TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
- Hide Preview | 45 Comments | submitted 5 months ago by Ayrab4Trump [Post Locked]

*(This is a "Request* *F**or* *C**omment" of idea being put forth)*
(This theory relates to TRP in that it wishes to counter the current decline which this sub recommends to enjoy and not bother trying to fight. Yet it was this decline that has landed many readers on this sub like so many of us did a few years ago.)



The current leftist/progressive/SJW ideology can be treated as a single religious group - a meta-religion. One that is not proclaimed directly but rather is made manifest in the aggregate actions of the aforementioned entities.

By approximating these overall actions of said groups as those of members of single meta-religion trying to impose their faith upon the rest of us by force or by politics, we can better predict the actions of the left and put forth a defense against them by invoking the the spirit of Thomas Jeffersonian separation of Church & State.



I will first present how leftist, progressives & SJWs are acting in a manner which can easily be described as a religion.

  1. Dogmatic and will not cede to dissenting opinions
  2. Followers accept bulk of ethos as religious canon
  3. Their priesthood whips their followers into a frenzy
  4. They aim to produce fervent/zealot/fanatical members
  5. Have language police
  6. Have thought police
  7. Tolerates having literal roving gangs of members beat-up or threaten non-believers
  8. Become irrationally intolerant of others in a moment's notice if identified as heathen
  9. Like increasing drug tolerance, desires ever more ultra-orthodox displays of devotion to attain 'true' follower status amongst peers
  10. Is constantly proselytizing
  11. Will not leave you be; doesn't believe in live and let live
  12. Desire to take over institutions in order to promote their meta-religion
  13. If given power in government immediately move to spread their faith regardless if it usurps prior culture
  14. If given power over education system immediately moves to indoctrinate your children as de-facto practitioners of their faith
  15. Highly hypocritical and uses double standards when applying criticism to their own kind vs outsiders
  16. Often does not shy from lying at the drop of a hat if it furthers their ideology
  17. Will conspire with other members against enemies
  18. Doesn't mind sacrificing even their own members if it furthers the agenda
  19. Has subgroups that can splinter and start sectarian in-fighting amongst themselves (usually ignored)
  20. Bristles at being called a 'cult'

The list could have more entries, but these actions are that of a group that is not just cult-like, but also an organized self replicating religious group.

This is significant because if the leftists were treated like the religion they are, it would be obvious that other members of actual religious groups would demand they not be allowed to pass laws as per their faith. Other faiths would demand their religion's tenants be promoted into law, just the same. At the least they would ask that there is a live-and-let-live law that doesn't allow any one religion/sect totally over power the electorate.


Indeed, freedom of religion means we don't have to be forced into any one else's. Thought & speech policing are exactly the opposite of the first amendment when done by one religious body over non-believers! From this viewpoint it is clear what the counter argument for the current political leftist narrative is. They hide behind the fact they are not a pronounced faith so that you may avoid considering the "leave me the fuck alone" defense when they politicize to you.


SUGGESTIONS:Already we see how badly they react when they are called out directly for cultist group behavior. This informs our approach: attach the 'meta-religion' moniker to them via social media until it virally spreads and memes its way into derivative incarnations.

At the least it could cause those on the sidelines to slowly red-pill themselves. At best it might even get a few NPCs to also face a larger reality which breaks them out of their spell.


Feed back, criticism, opinions are welcome.

[-] Beegoop 16 Points 5 months ago

Many (if not all) of the same things you listed can be applied to people on the opposite end of the spectrum, and it's pretty blatant at that.

Not saying that it's not true (though HEAVILY contrived), but your suggestion is literally number 17 on your own list.

Now I'm not going to go into how pretty much all 20 of your observations can be applied to your group since I don't give a fuck, but this is pretty much

15 Highly hypocritical and uses double standards when applying criticism to their own kind vs outsiders

That AND this post has nothing to do with TRP at all, you are rallying for a cause that serves you, not the community here. Your post is an outlier here, and is part of the decline you speak of. This isn't a politics sub. Men here shouldn't waste their time on shit like that. The front page of the sub is surprisingly decent at the moment, save for this pathetic post.

[-] GayLubeOil 10 Points 5 months ago

If you think that cultural redirection via school and media behavioral conditioning doesn't have downstream effects on sexual strategy your a subhuman retard.

Feminist have been chanting the personal is political for 40 years. So yes sexual strategy is political which is why the Red Pill is frequently subject to political attacks.

