How international politics reinforces the Red Pill.... or LET'S HAVE A POLITICS THREAD!

Bakerofpie · 2014-11-15T22:51:29+00:00

I'm not a huge fan of relating relationships between entire governments to those between individuals, just because the very nature of the relationships are so different that there aren't a lot of parallels to be drawn. What benefit does Ukraine really get for being "vulnerable" to Russia? A loving bond where they have lifelong companionship and happiness as partners, fulfilling both of their needs for love and affection? Humans are social animals that desire validation, love, and respect from others. Governments need respect so that they can stay in power. They have no other "needs."

fiat_lux_ · 2014-11-16T00:50:02+00:00

Speaking of comparing countries to individuals... Coincidentally, I was just reading a post I found on depthhub top results that was talking about the "Chinese model of economic development and gov't".

I like the five points the poster lists. Not just useful for countries in the long term, but individuals as well:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2m87gi/i_spent_ten_years_living_as_a_prisoner_inside_of/cm2a7lx

"Seek truths from facts"
Pragmatism.
A long vision.
Trial & Error.
Culture of debate.

(Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous when we're talking about an authoritarian state, but you really need to read the details. E.g. "culture of debate" refers to internal debate - not external debate.)

The points listed are applicable at the individual level.

Reginleifer · 2014-11-15T22:37:36+00:00

Relationships between people don't have to be adversarial or about power. Politics IS about power. Power, while it is central to many things, is not a mandatory component of human relationships and only enters that frame once people assign value to it. As far as politics, they were made to be about power.

namae_nanka · 2014-11-16T00:52:22+00:00

Well said OP. Perfect analogy. A male's traditional role in a family setting is to be a provider. Providers used to have power. They used to be able to make demands within the family that, if not met then they could reduce access to their resources. Well Feminists have stripped all the power that comes with that in the name of liberation and guess what? Now the breadwinning spouse is the slave. They're the one with more to lose in case the marriage goes south. Being the breadwinner is nothing more than an obligation. You can't ask for anything in return. and If you don't pull out fast enough then you're gonna be hooked for the rest of your life even if the marriage fails. And people think that this is perfectly ok. Imagine the outrage if the stay-at-home spouse was required to clean up the other's house and make two meals a day after a divorce. It's what they're owed after all.

I'm never getting legally married. I don't even live with my girlfriend and we've been together for over four years. That's not changing any time soon. She makes about the same as me so there isn't much of a financial risk but even then you have to consider other things. I live in the common law state of Texas. Every thing is bigger in Texas. And let me tell you that is no exaggeration. A guy like me would pay over $2000/month in child support. That's just about what I spent on myself when I was paying down my student loans. I have no doubt that there wouldn't be a nice windfall going over to the child's mother. No kid is that expensive. Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with that if I had any reproductive rights.

The only way to truly protect yourself as a man is to become surgically sterile and never marry. Unfortunately what's best for each individual male is often detrimental to society and the laws are going to side with society when there is a conflict of interest. The best thing you can do is protect yourself and find happiness in other ways. That's about as redpill as it gets. All this trust faith bullshit is nothing more than a bluepill fantasy with high risk low reward designed to trick men into signing away their lives. Marriage is outdated. The only rational reason to consider would be for a family or to keep your spouse in your country.

myfatbrokethewall · 2014-11-16T06:33:25+00:00

What is so RP about having your own nukes? I wonder if Ukraine gave up the nukes because they didn't want the cost of maintaining them. Maybe they decided that the risk of being invaded in the future was preferable to paying to maintain the weapons over time. Anyone know if this is true? I doubt they gave up the nukes because they thought promises were as good as nukes.

GayLubeOil · 2014-11-16T00:46:09+00:00

Crimea was always Russian but Joseph Stalin gave it to the Ukranian SSR because its easier to supply the peninsula by land than across the water. Back in 1950 no one gave a fuck cuz it was the same country anyway. So now when Russia retakes Crimea it is reuniting a culturaly Russian population with Russia. The Ukrainian govetnment is filled with neo nazis who hate WW2 vets. So take your NATO propaganda and go fuck yourself.

exit_sandman · 2014-11-16T09:57:53+00:00

While I agree with the conclusion, I don't really like the analogy. But then again, I made my MA in international relations.

SirNemesis · 2014-11-17T06:07:56+00:00

Crimea belonged to Russia all along. Ukraine managed to steal it for a couple decades, but Russia got it back recently.

[deleted] · 2014-11-18T13:16:21+00:00

This is an excellent model!

Russia, Ukraine etc. are "Red Pill", it is all about power, amorality, you get what you can, it is cold hard math of the big dog fucks and the small dog gets fucked. Bismarckian Realpolitik, blood and steel. I am not surprising anyone by saying Putin is the most Red Pill head of state currently alive, for a long time actually.

Now for example The Netherlands and Belgium are "Blue Pill". There is no chance in hell that Flanders would erupt in an armed uprising against Francophone rule, they will either go on with their usual compromises or maybe it is a peaceful split. And no way in hell Netherlands would use this as an excuse to invade Belgium. They are simply more civilized than that. They are beyond this toxic-masculine worship of violence. Avoiding bloodshed is the No. 1 priority, democracy and liberalism (non-authoritarianism) is the name of the game.

America is kind of howering in the middle, Democrats being more blue pill and Republicans being more red (the color coding is surprisingly apt!)

I do admit there are some issues in BPlandia, like NL or BE. Older guys do often have this "damp rag" vibe what Farrage said about Van Rompuy. There is a certain lack of masculine vibe and energy, at least in the cities. I do admit you need to make your blue a bit purplish if you want to avoid boredom. It can get boring. But the countryside in BPlandia is still very red, check out the Belgian movie Bullhead about a cattle farmer who injects steroids into his cows and himself and then shit happens.

But overally, BPlandia can be a bit boring, but it offers safety, security, humanity, empathy, a comfortable life. Violence is romantic, at least if you don't have a heart. But still it is better to watch romantic violence on the TV in Flanders than to experience it live in Donetsk.

Title	How international politics reinforces the Red Pill.... or LET'S HAVE A POLITICS THREAD!
Author	Reginleifer
Upvotes	6
Comments	42
Date	November 15, 2014 9:37 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2meu8q/how_international_politics_reinforces_the_red/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-international-politics-reinforces-the-red-pill.284358 https://theredarchive.com/post/284358

Comments