[Theory] How a fundemental misunderstanding about women may be making members weaker. quotes by Nietzsche

TheDivinePenis · 2017-09-16T05:11:15+00:00

I'd argue that woman are just biologically engineered to "love" babies and children, and extremely, hyper-valuable men, and that this first love is pure, unconditional, and real "love", and the second is nature creating chemical dependency for more incredible, hyper-valuable, evolved babies. The second runs out given enough time. I'd argue that there's a purpose to this all, and that we shouldn't look for women to give us "love"; there just shouldn't be dependency, at all. I'd argue that we have a mission and a debt to nature, and that we have to improve, advance, evolve, everything, and that most men just sit there doing nothing because they feel "loved" by small bouts of affection by some random woman that doesn't respect them.

So maybe they can, but I guess the question is, so what? Do we want them to? Why is that good, for life or humankind's advancement, or real Achievement or the glorification of this species? What will me feeling "loved", some girl showing affection for me, do, for anyone, for civilization, at all??

Let the girls love the babies. I'll be on my mission, man.

MattyAnon · 2017-09-16T06:58:15+00:00

I am here to bring to you that woman can in fact love, and do most likely very deeply.

Nah. Too much evidence to the contrary. Intense emotional need is hardly the same thing as love, and I'm no longer fooled into thinking they are.

If women loved men, they'd behave better.

The red pill is being pathologically twisted by this mis-understanding

TRP is largely based on the observation that women simply do not love as we would wish them to (unconditionally, caringly, and with some degree of sacrifice).

OP, you can't just redefine TRP to be what you want it to be, and then claim it's not living up to what you've personally decided it is.

Stop trying to drag us back into the BP world with "women love you if you do it right". They don't because they can't because it is not in their nature.

jonpe87 · 2017-09-16T13:15:13+00:00

Love woman if you want, but expect nothing in return. Woman do love kids, and in some sense they are also kids. Selfish kids. That is just what nature is: Wild selfish kid.

The problem is that trough redpill theories some want to realize the ideal of have a relationship where you will be happy with a woman that will love you. Will not happen.

Nature is selfish in itself, is like nature has created man not to love her but to hate her for be what it is.

I apologize for the bad english.

Rollo_Mayhem3 · 2017-09-16T03:53:17+00:00

I challenge you by stating that the unconscious is not something women or men for that matter are unaware of or even slightly aware of. The concept of the unconscious has been largely debunked in the Freudian sense. What you are taking about is that the brain processes information faster that you have langauge to think through. Both women and men KNOW but social pressure and programming OVERRIDE what men and women instinctually understand outright. Society had two classes or moralities as u use, those that have been raised to rule and those that have been raised to serve, anyone including myself recognizes that...Mos people resign themselves to maximizing their own little fiefdom while all the while serving the greater imperative (consumerism). Our society is sick. And the only way to deal with that among those with intellect is to repress (something Freud had right). TRP simply cracks that which we instinctually know but repressed for so long...

Title	[Theory] How a fundemental misunderstanding about women may be making members weaker. quotes by Nietzsche
Author	Natrix03
Upvotes	13
Comments	10
Date	September 16, 2017 2:41 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/70eiwo/theory_how_a_fundemental_misunderstanding_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/theory-how-a-fundemental-misunderstanding-about.46025 https://theredarchive.com/post/46025

Comments