Why You Should Swallow The Red Pill

I like my first experience of a film to be unsoiled by public opinion. Too many movies have been ruined by being over hyped, like My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Napoleon Dynamite which everyone screamed I just had to see, you see, because they were just so damn funny it defies words, blah blah blah. Then I spend the entire movie trying to suss out what the hell it was that these people were talking about. Suddenly the credits roll and I feel like I’ve been cheated out of my $15 by some used-car salesman gone movie promoter.

So I watched The Red Pill without having read a single bit of critique or praise, and I was blissfully unaware that so much hype surrounded this documentary. Before the film had even finished I already knew what Google would look like when I went online to read up on what people were saying. What follows isn’t so much a movie review as it is a response to the criticisms that feign intellect in the name of ideological damage control.

Author’s Note: I purposely use the term “leftist” in this article as opposed to “Liberal” in referring to regressive fringe activists. Being a former Liberal I have many friends who still align as Liberals, and I have strong hopes that Liberalism may yet be saved from regressivism. Also, where I refer to “feminism” without qualification, I am referring to third-wave feminism of the modern day, and not to any of its predecessors.

Why Australian Men’s Rights Activists Had Their Bullshit Documentary Banned

This subtly-titled opinion piece by Katherine Gillespie originally appeared in Vice Australia. You can’t really call it a movie review because she doesn’t review the movie at all. Rather, she chews on what feminist activists and their sympathizers have to say about it and spits it back up for her readers like a Mother Heron. She leads off with the story about how an activist successfully got the film pulled from Palace Cinemas in Melbourne (a not-so-subtle hint for other feminist activists.)

Gillespie quotes Susie Smith—the Change.org petition creator to have the movie pulled: “feminist’ [director Cassie] Jaye decides to investigate rape-culture, opens the first hit on Google (Red Pill) and before she knows it, she has seen the light and converted to ‘meninism.'”

So first things first: Susie Smith is full of shit and hasn’t even seen the movie she petitioned to get banned. Nobody decides to investigate “rape culture” on google by searching for “red pill” for starters. They simply search for “rape culture.” What Susie means to say is that she googled “Red Pill” and clicked on the reddit link which is the first result that comes back. Had she bothered to see the film for herself she would have known that the subreddit /r/TheRedPill is a separate phenomenon from A Voice For Men led by Paul Elam, and is NOT the origin of the documentary title. And the funny thing about the term “meninist” is that it was originally a positive term that meant “male feminist.” It was these “meninists” who were collectively self-debasing and socially pathetic to skin-crawling levels of cringe where they themselves caused the term to mean “socially repugnant.” It is telling how quickly feminists turned on these members of their own movement and now use the term to describe opposition to third-wave feminism. The director Cassie Jaye mentions the distinction between TheRedPill subreddit and other factions of men’s rights groups explicitly and very early on.

I hate to think that an explanation on this is warranted, but it is, unfortunately, for reasons I will go into later in this article. Reddit is the grandaddy venue for online trolls. So even if the subreddit shares the same name as the documentary film, and even if the subreddit shares the same topic it is still an online forum where people post incendiary statements with the intent and purpose of causing people to go on the defensive. You cannot compare any actual organization or social movement against an internet forum which enables and cultivates materials which can be intentionally offensive. The year is 2017 and the very idea of online trolling is now old enough to drink at the pub, older than many of the social justice warriors who can only picket from outside the bar. If you are still grappling with this concept and demonstrating an inability to distinguish virtual reality from actual reality then you should sit down and let mature people speak for a change.

The remainder of Gillespie’s piece goes on to smear “guilt by association” on the film with mentions of support from your standard leftist boogymen: Breitbart and Milo Yiannopoulos. By this point Katherine has run out of other people’s original ideas to lift so she pads the bottom of her article with links to delicately titled articles (at the time of publication) to remind us how violent men are: Donald Trump and What Men Say When They Think Women Won’t HearMen Tell Us Why They Cheated, and The Rise of Steroid Use.

