind wastes away trying to reconcile the natural and the artificial in order to excel; it’s basically like living with a disease which halts development. One’s path is littered with minutiae, with the imaginary guilt of having violated the ultimate law.

We can plainly see that in the SJW generation as well, as it treats ideologies much like religious dogmas. Every minutia becomes an issue and reality itself is reduced to a source of constant discontent.

 Adult humour and adult themes in general

Though the whole message of a book might not be to actually promote principles contrary to religious teachings, even the inclusion of down-to-earth situations with a neutral attitude can seem “problematic” (I have developed an allergy to that word since SJWs have started using it so frequently, but it is appropriate here).

As someone who employs humour and humorous contexts as often as possible, I’ve found myself coming up with some which were hilarious yet involved sex outside of marriage, adultery, prostitution etc, with no condemnation whatsoever or negative consequences arising from those situations. Which is when I started asking myself – am I promoting this? Am I contributing to the minimisation of the negative effects these aspects have? If I published this, would it be able  to impact someone negatively, even in the slightest?

This is the level of needless guilt someone can experience because of indoctrination, instead of reveling in the fact that they have an open mind (and heart) and refuse to condemn others for behaviours society regards as transgressions. It’s not promotion of said lifestyle choices but merely describing facts of life. Whitewashing life is not possible. We are all prone to error; I know from experience that the little wisdom I have acquired is a result of making mistakes and analysing them in hindsight.

Language

As are risks and mistakes, profanity is also part of life; obstinately choosing a “clean” vocabulary deprives characters of their individuality, of their spontaneity. Letting the energy flow, engaging with the situations they are facing, makes language flow as well, in a multitude of directions.

When you allow that, they take on a life of their own, so to speak, independently of your views and standards of optimal behaviour. Or language.

Proselytism and propaganda

It’s only natural for writers to approach narratives which are close to their hearts and values. And it can be amazing as long as characters are allowed to be individuals with fully developed personalities and not just automatons or loudspeakers for a certain point of view – which religion can certainly cause.

The risk of pedantic, preachy dialogues, I fear, is directly proportional to the level of indoctrination in a certain direction (not necessarily religious, of course). And it’s then that it becomes transparent and feels artificial, and obviously appeals less to others.

There is definitely more to say on this subject, yet these are some important points, hopefully useful as well.