But whatever Normtards like you don't understand second order effects and causality.

[-] Beegoop 5 Points 5 months ago

Not saying that it's not true (though HEAVILY contrived)

You can relax now. Nowhere did I side with them, and I've already said in another comment here I don't even fuck with the PC shit they pull.

This post however is strictly political, and only serves to ask the community to take part in "an attack" on progressives on social media. A request by someone with no leadership position; this is literally a guy sitting in his chair at home talking about meming shit into existence. Shit is sad, almost like you calling me a normtard because shit like that will never catch on in real life, you can say it on the internet, but it's never going to benefit you in a tangible way.

Now unless you actually took part in the action, I think it's safe to say that this post is pretty fucking garbage, since you'd be "a subhuman retard" if you're living in the US in 2018 and don't already know that liberals can be awful - just like those on the right, or any other group you don't like.

So yeah bro, I hope you're doing your part fighting the good fight, I can't wait to see #meta-religion trending on twitter.

[-] GayLubeOil 7 Points 5 months ago

I'd definitely call you a normtard in real life just as I called Samantha Bee a whore on National Television. Does going on television and taking on the lugenpresse constitute taking action?

[-] Beegoop 0 Points 5 months ago

Never said you couldn't, but you better have a dank meme like a pepe to back it up. Gotta go full meme when it counts right?

And I have no idea who you are bro, and it's looking like that shit doesn't matter in the least. So you can hold onto that merit if you want, but much like myself you're just some dude on the internet. Obviously it wasn't remotely big news.

No one gives a fuck what you did or do, but I hope you're a frontrunner for your cause. I respect the enthusiasm. Mad props for calling some bitch a whore, you sure got her with that one I'm sure.

[-] GayLubeOil 1 Point 5 months ago

I'm the guy who called Samantha Bee a whore on national television. So whatever your defeatest attitude is, I'm not buying.

[-] Beegoop 1 Point 5 months ago

God damn bro you're the one that came to me all pissed because you read past the shit in my original post.

Nobody knows who the fuck you are and I certainly don't give a fuck who you are. Beyond your contributions here to this sub you're a nobody and I couldn't give a shit.

Like I said, you can hold onto that merit if you want like a badge of honor, but just know that it doesn't mean shit. No one gives a fuck my guy, and obviously it's not getting you any brownie points, so whatever your elitist attitude is, just know that nobody is buying.

[-] GayLubeOil 4 Points 5 months ago

Someone's angry because their passive nihlism got challenged. If the world has meaning and things are possible there is a compulsion to act. You don't like that idea and ur angry

[-] Beegoop 1 Point 5 months ago

Mistaking anger for disbelief text on the internet is very common for some of you guys. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it and create an alternative argument brodie, my main points still stand as this post slinks off the front page of the sub.

Try to deflect all you want but I'm done here. Hit me up when your merit/name has some actual weight.

[-] GayLubeOil 3 Points 5 months ago

Maybe I'm not that famous but at least I'm not retarded enough to think that antiFeminism is apolitical

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

Ah yes - the trickle down media whore imagery.

How could I forget?

[-] [deleted] 5 months ago
[-] Poolooloo 5 Points 5 months ago

Only one side of the political spectrum is hostile to straight men. Bottom line is the progressive agenda harms us.

[-] Ayrab4Trump 3 Points 5 months ago


You should be able to take each point and try to see if you’ve ever seen both an actual religious group do so as well as the progressives mentioned here.

You’ll be hard pressed to find TRP have roving gangs or affecting policy decisions.


I’m thinking more of the reported #MeToo, false allegation, honey potting stunts that have been spoken about here and other parts of the internet. Not much conspiring when it’s a public forum that asks to call a spade a spade.


I don’t think I said anything hypocritical. If you mean to say there are similarities with other groups, yeah that’s the whole point : to group them as such so you can apply common strategy.


We have laws on the books about religions. People have pre-existing belief structures about religion. this can make it easier for the TRP user to succinctly explain away why he doesn’t need to abide by the whim of some other faith.

Also, ideology is actually too weak of a description - it doesn’t guarantee fervent organization. “Cult” would have been better, but it’s too inflammatory, and gets dismissed. Religion is gentler yet broad enough to illustrate the farther reach, effort & suggest maybe even cursory resistance.


This actually is the chief reason for the need for this sub. The decline is the way it is because many like us have done nothing while it continues unabated.

