/lit/ - Literature

>>10717196
>>10716817

>>8693252
He seems to lean that way, his writing is a great example of how /r9k/ took up economic leftism and applied it to sex.

>/lit/ is against economic liberalism because it leds to concentration of resources to the wealthy, pauperization at the middle-class and misery to the poorest
>/lit/ is for sexual liberalism, even though it leds to concentration of women at the harems of alpha males, pauperization of beta males options and celibacy for omega males

Why such hypocrisy, is it because charismatic intellectuals and Marxist student union leader types tend to be Chads like this guy? >>6346246

>>6240714
>Hell, I welcome it, since it means more sex for me.

That's the same logic behind Reaganomics, they tell you the wealth will trickle-down, but it doesn't, it just concentrates at the top.

It's the same with promiscuity and degeneracy, when women are free to choose their partners, they won't choose us (or at least me, i don't know about you), they will choose aggressive, violent, dominant and charismatic alpha males who will them form de facto harems.

It is funny how many people who are socialist and opposed to neoliberal economics support at the same are opposed to sexual socialism and support "neoliberal sexuality". My guess is that such people, while they can't compete in the economic market, therefore they want to regulate it, are charismatic enough to compete in the sexual market, so they want to keep it deregulated for their own benefit.