I think that it is unfair to lump together a red pill as a reality model, worldview (Weltanschauung), and a red pill as a political stance.
They may be, but must not be, the one and the same. Politics, or political ideas, are rather transient.
Why does politics change with generations, like noted by Heidegger (Das Dasein is als jeweiliges zugleich immer eine Generation.), or The Fourth Turning of Strauss-Howe....?! This is difficult question, and one which tends to put in question the traditional rationality of our discourse (or simply the Enlightenment rationality-as-progress narrative), I would say.
Maybe the point is to discover always the same existential structure (Grundstruktur)? This is something which goes against politics as true expression of ideas, and what by its very nature reduces politics to a structure of power only. Example: it would be much easier for feminism - on the idea level - still to hold the banner of 'first' feminism ( since it was more reasonable), but as feminism mutated to political entity, it has to have asserted itself again through a new fight, so now there is already the 'third' feminism, which not-so-accidentally is simultaneously a third generation feminism.
The existential dimension is uncovered through a strange fact that a feminist would rather concentrate on fast and furious tactics (fighting 'rape culture' in the West) than those dictated by reason (learning Arabic, Urdu or Chinese and moving to respective countries in order to widen the feminist revolution); in the second case, a feminist could probably not even see a victory in her own life (!).
Is the existential dimension of politics simultaneously a religious dimension...? That could perhaps explain why feminism is so popular in former puritan cultures... However, we do lack feminist missionaries going to foreign lands to spread feminism (!).
They may be, but must not be, the one and the same. Politics, or political ideas, are rather transient.
Why does politics change with generations, like noted by Heidegger (Das Dasein is als jeweiliges zugleich immer eine Generation.), or The Fourth Turning of Strauss-Howe....?! This is difficult question, and one which tends to put in question the traditional rationality of our discourse (or simply the Enlightenment rationality-as-progress narrative), I would say.
Maybe the point is to discover always the same existential structure (Grundstruktur)? This is something which goes against politics as true expression of ideas, and what by its very nature reduces politics to a structure of power only. Example: it would be much easier for feminism - on the idea level - still to hold the banner of 'first' feminism ( since it was more reasonable), but as feminism mutated to political entity, it has to have asserted itself again through a new fight, so now there is already the 'third' feminism, which not-so-accidentally is simultaneously a third generation feminism.
The existential dimension is uncovered through a strange fact that a feminist would rather concentrate on fast and furious tactics (fighting 'rape culture' in the West) than those dictated by reason (learning Arabic, Urdu or Chinese and moving to respective countries in order to widen the feminist revolution); in the second case, a feminist could probably not even see a victory in her own life (!).
Is the existential dimension of politics simultaneously a religious dimension...? That could perhaps explain why feminism is so popular in former puritan cultures... However, we do lack feminist missionaries going to foreign lands to spread feminism (!).