The most distasteful element of the “red pill on women” is their crass materialism. It’s the used car salesman’s approach to life. “What if my wife took my house and ‘divorce raped’ me etc.” Oh no, you wouldn’t be able to buy your toys? Your Xbox or whatever...
-
Show this thread
-
...so that’s what your life is about, eh? I built my “empire” and now my woman is taking it away. Pure Babbittry. Also shades of Mr Wemmick, who builds a suburban house in imitation of a castle in Great Expectations. The “empire” to be defended from women.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
What is interesting about these “red pillers”—what I think Schops and Nietzsche would say—is that their attitude is very feminine. They are materialistic (i.e. female) thinkers, and their problem with women is that they’ll take their money away.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
As if money is real power or really worth anything. This is the “Puritan” or bourgeois right, the type who will lecture you about the dangers of “instant gratification. The other side of the coin is the Nietzschean or exciting right...
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
...which acts like D’Annunzio or Milo. D’annunzio showered women with roses, perfume, love letters (typical beta, the red pillers sneer), but he got them and then was on to the next. But each encounter wasn’t an exercise in pseudo-Darwinian/bourgeois manipulation.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
His love affairs were still works of art, and full of melodramatic highs and lows—not devoid of feeling like a boring Anglo-Saxon libertarian counting his cash. Similarly, Milo and d’Annnunzio seem to know a lot about the joys of instant gratification.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Conclusion: “red pill” on women is typically Anglo-Saxon in its approach to life. Pedestrian, bourgeois, materialistic, commercial, crass, practical, without beauty, dull, and...womanish.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
Addendum: This is evident in “socialism” of the red pillers and Jordan Peterson. They like the free market, but not in sex. The patriarchy was socialistic in a sense. But what if the Pareto distribution in sex is positive...the best men win. Some rightists would say it’s eugenic.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
As with many arguments from classical liberals and libertarian, it is not entirely clear why ruthless competition is good in one area but bad in another. The sexual free market place is ruthless, but it is as efficient as any market.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
J. Peterson and the red pillers tend towards an idea of stability, as if there was an ideal society we need to hold onto. But perhaps we just need to maintain the rules and change the society. Even in “moral” Victorian times powerful men had many mistresses & bastards.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
You see in the resistance to Robin Hanson’s idea of “redistributing sex” the complications. Women hate it (being forced to have sex with low status men). High status men don’t care. This is based on ressentiment, not healthy.
-
-
The solution to the sexual reserve generated by “incels” and low status men was typically war. Perhaps we just need to channel this energy outwards, alternatively we channel it inwards...revolution...but that would be based on ressentiment. Very ugly.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.