~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Lambdal7
[removed]
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
You have a narrow interpretation of the Red Pill. Specifically your definition of the Red Pill seems to be that which is available in this subreddit.
However a broad or full interpretation of Red Pill: the unequivocal rejection of the Liberal paradigm will give you all of those things.
Most people yourself included lack the intellect or curiosity to understand and then take the Red Pill to it's full conclusion. However you are correct basing your life on listicles for Spergtards isn't going to end well.
[–]Lambdal7[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link
You have a narrow interpretation of the Red Pill,[...] your definition of the Red Pill seems to be that which is available in this subreddit.
Yes my interpetation of the red pill is that which is available in this subreddit and on its sidebar. Is it my fault for the interpretation being narrow then?
However a broad or full interpretatjion of Red Pill: the unequivocal rejection of the Liberal paradigm will give you all of those things.
So the redpill is the unequivocal rejection of the Liberal paradigm? I hadn't seen this connection being made, has this been described here before besides a few times, have there been posts about it?
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
This connection is only discussed by the Senior Endorsed Contributor team because most people are only interested in satisfying the immediate needs of their penis. The broad interpretation is held by Heartiste who is in the sidebar.
The bigger question is: How can you reject Feminism without fully rejecting the liberal foundation that birthed it? That's what men's rights Cucks do. They reject Feminism yet utilize feminist style rhetoric to advance their cause. Makes zero fucking sense.
If feminism is wrong so is the liberal logic that created it. You have to reject all of it and once you do that you will find yourself in a unique and interesting place.
[–]AWorseManThanYou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
Your logic is flawed. Y is a set with N variables. Y yields X AND X is bad does NOT mean the set is bad...
Just sayin
Let me give you an example:
Bullets kill people. Gun ownership yields bullets. Therefore gun ownership is bad.
Ironically, you are using the weakest liberal logic
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
Alain De Benoist's anti Liberal logic isn't bad. Your comprehension is.
If feminism is a handgun and you are against hanguns. It makes sence to be against rifles aka transgederism, Affirmative Action aka shotguns and Liberalism in general aka guns.
[–]AWorseManThanYou-2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Uhm... I do this for a living so maybe it’s unfair, but you should know. I don’t disagree necessarily but the logic is bad. I don’t get paid the big bucks for not understanding.
That article in no way supports your logic:
Liberals birthed feminism therefore liberalism is bad.
Let me give you another real world argument. Nuclear power birthed The Bomb, so nuclear power is bad.
That’s just bad logic. There are plenty of grounds to criticize liberalism, just not that way.
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Your strawmaning my argument. By arguing against the use of nuclear weapons (radioactivity etc) you implicitly make arguments against nuclear power. Both applications have the same result just to different scale.
[–]AWorseManThanYou0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Well, I think I know what you mean and I agree with most of it, so it’s not really a thing. I think overly broad statements about liberalism are confusing and I like (and from your satire you do too) precision of language. For example, the article you referenced somehow lumped liberal economics (free market) in with social liberal. SJWs and all they stand for is cancer. Liberal democracies are good (contrast to social democracies). Liberal economics is good (contrast to socialism or protectionism). I think you’d agree with all of that, I was just trying to nudge towards specificity. I wasn’t trying to build a strawman or “win.”
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Liberal Economics fund universities that produce SJWs. The more alienated people are from their traditional values the more productive they are as a workforce.
Very traditional societies are preoccupied with all sorts of things like stoning gays and religious ethnic conflict to be monetized effectively.
I'm trying to nudge you toward a post liberal position where you have the freedom to partake in collective identity like masculinity and cultural celebration like Christmas.
[–]AWorseManThanYou1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Ok I’m open to it. Is post liberal still capitalism? Is there a society or time period that is similar to the post liberal you are envisioning?
[–]GayLubeOil2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes Russia and Turkey are still capitalist so is Hezbollah for that matter but their logic isn't 100% predicated on monetary gain. They have ideological goals.
[–]AWorseManThanYou1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Hmmm. Hezbollah is an interesting choice. But the other two have significant restrictions on individual rights. As someone more libertarian, those are anathema.
I was envisioning something in the opposite direction. Where “that makes me uncomfortable” is a personal problem. Where feelings don’t trump rights. Where each person is responsible for themselves and if you “feel uncomfortable” then either suck it up or leave. (Eg my boss’s criticism is harsh and definitely makes me uncomfortable. But I suck it up because I don’t think coddling is more important than honesty.)
How is my vision different than yours? Is it the utter lack of unifying ideology. (To each man his own hearth is my world’s ideology.)
Is a unifying social/political goal/culture the main difference between what you want and what I envision?
This is interesting, so please feel free to elaborate as much as you think I need.
[–]GayLubeOil1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think this is the best explanation of my position. I believe that the fourth political theory which is predicated on the Ethnos instead of the Liberal Individual has more freedom.
By liberating men of their masculinity and society of it's holidays liberalism robs societies of their soul.
Fascinating! Sorry it took so long to watch it but I’m glad I did. Here’re my thoughts;
I have studied Nietzsche for years. How the man describes the current malaise of modern liberalism is identical to the concerns Nietzsche raised in writing “this spoke Zarathustra.” The slave minority seeks to control the over man through virtue oppression.
I had assumed the answer was individualism. That individualism leads to the heralding of the overman. But I agree that liberalism is astray. I agree with this man and now will have to revisit this spoke Zarathustra.
Still, I don’t think his explanation is that great. Perhaps liberalism has a rotten core. But what he says could be repositioned as cleaning the gutter of liberalism to a more pure root. (He says something similar about how Europe and America lost their way, which presumed it was on the right track. When it was, coincidentally, is when I would say liberalism was at its strongest. Perhaps we are closer than you think.)
Still, he poses a question with no answer. How is it to be achieved? He wishes to divorce the dollar from political economy. It seems strange. Anyhow. I’ll think on this and if I have another question for you I’ll respond you your last comment again. Read nietzsche if you haven’t.
[–]Lambdal7[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The bigger question is: How can you reject Feminism without fully rejecting the liberal foundation that birthed it?
Feminism is based on equality, one of liberalism's main pillars.
Does this mean that equality should also be rejected so that only people who are white, straight, male, Christian, wealthy are considered human and anyone who does not meet 1 of the criteria is considered less human, has less rights, isn't allowed to vote, isn't allowed support for medical aid, is allowed education?
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Liberalism Liberates people of their racial ethnic cultural sexual and now gender identity. It achieves equality through forced homogenization. A post liberal position is one that holds that people are inherently different, just as the Red Pill holds that men and women are different. Claiming that one group is better is a subjective claim that's impossible to substitantiate.
You can say that whites are taller than Asians sure. But it's impossible to say that hight is definitive criteria for asserting that one group is better than another.
So to answer your question rejecting liberalism doesn't make you a fascist because fascism is predicated on chauvanistic assertions that one group is superior over another.
In summary: difference not superiority
[–]ThePlayfulDom2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If you think this is what liberalism is all about I've got an awesome investment opportunity for you for the low low starting contribution of just $99,999! Hurry while supplies last!
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's not an argument it liberal blather. Liberalism is the liberation of people from all collective identity
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil4 points5 points6 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lambdal7[S] 1 point2 points3 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou-2 points-1 points0 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]GayLubeOil2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GayLubeOil1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AWorseManThanYou1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lambdal7[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThePlayfulDom2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link