Neoliberal, Androcentric, Bioconservative
What's Wrong With Red Pill's Worldview? Part 3.3
If you prefer YouTube and Spotify then please click those links!
Bastard love children from two contradictory ideologies seem to be popping out left and right. Jordan Peterson raves about postmodern neomarxists, making either camp wonder how they could have been put together with people they disagree with.1 Kanye West, a Black American hiphop star, aligns himself quite vocally with a certain 1940s German party.2 Russell Brand, the flamboyant Communist comedian is now a Right Wing Christian.3 And finally, Red Pill, a union of misinterpreted evolutionary science with conservative, patriarchal values.4,5,6
These are undoubtedly extreme examples, but that’s kind of the point. We live in a time when contradictory positions seem to be folding in on each other to produce strange perspectives and situations.
It isn’t necessary to read them first, but in my two previous essays I’ve talked firstly about how Red Pill is defined by the logic of neoliberal capitalism. That basically just means that we are taught to view ourselves as entrepreneurs, always investing in ourselves so that we can increase our value to a marketplace that selects for a nihilistic hedonism. This in turn combines with Red Pill’s androcentrism, where “alpha males” are decided through competition over the attention of females seen as a resource in a “free” sexual marketplace.
Red Pill justifies all of that with evolutionary psychology or evopsych, which makes the hierarchy between males and females an unchangeable fact of nature that must be obeyed.4 This is the “bio-” that blends with their neoliberal, androcentric conservatism. So with that said, the specific contradiction in Red Pill I’d like to focus on is between the market logic of neoliberalism and the moral logic of neoconservatism. As Dr. Wendy Brown writes:7
“How does a project that empties the world of meaning, that cheapens and deracinates life and openly exploits desire, intersect [another project] centered on fixing and enforcing meanings, conserving certain ways of life, and repressing and regulating desire?”
While she was talking about the contradictory relation between neoliberalism and neoconservatism in American politics, I think she demonstrates a beautifully tragic prescience in how much this aligns with the amoral-moralism of Red Pill.
The Neoconservative African Savanna
Before I get into that, my name is Will. I’m a Theory Artist and Mythwright, and on this channel we craft new ways to think about masculinity through psychological development and Jungian psychology.
How is it, then, that you have this philosophy, Red Pill, in which there is completely free sex for the males of the species, and yet at the same time disparages and demeans women for also having free sex?4,5,8 Who else would these men be having sex with other than the women who, apparently, they corrupt and damage merely by sleeping with?
To begin to understand, here is Dr. Brown quoting Anna Norton:7
“Neoconservatives reject the vulgarity of mass culture. They deplore the decadence of artists and intellectuals. They, though not always religious themselves, ally themselves with religion and religious crusades. They encourage family values and the praise of older forms of family life, where women occupy themselves with children, cooking and the church, and men take on the burdens of manliness.”
Firstly, Red Pill defines these burdens of manliness in terms of the Primordial Man, which is the idea that what it means to be a “man” was decided on the African savanna 50,000 years ago. This assumes an essentialist, and so static, definition of masculinity. It’s essentialist because this is supposed to be the core essence of what it truly means to be a man. As such, it creates a goal state that all “successful” men have to work toward achieving, and then justifies it by saying that it’s “biological”, it’s “evolutionary psychology”.
To be clear, I’m not saying that evopsych is necessarily always a bad thing. I’ve talked about that in my Red Pill Ontology essay. Instead, the issue is Red Pill’s misuse of evopsych to justify their own personal definition for the Primordial Man, for how they think men ought to be. And by the way, Alex of Date Psych has gone into extraordinary depth to show that they are misusing evopsych.9 Additionally, the fact that it’s essentialist means that it is also static, there’s nothing we can do change it. Again, the best we can do, and ought to do, is to align ourselves with it as much as is possible.
At least in my view though, the reality of masculinity is that it’s a complex, developmental, biological, cultural, and systemic process. That means it changes over time and you cannot simply reach into some sort of primordial past for a timeless definition of what it means to be a man. That’s not how evolution works. What it means to be masculine is always negotiated in the present between your very real biological limitations and possibilities, your very real cultural expectations, the very real political and economic systems you find yourself in, and your own very real values.
