Like socialists, I wanted the unattainable

From Red Pill Libertarian
Jump to: navigation, search

What I wanted was to live in a magical patriarchal world where no matter how weak I was, I could experience true and lasting love, just because once feminism was gone, women would admire my good qualities and have so much belief in the value of nice guys and in the morality of being loyal to a binding commitment, that it would be enough to make them stay, even if I was not only beta but borderline omega.

But this is like the socialist dream of utopia. Yeah, under socialism, the dictator gets plenty of wealth and pussy. But the masses don't. It's the rule, not the exception, that matters most, unless you're one of the elite. The whole point of socialism is to make EVERYONE rich.

Feminists have their own anger phase that they're in, that they need to get past. They think they can have all the benefits of a relationship with a man they find attractive, without needing to submit. It's a dream that can never be fulfilled.

They think they can have both monogamy and a high-quality man. But this is only achievable by a few exceptionally high-value women. Oh, sure, as it is now, they can be fat, ugly, and egotistically unpleasant, and still have a loyal husband. I just don't think that's sustainable in the long run. The red pill won't allow it to continue.

The force of Return of Kings, Kings Wiki, etc. is unstoppable. The word will spread, and men will become woke. I said earlier that my weakness was why my first wife left me. That was also a consequence of my blue pill conditioning, though, that taught me to ignore the red flags. I think that increasingly, men will look for the red flags and avoid those women.

My delegate campaign's focus on relations between the sexes comes about because I was still in the anger phase. But I can move past that, to acceptance. The feminists, on the other hand, still struggle with their anger, because they can't face the truth, because it's in women's nature to dissociate and rationalize. The more masculine women (think Ayn Rand) will swallow the red pill, but the rest won't.

Isn't it paradoxical that feminists are supposedly less feminine, yet it's the most masculine women who are the most red pill? So what are feminists, if neither red pill nor feminine? They're essentially androgynous blue pillers. They lack the strengths of men, and they lack the attractiveness of women, so they get the worst of both worlds. That makes them totally useless.