The Red Pill: I Watched It, So You Don’t Have To

Moving on to people who actually watch the movies they review, Luke Buckmaster’s piece on the Daily Review heroically tackles the “poison-tasting” and “take-the-bullet” exertion of leftist intellectual effort to ensure that new ideas are suitably Nerf-like before being inserted into the glass museums of leftist minds. It is exactly this kind of intellectual guide-posting that disgusted me as a former Liberal and led me on a journey away from shit-talking action evangelists like Luke Buckmaster. For reasons I fail to comprehend, leftists eat up this “I Think, So You Don’t Have To” intellectual-outback bushwhackery.

The first mortal sin of The Red Pill, apparently, is that it ran 25 seconds longer than your typical documentary films’ running time of 90 minutes. Okay, that’s not what Luke says, but you definitely get the sense that his patience has already run thin by this point. He goes on to say, “It was the return to the screen of two ‘experts’, for want of a better word, who are regularly brought back, for reasons that elude me, to do their thing: complain about women and attempt to solicit sympathy about the apparently oppressed male populace.” Really Luke? You have to be trying pretty hard to come to that conclusion. But Luke isn’t anywhere near done yet, and we will see that he’s willing to put in the extra work to conform his world view.

The first of these two men to come under Luke’s crosshairs is Dean Esmay, a writer for the Huffington Post, among others, “who speaks with closed and squinty eyes….” Ok, Luke, I’ll grant you that I also found Dean’s talking through closed and squinty eyes a bit off-putting. Lets face it: it comes across as smug. But what is it that Dean is being so smug about? Is it the level of smugness that Southpark nailed so many years ago? According to Buckmaster, it’s that “men need compassion.” The GUAL! If there were any need to defend Dean Esmay for such an outrageous statement I could mention that it wasn’t Esmay who said this, it was Tom Golden in the clip immediately prior, and directly after the segment talking about how mainstream media didn’t care at all about the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram murdering hundreds of young schoolboys up until the point where they started kidnapping the girls instead of just letting them go. I wonder how squinty Luke’s eyes will get when he explains to these young Nigerian boys that mainstream indifference is the price they pay for having a penis.

The real outrage, Luke goes on, is that Cassie Jaye’s “primary objective [is] to humanise controversial figures in the men’s rights movement.” If you didn’t consider The Red Pill propaganda by this point, Luke fills in the mental blanks for his readers, the sole purpose of the film is to “flatter” these men since they had, after all, bankrolled the film on Kickstarter. What Luke conveniently leaves out of this implication is the fact that the Kickstarter campaign—which raised over $200,000—was conducted after the documentary had finished shooting and was headed to post production (which, by the way, is very expensive). The fact that men’s rights activists were willing to shovel out nearly a quarter of a million dollars only demonstrates that these men valued seeing a movie that finally depicted them the way that they see themselves instead of being subjected to rote monstrous depictions by third-wave feminists. My God, Luke! What a horrible thing indeed; men being able to speak for themselves without first having to go to the feminist editorial board of approved content and imagery! But I have just one question about the social affiliations of the people who pledged money to this documentary: How are you determining that it is men’s rights activists that funded the film? Where is this demographic breakdown that says that the only people interested in this movie are men’s rights activists? Last I checked Kickstarter is open and available to anyone who wants to pledge.

But what about Paul Elam’s well documented misogyny?

By this point in Buckmaster’s article we start to see external links. A good rule of thumb when you encounter supposedly supporting materials is to click on those links and read the results. Often times the link is simply there to add the illusion of supporting material that most leftist “intellectuals” are simply too lazy to check out for themselves. Many times these links just go to other leftist rants that then link off to other leftist rants which ultimately link to documents that do nothing to support the claims being made along these trails of crocodile tears. As long as the link points to an opinion piece of a similar subject (doesn’t have to support the claim being referenced) this equates to corroborating sources for leftist rantings. This phenomenon isn’t limited to the blogosphere either. Unfortunately this is now an acceptable practice in major newspaper op-eds, and increasingly ignored in actual “news” reporting as well.