With their timeless Primordial Man however, Red Pill remains stuck in the past and this is partly what makes them neoconserative. Dr. Valkenburgh can help us start understanding this a bit better with a quote he found on the Red Pill subreddit:10
“[Men] want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while. We want to, so badly.”
Dr. Valkenburgh then writes about how this apparent desire for basic human connection is subsequently interpreted by Red Pill:10
“This would seem to be an admission that men harbor a genuine, fundamental yearning for emotional safety and intimacy with women—a ‘safe haven.’ But the sidebar understands this yearning not as an expression of a basic psychological human need that is common to men and women alike […] but as a tenacious feminist illusion that should be ignored and eventually dispelled. […] Man’s seemingly powerful desire for subjective and emotional sexual connection, then, is actually just a reflection of the feminist ‘matrix’ which deludes men into consenting to exploitative relationships.”
Here we can begin to see the issue with this notion of the Primordial Man. Anything that doesn’t align with Red Pill’s definition is automatically turned into a feminist conspiracy. Rollo Tomassi, the Godfather of Red Pill, has this to say:4
“traditional masculinity has been redefined by social contrivance and distilling it back down to it’s core fundamentals is imperative in getting back to masculinity as a positive.”
He uses the phrase “social contrivance” to point out cultural beliefs that are created to benefit feminine interests by constraining “authentic” male interests. Remember, we are in a sexual marketplace where male interests compete with female interests. Women compete by creating social contrivances that take traditional masculinity, which is governed by biology, and redefine it as toxic masculinity, which is a feminist fabrication with no merit whatsoever.
I think there is a legitimate criticism to be made about the idea of toxic masculinity, but then there’s a legitimate criticism to be made about the toxicity of some traditional masculinity. In either case, this Primordial Man is a vision for a particularly patriarchal “traditional masculinity”, which means that they’ve co-opted evopsych to justify a neoconservative value structure about how men, women, and society must be. If anyone disagrees with that definition, then they are simply succumbing to the lies of the feminist matrix.
And yet, this idea that Red Pill is influenced by neoconservatism may still seem a little bit outlandish, so let’s look at another quote from Dr. Brown:7
“Whatever egalitarianism is derivable from certain Christian traditions, in contemporary Christian fundamentalism, the relationship of God and his subjects and the phenomenon of church hierarchy itself legitimates inequality as natural, good, and permanent. That is, even if we are all equal in the eyes of God, there is not only authority but also legitimate hierarchy in Christian fundamentalism. When this sensibility infiltrates what is left of public culture […] inequality - not merely submissiveness toward authority but also legitimate stratification and subordination - takes shape as a political norm rather than a political challenge.”
What Dr. Brown is pointing out is that their specific hierarchy is reified or made real and natural. There is a Christian subdivision of Red Pill, and Tomassi even recommends a Christian Red Piller. However, in bioconservativism they primarily replace God with biology.4 So, rather than justifying a hierarchy with men above women as God-ordained law, they use evopsych to denigrate egalitarianism as a myth. This is often done by demeaning female nature as being incapable of loving an egalitarian man.4,8
Alex of Date Psych criticizes this one-sided view:9
“The red pill is a collection of ‘unflattering truths about female nature,’ […] but only because [Tomassi] cherry-picks those ‘truths’ to show you. Among the most robust findings in evolutionary psychology is that men tend to behave worse than women across a myriad of domains: crime, rape, infidelity, telling lies, and much more. David Buss wrote a whole book about this entitled, ‘When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault.’”
“Women could build an ideology around evolutionary psychology blacker than the void by focusing exclusively on this. Indeed, some extreme feminists do just that, exactly as Rollo Tomassi does in the opposite direction. Perhaps the real difference is that ‘lots of women would be willing to have sex with the hot pool boy’ is nowhere near as dark as ‘lots of men would be willing to rape women in a warzone.’”
