The red pill blue pill confusion.

You can disagree or agree with anything you'd like regarding the red pill movement, it will still be completely unrelated to my point, also it won't change the fact that the ideology of the movement was always rooted in male supremacy, which is tangible in the way its most prominent figures always leaned toward implicitly or explicitly apologizing rape.

Roosh V, Mike Cernovitch, Milo Yiannoupolos, and more recently Andrew Tate, aren't just any people, these individuals could be considered as the main influencers of the red pill movement, and for good reasons, as they became so popular because their ideas resonate with a lot of individuals, mainly men, including when they made their controversial statements about rape and justifying viewing women as inferior.

It indicates that there's a significant part amongst red-pillers that A) Is unphased by this kind of talk or B) Agrees with it. Otherwise, there would be no way people like Andrew Tate will have such a large-scale reach, despite publicly bragging about his criminal activities, while encouraging violence against women and downplaying sexual assault.

Moreover, addressing the problematic approach the movement has towards rape as a whole isn't the same as blaming actual rape only on the movement. Downplaying rape by methods such as victim-blaming doesn't actively promote it, such bleaches it and makes it more acceptable to consider victims on the same level of responsibility as the perpetrators. Although there are instances where Red-pillers actively justified rape, such as when Roosh V made his blog post.

 

I'd say what I think about this whole redpill situation isn't really the core ideology, more just the harmful effects of social media. TikTok and twitter particularly are spreading echo chambers of straight up toxic masculinity and messed-up justifications of rape. Yeah redpill definitely found its roots in male supremacy movements for sure. But idk, the way the term is used now isn't the same as it used to be. Language is pretty fluent and social media impacts words a lot. So blackpill and other extreme movements are probably closer to what redpill used to be when it wasn't so mainstream. No wonder there's so much confusion.

 

That's clearly not the case, which explains how openly misogynistic figures such as Andrew Tate could co-opt the ideology so easily and gain a platform during the process. This all happened very recently, and it also reflects the current tendencies of the movement, and shows the recent patterns of the red pill ideology.

 

Alright sure, in that way yes. But many anti-Tate conservatives who support traditions and customs like marriage have the red pill anti government ideology too, and they take up a lot of rural America. The Tate people seem like a bigger group because they are mostly online. But I guess we are using different versions of the term "mainstream." Yeah redpill and conservative are different, but I see many "redpilled" commentators on the internet critique a lot of what Tate has to say about women.

For me personally, I liked some of what Andrew Tate had to say in the beginning because I agreed with a lot of his problems with men in today's society. That was before I realized he actually thinks women are inferior and thinks a life of limitless wealth is how to achieve happiness.

 

They aren't and that is clear by how his popularity extends beyond the western world. In my country he is popular as well, to the point I saw some dudes in a cafe watching his content and being very focused on what he says, some of my male coworkers also know about him and follow him. Creek teen boys and young men went outside to protest his arrest despite living miles away from him and only knowing him through internet usage.

The fact that someone like him felt so drawn to the red pill ideology in the first place, and saw it as an ideal mean to promote his ideals proves that the patterns of the movement haven't changed at all. Moreover, Tate is not the only one endorsing misogyny in the red pill movement, there's also the fresh and fit podcast, Sneako, Adin Ross, and more are going to follow. These people and their growing audiences prove that the red pill movement is still the way it was in its early days.

Conservative figures like Piers Morgan have given Andrew Tate a platform by giving him a quite lenient interview. Piers tends to invite and play soft-ball interview with people whose messages may resonate with a significant proportion of his own conservative audience.

Red-pillers and conservatives might have some differences in the way they frame their messages and sometimes even in the content of those messages, however there will always be common patterns in their mindsets, mainly the ones related to male supremacy and toxic masculinity.

 

Ok, I guess I'm not redpilled? Idk, I'm not a supporter of male supremacy or feminism but I'm not gonna go around bragging that I'm a bluepilled sheep. I guess I'm just a skeptical, average citizen of the US I guess.