Since Luke feels that Paul Elam’s misogyny is documented ipso facto he doesn’t waste any external sources on these. Luke just quotes Elam saying “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” and leaves it there for the reader to be disgusted by it. And yes, on the face of it that is a really screwed up thing to say. Funny thing though is that you can still access the article on the AVFM website where you will find a five paragraph editorial note explaining the purpose of deliberately inflammatory articles as being clickbait. The note explains that “[i]t is also telling that, once again, this unusual article, not typical at all of AVfM content, is still years later regularly cited as ‘typical,’  instead of what it was: a provocative piece meant to force people to think about things they don’t like thinking about.” Or maybe it’s just that Paul Elam really hates jury duty and wants to be permanently disqualified from having to be subjected to it.

As far as incendiary Elam quotes go, there is one that is far worse, out of context, which Cassie Jaye actually talks about in the film. The quote is in direct response to an article published by Jezebel entitled “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have” that excuses female violence towards men as “funny” and justifiable. The point of Elam’s quote was to illustrate a double standard about how one gender talks about violence towards the other. Female violence towards men is almost always dismissed as trivial. Hmm… I wonder how Elam’s experiment is going?

But what about the links Luke does provide? Well there is one that absolutely destroys Paul Elam: a link to a free and public service called “Urban Dictionary” where anybody can write just about anything without any kind of validation at all, and—wait for it—post it online where other people can see it! And HO-BOY! The top definition was upvoted by, like, forty people! I suppose I should just stop writing this rebuttal right now and admit defeat in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

The other link is to a BuzzFeed wall-of-text that I venture to bet hardly any leftist bothered to read. I, however, read the whole thing top to bottom, and yes I checked out the links. It is clear now that the biggest threat to The Red Pill is Paul Elam’s controversial and incendiary tactics. It is the hope of third-wave feminists and their apologists that simply attacking Paul Elam will be enough to discredit the entire documentary film. It clearly has been an effective strategy given the mindless throngs that bristle at the mere mention of Elam’s name. The BuzzFeed article, at best, paints Elam as a deadbeat dad (in fact it is in the title of the piece). At worst it paints him as both that and a greedy man who is only in it for the money he collects out of the Men’s Rights Movement.

SO WHAT? Ah, yes I see. We’re now vetting Paul Elam’s flaws for public office candidacy? But you make a resounding and valid point: Paul Elam Isn’t Perfect. We’ll tack that right up there on the Big Board of Facts for everyone to see. Look at that!

If you’re to take the BuzzFeed article on face value, you should also note that Paul Elam’s estranged daughter, a victim of abuse herself, is proud of the work her father is doing with the AVfM website and encouraged him to keep doing it! The BuzzFeed article goes on to commit many of the same fallacies as does Buckmaster and Gillespie by taking  uncited quotes out of context with total disregard to intent and purpose in order to position someone in an unflattering light. Known and reviled by most people as a smear campaign.

What is even more irritating is when leftist capitalistic entities like BuzzFeed attack people for being for profit. Okay, please pause while I put on my hypocrite bullshit glasses. It is estimated that the AVfM pulls in a whopping $120,000 a year and get this: IT’S ALL FOR PROFIT! Again, so WHAT?! $120,000 a year is not very much money for an entire organization to pull in, and yet AVfM members seem happy enough to keep paying, so who cares if Paul Elam has to pay taxes on that money or not? Are you suggesting, BuzzFeed, that it would be better if A Voice For Men were a non-profit and no taxes were paid on those donations? What is the nature of this insinuation, exactly? Oh, I see, you just want your readers to “feel” as though something illicit is going on when in fact the whole thing is so vanilla legal it drives even the world’s least competent lawyers to suicide just for something more interesting to do with their time.

Focusing almost exclusively on Paul Elam is the only tactic capable of holding feminist ideological ground, and it makes sense why any and all criticisms of the documentary highlight Paul Elam as quickly and prominently as possible. Luke Buckmaster doesn’t like Paul Elam. Not at all. He is “one of the talking heads who compelled me to turn this wretched, morally bankrupt documentary off.” Well, this explains the superficial critiques. Why would you bother to find out that the person you love to hate is actually a human being after all, imperfect though he may be?