My overall point is that Red Pill misuses evopsych to build a hierarchy in which males dominate, perpetuating conservative patriarchal norms about the place of men and women in relationships and in society at large. This is the neoconservative element in Red Pill’s axiology, or value system, which they turn into bioconservatism. The last two essays have outlined the neoliberal and androcentrist components of that axiology. In the next section I’m going to start drawing all of those pieces closer together.
Neoliberal, Androcentric, Bioconservative
In her work, Dr. Brown makes it clear that she’s not talking about a union between neoconservativism and neoliberalism, but instead about how the development of either creates the conditions in which the other can prosper. There’s a dialogue between the two in which they influence each other without necessarily collapsing into one another completely.7 Red Pill is very much the spawn of a particularly debauched dialogue.
For example, in my essay on the neoliberal foundation of Red Pill’s value system, I said the following:
“Notice the assumption that a successful high-value relationship is dependent on being the kind of man who has sex with the highest number of ‘high-value’ – physically attractive – women. Corporations will put super-sugary candy on shelves and say, ‘if people buy it, that must mean that’s what they truly want.’ Red Pill is justifying the current state of the sexual marketplace by saying that if it appeals to our most hedonistic desires for sex, then that must be what we truly desire, what will truly make us the happiest, and who we should truly aspire to be.”
Firstly, they’re claiming that what women truly want is based only on the kind of man they are most likely to want to sleep with, often as fast as possible. Secondly, that this is the kind of man that men ought to truly desire and aspire to be. Notice something very telling about these assumptions. This is the short term pleasure of candy being confused with the long term health of a well-balanced meal.
This assumption that the sexual marketplace is accurately deciding what kind of woman is best and what kind of man is best, is textbook neoliberalism. The fact that this is then used to justify a patriarchal social order is neoconservatism.
Tomassi provides another example of this in the book the Rational Male in his discussion of “The Wall”. This is the idea that once women hit a certain age, their value in the sexual marketplace drops as their youth and fertility fade beyond reproductive value. One way a woman can accelerate her movement toward the Wall is by becoming a “careerist obsessive”.4
On one hand, we can definitely see how stress and bad habits can damage anyone’s health and ability to reproduce.11,12 However, notice how he pathologizes only a woman’s desire for professional autonomy and life purpose outside of reproduction, and then justifies that by reducing her “real” value to sexual viability as decided by how many Alpha males will choose to sleep with her or be in a relationship with her.
Tomassi says this explicitly:4
“For all the self-convincing attempts to redefine sexual valuation to the contrary, [Sexual Marketplace Value] for women is ultimately decided by Men, not by women.”
If you remember from my last essay, I talked about how Tomassi capitalizes the word “man” to make it clear that he is talking about Alpha Men vs. the lower classes of men. In that quote he does just that. Again, this is all bioconservatism justified with a neoliberal conception of a sexual marketplace where hedonistic choices are taken to be the deciding factor in the “harsh reality of male and female nature”.
Throughout Tomassi’s book, there is a very one-sided consideration for how cultural standards might shape the choices men and women make in such a marketplace.4 Once again, it is only ever the arbitrary social contrivances of the feminine imperative that seek to violate male interests. He never once considers the possibility that it’s his own definition of Alpha male that is the social contrivance dictating how men and women choose, or at the very least, to what extent his definition is mere social contrivance.
As I said before, it’s always a complex combination of biology, culture, political and economic systems, and personal values. Unfortunately, within Red Pill’s androcentrism, the male interest is taken as the Truth.
Additionally, throughout the Rational Male, Tomassi makes it clear that he has an anti-constraint bias. By that I mean to say that he almost has an allergy to any sort of commitment or obligation. He writes here:4
“True power isn’t about controlling others, but the degree to which you control the course of your own life and your own choices. Commitment to anything always limits this.”
Elsewhere he adds:4
“In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.”
Remember everything we’ve discussed in previous essays, about how Red Pill views relationships as a competition in which the winner sets the terms of the relationship. Given that, we can clearly see that he defines freedom and power in terms of unilateral power. This is basically the idea that true power is defined as having power over others.13
Now this seems contradictory, because he says clearly that “true power isn’t about controlling others,” but the idea is that your power decreases when others, including the environment, can influence you. Maybe it’s true that Tomassi really doesn’t believe that true power is about control. Given the evidence that definitely doesn’t mean he thinks controlling others is a bad thing, but what we can definitely say is that he believes being controlled or influenced by others is a bad thing.