This isn’t an “attack” on politics like how u mention to /u/GayLubeOil. Rather this is a very small “a-ha” relaxation you can give to anyone on the streets without involving TRP concepts.

Again, this was an RFC for feedback, so I appreciate your concern.

[-] GayLubeOil 10 Points 5 months ago

America is transitioning from a system of democratic capitalism to Singapore style totalitarian capitalism. The key thing to understand here is that rowdy American cowboyism isn't profitable and needs to be subdued so that more money can be extracted. Thats basically the job of large Human Resource departments: beat down unpredictable authenticity and replace it with profitable conformity

This whole SJW feminism is just Human Resources on a large scale. The goal, and their not shy about telling you this is a full blown cultural transformation.

This cultural transformation is happening very fast. Movies from our childhood like 40 year old virgin would never ever be made now. If we use film as a cultural record, it's obvious shit is going down very fast.

Anyway these SJWs are a product of a cohesive system. What we're seeing is an Top Down American Color Revolution no different from Ukraine.

So really we can sit around shitting know Feminists. Sure it's fun and I definitely indulge. The key thing to remember here is that their retards being used for a very specific purpose.

[-] GodOfDinosaurs 0 Points 5 months ago

So you're saying that "SJW" ideology is a product of capitalism and it's being forced on us by corporate HR to sustain profits.

Your analysis never fails to amuse me.

[-] [deleted] 5 months ago
[-] xdrunkagainx 9 Points 5 months ago

It's all ripped from Christianity with new names, the most prominent 2 are

The Devil = The Patriarchy, Original sin = White privilege

[-] NormalAndy 1 Point 5 months ago

Don’t forget martyrdom. (Although that’s not worth killing yourself over.)

[-] Watchingculturefade 8 Points 5 months ago

I have had this discussion with quite a few people and completely agree. The idea of "Intersectionality" is absolutely horrible because it is the complete opposite of equality.


Equality is not some power game that needs "IOU's" or whatever else which is what they are saying. Basically, groups that were marginalized (or thought to be marginalized) should be able to marginalize other people so the past is equal.


Intersectionality and the idea that marginalized people should be able to marginalize others back for "equality" is taring the nation apart and creating so much hatred that it is scary.

[-] NormalAndy 1 Point 5 months ago

Next we will have ‘environmentalusm’ Bringing us down to the lowest plant denominator.

Oh wait a minute...

‘Kill yourself for the benefit of others- slowly or quickly.. That is all.’

[-] NormalAndy 1 Point 5 months ago

Next we will have ‘environmentalusm’ Bringing us down to the lowest plant denominator.

Oh wait a minute...

‘Kill yourself for the benefit of others- slowly or quickly.. That is all.’

[-] AllahHatesFags 5 Points 5 months ago

I have been saying this for awhile, very good comparisons you have made. The only issue I have, and it might be just me, is how the term leftist has now become associated with these fanatics. I think there are really two sides to leftism in the US: the economic populist side of Bernie Sanders and the fanatic identity politics/feminist/SJW side of Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillebrand. The economic side makes some good points such as the wealthy Wall St conmen and their crony politicians constantly ripping everyone else off and never getting any sort penalty for doing so and I mostly agree with them. The feminazi side has no place in any civilized society and needs to be eradicated.

[-] TheGoldenLeprechaun 4 Points 5 months ago

It's not just feminists or leftists. Most people you meet are going to be NPCs. The 9-5 from kindergarten through life almost guarantees it. The fact that women usually occupy the median range of all pareto distributions basically proves AWALT. NPCs don't play the game, they're a part of the game, just running their script. And I'm not sure if further misuse of the word religion would help anyone. I think calling them what they are (NPCs) is doing just fine.

[-] Dino227 4 Points 5 months ago

Good comparisons. I'm interested to see what others add to this.

[-] trpthrowcatch 3 Points 5 months ago

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. None of that is the definition of religion, and even if it was it would describe basically everything, including Conservatism and TRP. Want an example?

Dogmatic and will not cede to dissenting opinions

TRP is the worst with this. I have to post on this throwaway account instead of my main account because my main account was banned for disagreeing with a mod on one of their posts, a post that generated so many people disagreeing that they had to make another post addressing these people (of course banning them all). And this throwaway will probably be banned for this dissenting opinion as well.

The real definition of religion is:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

The word you're looking for is ideology:

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

[-] TheStumblingWolf 3 Points 5 months ago

I totally get what op is trying to say though. I've been thinking similar thoughts. If there's a better description for it I'd love to know. Not asking you directly, just making an observation.

