As I mentioned in my previous piece on how the red pill is a symptom of something deeper, we cannot reduce social trends to mere propaganda, because it doesn't answer the question of why those views come about in the first place. If propaganda is seen as a way to spread beliefs which are completely wrong, then how come those beliefs come about in the first place, and how come the methods of spreading them are so effective if there is nothing true about those beliefs? It is truly absurd to believe that different worldviews come about completely arbitrarily, and are maintained purely through so-called 'propaganda'.
While there is such a thing as propaganda, and such a thing as a deluded worldview, here I want to examine another fundamental reason why the red-pill movement exists in the first place, which is the complete atomization of our social life. Here is the picture that I see: the modern world, being so atomized, forces individuals to interact with one another through screens and dating apps. These interfaces create a huge asymmetry between gender, because women are significantly more desirable than the average man. Even a fairly unattractive, unintelligent and incompetent woman is still desirable because of the overall sweetness of character of women, and on a more cynical side, the possibility of having sex with them. The latter especially is why women receive lots of attention from men, but the opposite is not true. Even men who are successful and attractive have to go out of their way to talk to women, they are not being approached by them the same way that women are being approached by men.
There is nothing wrong with any of that in general, I am not saying that men having to approach women is somehow an unfair social dynamic, but the dominance of dating apps have made this asymmetry incredibly skewed. Whereas in the past, maybe five to a dozen men would approach the same woman in her life, now hundreds, if not more than a thousand men send messages to the same woman through dating apps. The same thing happens with job applications, because of the inevitable consequences of lowering friction, and here again we see a phenomenon where people constantly experience rejection through the interfaces of a system, which also creates radicalization.
Unlike job applications however, dating apps result in a completely asymmetric dynamic with regards to gender, and we can see how gender radicalization happens as a result. It is not the fault of women that they are on the receiving end of this, and I would certainly not say that women benefit from all the attention that they receive, because even though there are so many potential people they could talk to, finding the few people who are generally interested in love has become even harder as a result. Men are correct when they say that a woman could have sex whenever she wants to because of all of attention they receive, and in that very narrow sense they have it easier than men, but what they completely miss is the fact that women do not just want sex, they want a lasting, loving relationship.
Thus, dating apps have been horrible for love for both sides, but whereas the experience of men is one of rejection, the experience of women is one of disappointment. Both of those, over a long period of time, lead to radicalization, which is what we are seeing. But the radicalization is of a different nature in both cases, because of the different experiences that inform them.
Men conclude that the game is rigged, and so they look for better alternatives. This is where we get the pickup movement, that bypasses dating apps through asking out women directly, or the "men going their own way" (MGTOW) movement, which exits the dating game altogether. Women on the other hand feel that men are not interested in love and only interested in sex, and this sense of betrayal makes them turn to more radical forms of feminism. In both cases, the tragedy is that both sides miss the systemic dynamic that lead to the problems to begin with, in this case the atomization of social life, and that love is falling out of this world, and no one seems to notice or even care—pick-up artists and radical feminists alike never talk about love, only about power and selfish interests.
This asymmetry in experience also leads to an asymmetry in discourse. The only ones that feel compelled to talk about the dating world are the disappointed women who went through countless man who did not love them, the men who feel constantly rejected by dating apps, and the men who have learned to treat dating as a sort of game to see how many women they could sleep with, in other words the bastards. What is missing from this selection bias are first of all the happy couples, which are rare, but made to appear even more rare by the fact that they have no reason to talk about their experiences as much. If you are happy with the person you're with, you wouldn't feel the need to talk about them on social media, you would simply spend time with them. And secondly, what is missing from the discourse is of course any talk about love that could help sensitive men and women find one another.
One of the consequences of a world of mass production is the decline of sensitivity in all domains. The work that we do does not require any form of sensitivity or embodiment whatsoever, instead you just do your work like a robot and maintain the production chain of the machine. Likewise, the media that surrounds us is becoming increasingly pornographic in the sense that it is filled with crude stimulation, and thus becomes empty of finer, more wholesome value. That stimulation is not necessarily sexual, though even that is becoming more and more prevalent, but it could also be in the form of drama, action, horror, or cynicism. 1 And lastly, even our relationships and our worldviews are becoming less and less sensitive in the modern world, becoming instead transactional and mediated (by the screens).
Thus it is no surprise that the ideologies that surround us, on the right-wing and on the left-wing, are hardly concerned with love nowadays. Whether it is a brutal incel right-wing worldview that promotes domination, or a seemingly 'kind', 'feminist' left-wing worldview that promotes world peace, we are not asked to love, which is to say to partake in the mysterious union of opposites, but are instead encouraged to dominate, including the domination of the radical feminist, or we are asked to be merely nice, the niceness of the professionals 2 and the people who donate to charities, all of which maintain the very same system which perpetuates atomization, extraction and coercion.
Such a radical version of love does not exist in the system, because genuine differences, such as between men and women, are not allowed to exist. The machine-system has no need for qualitative differences, only quantitative expansion. This is the real reason why the totem of 'diversity' is so important in our times. Notice how we are not asked to partake in other cultures so as to experience their qualitative differences from within, instead every real culture is hollowed out from anything that makes them different, and the only thing that remains are the utilitarian benefits of extracting people from all across the world, and more importantly, all across income classes.
This is why our world of 'high diversity' is dominated by male minds, which are mostly found in young men, but are increasingly also found in women who are corrupted by the technological system, because they are the best at working with the abstractions of the system, why everyone is a tourist in their own country, because every culture has become dead in order to accommodate for the demands of the system, and why the gender differences between men and women are seen as absurdities, perhaps even obstacles to overcome, because as a mere idea, indeed there is no such thing as gender, but as a qualitative, embodied experience, the polarity of gender is as real as the qualitative differences between jazz and rock, or between a Frenchman and a Spaniard, or between an elderly man and a young child.
The solution to social atomization cannot be found in the very same system which created the problem to begin with, nor can it be found in the alienated self which rejects the Other and tries to blame all the problems onto them. Only responsible, loving men and women can bridge the gap that our society keeps perpetuating out of ignorance, and out of social incentives—notice how powerful the red-pill movement has become by appealing to the outrage and despair of young men. Anything which is fundamentally aligned with that system or this alienated self can only perpetuate the very same disorders they pretend to fight, which is of course what gender discourse produces over and over again, not a solution to the problems that we face, not any deep observation about the relationships between men and women, but merely a way to give up personal responsibility and blame all of the problems onto the other side. Beware of any worldview that doesn't ask you to take responsibility for your life.
1 See also Darren Allen's essay on why video games are not an artform, and his essay on Black Mirror, which he classified as pornographic
2 And who nicely asked us to lockdown and take the vaccine during Covid. See also Darren Allen's essay on niceness
Go back to the list of blog posts
Gender Redpill Socialmedia Leftism Atomization
2026-09-28