The Vile Masquerading Mindsets Of Other People

When all else fails in leftist rhetoric one turns to circumstantial “evidence” of the “true and hidden intentions” of “evil people” by mocking them when they make mistakes. It shows above all else that they haven’t much or any ground to stand on. So what do they do? They hire one of those perspective sidewalk painters to create an illusion that their ideological battlement is better protected. If there were any concrete evidence one would hope that they’d scream and yell and jump up and down to let everyone know they’ve found something credible. But when they can’t do this, they pull out the gag reel and start name calling other people’s mistakes.

These attacks are reserved for Cassie Jaye herself. Luke links to two interviews she did on Australian television. One where the interviewers clumsily attempt to derail Cassie with shitty reporting by asking why she didn’t ask certain questions which were, in fact, asked. The interviewers would have known this if they watched the screener Cassie sent them, although they claimed not to have seen it and blamed it on bad links, YouTube and the Interwebs with technical excuses equivalent to “the dog ate my homework.”

In the other interview, admittedly, Cassie puts her foot in her mouth. One reporter suggests that the level of controversy around her film in Australia may surround that country’s “intolerance” for views that don’t focus on women’s issues, citing recent Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, a mother whose son was murdered by his abusive father. To which Cassie responds, “That’s interesting, because it shows that there are male victims of domestic violence.” It appears that Cassie then regrets the statement and tries again to pull the conversation back towards talking about situations where men are also the victims of domestic violence instead of the interviewer’s insinuation that her film is denying or taking away from the reality that women also suffer from domestic violence.

Obviously, a better response from Cassie Jaye would have been that in addition to the 1 in 3 women who will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes, that 1 in 4 men will also experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. It is not the objective of the men’s rights movement to deny the existence of violence against women, but simply to add discussion about violence against men to the table. This is a point that was precisely made in her film. However anyone who can criticize a misstep like this has never done talking points with hostile interviewers regarding a controversial subject. It does not, as Luke Buckmaster suggests, give us an “indication of the filmmaker’s mindset.”

Earlier Luke Buckmaster (falsely) accuses Cassie Jaye of making an argument that women have it better than men “by taking a single example of injustice and insinuating it applies across the board.” In a two-hour long documentary that Buckmaster claims to have watched (so you don’t have to) did he simply miss all of the other examples of injustice? But since his rules only apply to Cassie Jaye and not to himself, he then reduces Cassie Jaye’s examples of men being the vast majority of work related deaths to being military-only deaths. Then he begs the question of, “why there is such striking gender imbalance in the military (from the expectations we place on men to well-documented misogyny in armies around the world).” While that is a fair question, it doesn’t reflect the statements made in the documentary, which states that the most dangerous jobs with the highest risk of death are really important jobs which make our society possible. Largely these jobs are held, and lost as a result of death, by men. The women who do not die because they do not do these jobs benefit from the men who do. Yes, this includes the military. It also includes the police, firefighters, loggers, miners, electricians, foundry workers, truck drivers, oil riggers, construction workers, etc., etc. Do you enjoy your water and electricity much? You’re welcome.

Finally Luke Buckmaster shows his true colors and misrepresents the entire purpose and meaning of the film with his leftist coup de grâce: “The message isn’t that men need more funding and resources; it’s that women ought to have less.” Not once, anywhere, is this sentiment stated or even hinted at within The Red Pill. Luke Buckmaster, shame on you! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Back in the day when leftists were still Liberals (and yes I make a distinction here) calling out the vast number of unanswered questions as warranting a conversation and acting like true intellectuals was still a reasonable and acceptable course of action. Especially if the topic was controversial. But we don’t live in the age of intellectual liberalism any more. Instead we live in a world where opposing viewpoints are considered “dangerous.” Having the freedom of intellect and being capable of making up your own mind is actually something Luke Buckmaster sums up perfectly: “That is not my recommendation; it is simply not worth your time. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I watched it, so you don’t have to.”

My Hero!

So, why you should watch The Red Pill

Because they don’t want you to see it. That’s why.