[-] Beegoop 1 Point 5 months ago

You've been having similar thoughts because his 20 assertations are heavily contrived. It's obvious that he is "against" liberals/leftists/progressives/whatever name you want to call them, so his words are weaponized. It's the whole reason he wants to convice readers to go waste time on social media and try make his bullshit "go viral" and "meme" it the fuck up.

You can say those same 20 things about near any other political group and even "actual religions" (like he says) and find that most of them ring true.

Again, this doesn't mean that it's wrong, but this is not something unique to progressives at all, and that's coming from someone who's not with the PC shit or the far right donald shit. This is a huge shitpost that can only backfire on TRP and its users, especially with mods already trying to get out of this dumb appeal mess.

OP is literally asking that you go out and stir shit up to further an agenda, which is one of the things he talks about.

There's really no description for it, it's just seeing shit for what it is. Everyone has an agenda, everyone thinks they're right.

And that's why this post actually goes AGAINST TRP because you (speaking in general terms here) shouldn't be concerning yourself with shit like this, this does nothing for you. This doesn't build on TRP ideologies at all, no one who reads this post can learn anything that will benefit them in any meaningful manner. This is purely a political post. I'd say the same if OP was a staunch liberal with rainbow hair advocating the same thing for those on the right.

[-] TheStumblingWolf 3 Points 5 months ago

When I said "similar thoughts" I guess I should've been more specific. I simply meant that I'd contemplated the fact that I find certain similarities between modern feminists and cultists. Nothing more. Considering what you just wrote that'd make sense.

And no, I don't believe in tackling them as such. At least not like op suggests. That'll just confirm what they already think about all men. I prefer to just avoid types like that. While I still can (I'm not in the us)

[-] GodOfDinosaurs 2 Points 5 months ago

Have you actually read well-regarded feminist literature though or do you just read what's filtered to you through echo chambers? I mean right off the bat there is serious and energetic disagreement among feminists of different tendencies. That's about the opposite of a cult.

[-] Watchingculturefade 3 Points 5 months ago

"Have" to post on a throwaway account?


Why? You seem to have a problem with the word "religion" which is fine, but the ideology has all the representation and actions of a religion including modern day blasphemy.

[-] johnpayne10 3 Points 5 months ago

I think what the op is trying to do here is compare liberals/leftists and feminists with a religious group. Most religions are outdated, rigid, not compatible with other religions. As far as the whole politics part is concerned, I know that TRP does not ally with any political party. But if you see the bigger picture, TRP falls more in line with conservatives. More like a modern version of conservatives.

I cannot see TRP principles being in line with the likes of Hillary Clinton or Obama. Leftists go hand in hand with feminism and anti-male shit. (I know it is not all leftists... Unfortunately the ones at the top, media, corporate sector, all ally to form a dangerous opposition. Which certainly goes against Trp principles.)

[-] CowboyEpicurus 3 Points 5 months ago

If you’re going to make an argument then it needs to have inferences. I’m not condescending you but I see this all the time and it makes for shitty posts.

Step 1: Postulates, Common Notions, and Axioms These are your “givens” aka things you ask the reader to accept at first blush because they can’t really be proven but seem self evident enough to claim anyways. Either that or the terms are regularly usernames among the audience with mutual understanding so its definition needn’t belaboring.

Step 2: Premises and Inferences Okay. Now we have your first principles, what are you going to do with them? These are your thoughts and observations about the things from Step 1. Most of the things you have posted, OP, are unconnected premises. An inference is an idea that relates premises, it justifies part of an argument. For example, GayLubeOil is a man, all men are mortal. Therefore, we can infer that GayLubeOil is mortal. Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant. The point is that your premises should always be connected, and there should always be a conclusion that follows from them. You don’t need to give the reader the Moon and the Stars with any arbitrary thing you write. His means carefully selecting the ideas you wish to talk about. Maybe select one or two attributes of this so-called “meta religion,” see how they connect, and introduce an inference about this connection that the reader probably hasn’t thought of.

Step 3: Conclusions

After your argument is presented talk about what’s at stake in the practical world. There is a huge emphasis here on practicality as opposed to theorizing. Theory is interesting, but if it can’t be related to something at stake in the real world then what use is this theory to me? Sometimes this isn’t necessarily self-evident. This means you will have to effectively convey why your idea can improve someone’s life.

Also don’t be a pussy about criticism.