 

Fuck pornography though

 

If you don't support male supremacy, then you might just as well be a feminist. Because by definition feminism is about opposing male supremacy and supporting gender equality. You might find some extremists in there from time to time, bu they certainly are far from being the majority (when compared to red-pillers and incels) and won't be taken seriously by the rest of feminists.

 

Nah I don't wanna be feminist if it opposes gender equality.

 

I meant that it supports gender equality.

 

You seem like a good kid though, the best advice I might give you is to stay the hell away from the red-pillers and people like Sneako and Andrew Tate. More recently, they started scamming their audiences by promoting MLMs.

 

I was just playing, but I'm good without being a feminist. You're right though I've been making it my goal recently to forget about all the political crap out there and finish growing up before worrying about it.

 

I know, the problem is that believing in gender equality automatically makes you a feminist. Did you read my last answer, the more you stay away from red-pillers, incels and the sneakos and the Tates, the better, these guys are also scamming their audience.

 

I don't think it matters. I don't know what I am in regard to the pills and I don't care. I'm just trying to stay true to my personal values.

 

His conversion to Islam is probably because he believes that the Muslim world is more receptive to misogyny and male supremacy. He's not wrong though, this is the truth, the Arab-Muslim world is more acceptant of machismo compared to the western world.

His conversion to Islam brought in a lot of Arab-Muslim dudes who clearly identify more with his persona.

 

You might want to take into consideration the possibility that his father was indeed in the CIA and that Andrew is working with them as well and is just a plant to cause division. He suddenly popped up in everyone's recommended videos all hence his instant fame, like many celebrities who are overnight sensation due to Youtube simply pushing them to the masses for nefarious agendas.

Was it planned that he gets caught for his crimes? I am not quite sure nor could I be bothered about it to be honest.
It's interesting though that Peterson's daughter "Mikhaila" hung out with him for "Business Purposes". Small world I guess for the fake celebrities.

 

I know that his father used to be in the CIA. But his current popularity might be explained simply by the far-right co-opting him in order to make their ideology more mainstream, by making bots, spreading his Youtube shorts, making fake accounts to boost his online popularity. The same thing happened with Sargon of Akkad between the years 2015 and 2017, when the anti-feminist frenzy was still so hyped.

 

You make it sound as if the "far-right" is so organized, cohesive, independent and powerful!

I know this just wouldn't jibe with you at this time but I will just say it: It's ALL controlled!
Both sides, left, right, far and near up and down. Whatever you want to call it, it's infiltrated and given boosts or brakes as need may be.

In a technological society, it's far easier to monitor everyone, study trends, predict directions and understand the populace. All sides are controlled! There is no truly independent right or left. You think the "far-right" bots can compete with the CIA Youtube/Instagram/Facebook algorithms and bots? Or dedicated staff working 8 hours a day in Unit 8200 or Eglin airbase? What do you think all those guys at the NSA get paid full time to do? Some "far-right" programmer here and there has to make a living and can never compete with full-timers with manuals and instructions that took years to accumulate.

 

Recently, over 4500 coordinated bots were discovered tweeting pro-Tate messages. To understand this, watch the "Alt-Right Playbook" series on YouTube. Personalities like Tate and Sargon of Akkad have been adopted by the right, boosting their popularity, as have the Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro, who are funded and supported by billionaire right-wing endorsers.

This information is common knowledge and highlights the organized, cohesive, and powerful nature of the far-right. On the other hand, the left is not entirely independent but is less susceptible to billionaire co-optation as their message challenges the privileges and benefits of billionaires.

 

"Benjamin Shapiro" is on the right? I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. You need to know your enemy. Benjamin Shapiro is precisely your enemy but the mistake you make is thinking that he is on the right or that he is "white" and not knowing who he really is and whom he works for or rather with.

You are correct, there are bots and there are billions floating around in that direction, but you have to reconsider your position that any "right-wing billionaire" (if they exist anyhow) is truly willing to dish out any amount of considerable money for the "cause". There are billionaires giving out money but they are a cohesive group and not right wing and these same people fund both the right and the left so people can pick sides and make quarrels about "right" vs "left" while the true financiers have their agendas and enjoy the show.

What was Jon Stewart real name again? I must have forgotten it, but why did he change his real name?