Cowspiracy: When Idiots Make Movies



I’ve spent the past 20 years studying filmmaking and the language of cinema, so when I see it done badly it tends to produce feelings—of a kind—the filmmaker didn’t intend. So I will spare you my feelings of Cowspiracy in this regard and try instead to focus on the content itself. Content is the most important ingredient in any movie and should have been more carefully groomed in this one.

Was this a documentary about global warming? Or ocean life extinctions? Deforestation, environmental damage, or drought? Was it about evil corporate agribusiness? The meager and misplaced foibles of sustainable animal husbandry? Or was it about veganism? Every ten minutes I wanted the filmmakers to make some kind of point. Turns out they only had one point to make so they saved if for last: Cowspiracy attempts to persuade people that veganism is the only reasonable answer to annihilation by bludgeoning the audience with ad nauseum ill-informed outrage activist appeals to emotion.

First let’s talk about the movie’s title, the “conspiracy of cows.” I’m pretty sure the filmmaker intended to mean that it was the cattle industry that was conspiring and not so much the cattle, but we’ll let that slide. I lost count of how many times the filmmaker finds it “odd” that the people he drops in on, unannounced, to talk about global warming wouldn’t be prepared to talk about the cattle industry—a whole other topic. Ignorance, especially your own, is not evidence of a conspiracy. A conspiracy is something that happens in secret. Nothing about the cattle industry is secret, most certainly not any of the filmmaker’s “revelations.” How do you keep something secret that you can literally smell for miles before you actually see it? Just because the filmmaker was ignorant of the practices up until five minutes before he decided to make a documentary does not mean that there was a conspiracy—massive or otherwise—in order to produce his ignorance. Sorry buddy, but that’s all on you. This information has been in the public domain for decades.

If you do a google search for “list of fallacies” you’ll find the shooting script for Cowspiracy on Wikipedia. Let’s start with “slippery slope.” The filmmaker starts with how he became an environmentalist after watching An Inconvenient Truth which predicted in dates now past that we’d all be swimming in the ocean due to the burning of fossil fuels. When that didn’t happen, and it turns out that fossil fuels aren’t as big a contributor as passionately argued, he moves on to “special pleading” to change the culprit from oil to animal husbandry, despite the fact that animal farming is tens of thousands of years old and would have been contributing more towards global warming all this time than Al Gore’s original argument for fossil fuels. And still the dire predictions are yet to be seen.

The filmmaker then uses a hodge-podge of fallacies to ignore any counter argument to his own: strawman, false cause, black-or-white, composition/division, tu quoque, etc. My favorite is when the Sierra Club suggests that eating fish is a great way to protect fish from extinction and the filmmaker objects, “That’s like saying you can protect panda bears from extinction by eating panda bears.” Ok, so two things right here: 1) We don’t eat panda bears and they are going extinct; 2) I wonder if there’s an example of animals that we do eat that are proliferating. Hmm… Let me think. How about: cows, pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, ducks, turkeys, rabbits and yes even fish. Needless to say it kind of proves the point.

The filmmaker even manages to combine two separate fallacies into one, the anecdotal and the appeal to authority fallacies, where he includes Susan Hartland from Sea Shepherd saying that we are headed towards fish-less oceans and, “this is coming from The Scientists.” Which scientists? We will never know because the filmmaker never bothers to back this up. Are these the same scientists that predicted Florida and New York City would be under the ocean by now? The ninety minutes of this documentary are one gigantic fallacy—an appeal to emotion—wrapped around so many other fallacies it is impractical to cover them all here.

By now you’re probably thinking that 1) I’m a climate denier, 2) I eat steak at every meal, and 3) I hate veganism. The truth is I am none of those things. The Earth is warming up. This is undeniable. However, this is the only part of global warming where there is scientific consensus.* My personal position—not being a climate scientist—is to be skeptical about the claims of what is going to happen due to global warming (a discipline separate from taking the Earth’s temperature, btw); to wait and see what other scientists find on that matter; and to allow for more information to come from the scientific community before I start believing in somebody’s agenda. Being reserved about jumping to conclusions (the bandwagon fallacy) has made me more correct on the issue than has been Al Gore, for instance, and is usually enough to land me on the finger-pointing end of outrage activists because I refuse to preach the gospel. I do refuse to preach what I don’t think is fully formed, and I’m fine with people being outraged because of that. They can be the first to be foolish if they want.

