A beginner's guide to the Redpill Right

The Nazis were officially the National Socialist party, which is where the name comes from. So some decry Naziism as the true, secret goal of socialists everywhere. Although these are typically people who study about socialism from John Birch Society newsletters and such. Coopted forms of leftist government can betray the public trust and institute totalitarian society which is basically fascism. Same IMO goes for dictatorships of so-called communist countries.


There is a major contradiction at the heart of libertarianism that leads to this outcome - democracy vs property. A lot of libertarians are very bothered by the fact that democracy allows the majority to vote to redistribute wealth more equitably from the owning minority. In other words, their free market utopia is always going to be under threat from public unpopularity so long as the public has formal access to the levers of power. So their solution is get rid of democracy. The primacy of property to libertarians means that their ideology has a very strong anti-democratic undercurrent, which has been surfacing more as of late.


The terminology (TERF) that is lobbed at them is a slur that is directed only at women who identify as feminist and gender critical. There are some trans people who self-identify as gender critical.

Sex = biology, gender = socialization and culture. Many so called TERFs are also very critical (as in gender critical) of the demands of the dominant culture with regards to the stereotyped performance of gender - ie femininity, masculinity.

Thanks @sssss and @bryan It helps to think of it that way. I like the way “Free Market Socialist” might make people stop and question their categories.


I agree with you there. The author seems to have lumped a large group of disparate people together and tried to give them some common purpose and name.
Generalised and lazy.


With “it must be because those men are just better at it, rather than for systemic reasons,” the last part is still being rhetorically attributed to the everday redpiller. It’s not posed as a universal fact applicable to every case, though it is certainly suggested as a common factor. The writer is not saying that men “only do better due to systemic reasons.”


Since some of the harshest anti-trans bullphone has come from self-described radical feminists such as Janice Raymond, it started as a useful descriptive term to distinguish trans-exterminationist and trans-allied radical feminists.


There’s also the part that their free market utopia will eventually grind to a halt in capitalistic feudalism, but they’re okay with that, so long as they get to be the Barons, Counts and Kings (Jackson’s Whole comes to mind).


I’d trade inefficient interstellar feudalism for a workable FTL drive. (I wasn’t on such a list, but I was a hardcore Traveller player)


“Free Market Socialist” would be in the bottom centre of the political compass. Left of that are Libertarian Socialists, people who think that government and capitalists are co-operating in their coercion, particularly of women, LTBTQ people, POC, etc… They repeatedly do things that would leave them labeled as SJWs by the redpillers, which is why I doubt they really are Lib-Socs.


This distinction is a fairly recent contrivance of some in the gender studies discipline. It is not widely used this way outside of those circles. I think its problematic since the actual meaning and origin of the word gender means the biological aspects. There is a worthwhile distinction being made, but for clarity they should use another term which doesn’t mean the opposite of its other established uses.

1 Like

Feminism is not a monolith, neither are trans expressions of identity.

I know of no radical feminists who have ever called for trans EXTERMINATION. Citation needed, please.


Just like the libertarians who awarded Neal Stephenson a prize for depicting their utopia in Snow Crash.


What the world is a “Libertarian Socialist”?

All I’m aware of are the An-Cap variety.

It predates the use of Libertarian to mean capitalist by at least a century.


Hi, Cathy Brennan here. The writer, who I have never heard of, misrepresents my views. I don’t subscribe to “biological essentialism.” Indeed, I have no idea what that means. This is shameful “reporting.”



Of course, the whole “Dark Enlightenment” thing is unpopular not only because the ideas behind it are universally terrible but also because trying to read Mencius Moldbug is about as much fun as drowning in a tar pit. God save us from articulate assholes.


I think that the confusion over whether these guys are far-Right or far-Left comes from the way they combine the substance of the far-Right (a social order that preserves power for those that already have it at all costs) with some of the traditional trappings of the far-Left (atheism, cynical “rationalism”, technological progress, and the near-worship of anything that calls itself science, regardless of its actual scientific merit). For many Millennials (and I would imagine for some belonging to older generations as well) the Right in the USA has been nearly synonymous with fundamentalist Christianism for our entire lives. It’s pretty easy for me to see how Redpill guys would see themselves as being leftists solely because of their atheism.

FWIW, I’m a bleeding-heart lefty, and I’m way more likely to run into these guys in my social circles than traditional conservatives.


Market socialism is really an interesting area. You might enjoy “Feasible Socialism” by Alec Nove. If you Google it there are some PDFs around.

1 Like