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

1: Well, for the audiences i'm sharing this with I was expecting to just list out my observations within the context of the subject matter and it should be enough for the reader to 'get it'. Of course if this was going to be fleshed out i would need to elaborate by giving examples of each one. Are you saying i should expand on that anyway?

2: The we see disparate actions of these loosely coupled groups. We want to collect them within one umbrella. We would like to show how treating them as such simplifies what the counter argument for disagreeing with them: "I don't have to follow their religion" End of conversation.

3: For example: you may not want your 5yo to be exposed to drag queens and any form of sex (let alone lgtbq sex). If this was a religious practice that was being promoted, you could sue under religious grounds (ie: you don't have to be forced to practice anyone else's religion. An easy argument). However, since we don't treat them like a run of the mill faith, they sort of dodge a whole class of counter arguments and law suits.

I appreciate the writing advice.

[-] CowboyEpicurus 2 Points 5 months ago

So here’s what I had in mind.

Take for example the idea of language policing. For a sound argument to follow this idea it needs to be qualified as something significant. So an argument about it could be something like, “Language policing represents a threat to freedom. If people lack freedom then society is unjust, and since justice is the ultimate political good you should...”

But then, who cares?

Is it a universal violation of freedom? If one person is being subject to language policing then are all people being violated of freedom? Is this somehow unjust? What argument do you have that freedom of language is just?

I know it’s easy to take for grated the fact that the majority of people that read TRP have commensurable views about things like freedom and justice. But on the other hand not everybody does. And it isn’t reasonable to presuppose that those values are somehow “more rational.”

I say this as someone who places a high value on religion. Not that I think you’re wrong, because I think your observations are correct, but I would like to know how you justify calling SJW’s religious. And as someone who doesn’t particularly feel wronged by them, I would like to know why I should take action to suppress their ideology.

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

Ahhh. This is actually NOT what I had in mind.

I don't necessarily want to show that each of those things is a universal evil. That is to say, so what if they are dogmatic and their followers zealots? Who cares? Not by business, right?

They can practice their faith and you can practice your's : to each his own.

However, if you start trying to impose your faith on me by force, now we have a problem. People are very readily conditioned to jump up and down if they perceive any slight when it comes to encroachment of their personal beliefs. Groups are worried about evangelicals passing laws based on their faith; or muslims promoting sharia law; or atheists disallowing jews from circumisions -- one or another of these peoples would be up in arms because they would feel threatened.

So, why then, should we act any different if (in all seriousness) progressives want to pass kindergarten laws in which our children are exposed to sexuality? (And not just any sexuality, but specifically lgbtq; as if that some how "justifies" it). Like, how in the heck does that make any sense? Yet lots of normies find it difficult to explain why they are squeamish about this and wish for it not to happen. If it were another faith it'd be easy.

Only reason they don't think of it is because the progressives project uber-secularity yet act like the church.

That's what I would like the take away to be -- if we nonchalantly consider these far-leftist an organized quasi-religion, then even to those on the sidelines the response for the above example becomes greatly simplified : "stop imposing your faith on me and my children by force."

Notice, how i don't need to explain if it's "right" or "wrong", or what it's "moral" positioning is. It just becomes, 'to you yours and to me mine'. And any attempts at overreach becomes an obvious no-no.

This is where Separation of Church & State really comes into play. Particularity when keeping in mind the original cases in which Jefferson wrote about (back then it wasn't religion vs non-religion; but rather 2 branches of the same religion). We already have laws and precedent on this subject; as well as a pre-exiting way of thinking about it amongst the population. We can tap into that

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

Thank you for the feedback. I’ll respond once I get home.

[-] buster60 2 Points 5 months ago

Why do you call it a "meta" religion? I think it is just a religion.

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

Because it does not announce itself as such.

They proclaim extreme secularism but behave like a church.

[-] NormalAndy 1 Point 5 months ago

Democracy was never about giving away your power- so dont do it.

All groups are self-interested, however promising their initial claims may be. It is the wAy of everything.

[-] Ayrab4Trump 1 Point 5 months ago

But Jefferson's comments about erecting a wall between Church & State was specifically about such groups using politics and power in numbers to act as a mob against a target out-group.

[-] NormalAndy 1 Point 5 months ago

Sure. Now money is the new religion in town, who is building walls between politicians and corporate lobby/ special interest groups?

[-] AutoModerator 1 Point 5 months ago

Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: and our full post archive (and future forums) Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] [deleted] 5 months ago
[-] [deleted] 5 months ago