I hardly ever eat meat. I never drink milk and I don’t eat cereal, I do enjoy milk-based products from time to time (cheeses, yogurts, butter, whey). I eat a lot of eggs. I eat meat about once a week, if that much, usually chicken, sometimes pork. I’m not a huge fan of beef, honestly, I think pork tastes better. I’ll usually reserve meats for when I cook at home. I don’t eat a lot of grains because Americans eat more grain than is healthy, the same reason it isn’t healthy for cows. A little bit is fine, but as the foundation for every meal? Please.

Where I absolutely avoid meats, as well as any kind of food, is processed and fast foods. This is the culprit—not agricultural industry. As long as there is McDonalds there’s going to be a massive cattle industry and subsidized agriculture. And I agree that Americans should be eating less of it. If the American diet were comprised of 70% fruits and veggies, 20% meats and dairy and 10% grains we would be a healthier population, and the environment would be much more stable.

Lastly, I don’t hate veganism. I just hate Cowspiracy. If you want to watch a documentary that actually makes a decent case for veganism, watch Forks Over Knives. Those filmmakers know how to make a movie, and it gets right to the crux of the issue that fits with most people: the health benefits of a vegan diet. Forks Over Knives is probably the best argument for veganism I’ve ever heard, but unfortunately even that falls short.

I disagree with the philosophy of veganism, but not with the moral practice of boycotting industrial agriculture. Everyone gets to have their own values, and it’s not my place to tell you what to believe or how to feel. If you don’t want to support industrial animal husbandry on the principle of it, that’s fine. And whatever your reason for not supporting sustainable and humane animal husbandry is your business. My objection is to the claim that pure veganism is the most balanced and humane way to live one’s life. It completely ignores the relationship that has been cultivated for thousands of years between humans and animals on the farm. Like it or not, animals are great for farms and safeguarding the health of the land they live on. They provide the best fertilizer and allow for maximized organic output, just take a look at Polyface farms. Even Michael Pollan says this in his book Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Veganism isn’t the most balanced way to live, not by a long shot. Vitamin B12 is essential to life—you will die without it—and it comes most readily from animal products. Without B12 you cannot produce new blood cells, or virtually any cells in your body. Do a search for “vitamin B12 vegan” and you will see that the “vegan source for B12 comes from fortified foods.” Well, where do you think those B12 fortifications are coming from? Animals. While there are non-animal sources of B12, the largest concentration is found in yeast extract. 100 grams of the stuff provides a whopping 8% of your daily value.

Yeast extract—also known as Vegemite to Australians, and BLEGH to Americans—those of us who love it (yup, that would be me) use it sparingly, never enough to make up for animal sources of B12. You would need to consume 2.75 pounds of the stuff every day, and at that point you would have a sodium problem. Most vegans eat B12 fortified foods to get what they need, or take a vitamin supplement to ensure they’re getting the essentials. Making the vitamin pill shaped, or hiding it in your grains only suspends disbelief in the 100% non-animal fairytale.

Balanced living means you survive on the foods you eat without requiring extra processing. In the wild we would hunt and gather. If you have to take a pill every day to stay alive, that isn’t balanced living—that is life support. Until the day Vegans find the magical Vitamin B12 shrub it is highly impractical to live authentically off a 100% vegan diet. There certainly won’t be enough B12 produced to keep everyone in the world alive if we all went vegan and stopped killing animals or consuming their milk and eggs. I certainly don’t want to eat 3 pounds of yeast extract every day. Do you?

*After listening to Professor Ivar Giaever’s take on this issue, I’m not so certain about the global warming consensus. But I’m not a scientist, he is. So perhaps it would be fair to listen to his 30 minutes in addition to the last decade of punditry.