This allergy to constraint can help us make better sense of a contradiction between neoconservative family values and the fact that men can fuck whoever and however much they desire. This is what I mean by neoconservatism and neoliberalism being in dialogue with one another. We take the neoconservative values that keep women submissive and men in a position of power, but then we take the neoliberal conception of freedom from being constrained.
For example, the youtubers Aba and Preach criticize Red Pill for simultaneously advocating for men to get married and start a family, while also sleeping around.14 This is why it’s not enough to say that Red Pill is a mere dialogue between neoconservatism and neoliberalism. It’s also incredibly androcentric and grounded by evopsych. The androcentrism says that you as a man want to sleep with whoever you want and your misuses of evopsych say that this is an unchangeable, biological fact. This acts as a bridge between neoconservatism and neoliberalism. You can have your patriarchal family values while at the same time being able to do whatever you desire to do with whichever women you desire to do it to.
Ironically though, through the writings of the developmental psychologist Dr. Carol Gilligan, we can see how that’s a very stereotypically male type of thinking. Her basic point is that men tend to think in terms of agency whereas women tend to think in terms of communion. Of course, there is obviously a lot of cross-over in how either sex thinks. However, when developmental models were being created during the 1950s and 60s, there was a bias in the research because they only focused on men and boys.15
This led to models that privileged this agentic form of reasoning in the form of individual rights. In other words, what rights do I have that ought to be free of constraint? This in turn led to women being disparaged for having undeveloped agency-oriented thinking, while also failing to take into account the virtues of highly developed communion-oriented thinking.15 To be clear, this isn’t necessarily an argument for whether these modes of thinking are inherent to either sex.
Either way, it wasn’t really until Dr. Gilligan’s work that models started being expanded to include how women tended to reason. Instead of rights, they focused more on responsibilities, obligations, and commitments to others.15 We’re going to get much deeper into her work when we discuss Red Pill’s Cosmology, but the main point I want to end this section on is how this one-sided privileging of agentic reasoning limits Red Pill from seeing the true value of relationships.
For example, podcaster Chris Williamson and the evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller criticize the competitive view of relationships that Red Pill has.16 This partly emerges from their definition of power as unilateral, which again means having power over others and being free of other’s influence. Bernard Loomer contrasts this with relational power, in which one becomes more powerful with others. In relational power, both parties hold on to their personhood, on to their agency, but each becomes more powerful the more powerful the other becomes.13
With their anti-constraint bias that can only see freedom and power as being free of influence from and responsibility to others, they cannot see the benefit of relational power. For them, relationships must be a zero-sum game where there are winners and losers competing over control, and as the Man you must have control. They don’t fully see how a relationship could become synergistic through the right constraints that enable 1+1 to equal far more than just 2. They don’t see how a partnership can produce so much fulfilment, meaning, and freedom, because again, that would be to give in to “feminine social contrivances”. As Tomassi says:4
“Put off and unlearn the expectations you’ve been conditioned to accept through (feminine beneficent) social contrivances and truly explore your opportunities while bettering your own conditions in anticipation for becoming monogamous at some later point.”
So great, monogamy can be a later goal in life, but, remember the quotes of his I used in the last two essays:4
“Bear in mind that monogamy is a dictate of the feminine imperative”
“Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace.”
And because:4
“Women are dream killers.”
You should always remember that:4
“you will establish frame in any monogamous relationship you have. You will enter her reality or she will enter yours.”
Within the axiology, the value system, of neoliberalism, androcentrism, and bioconservatism, it’s your freedom set against her desire to constrain you. No romantic relationship can ever be more than a power struggle between competitors striving for the satisfaction of their own interests through the dismantling of the other’s agency. No union could possibly create something more than mere constraint on the Biology-Ordained Law of male domination over women.
The Myth of Primordial Patriarchy
Before I continue, if you like this essay so far, I’d really appreciate it if you gave it a like. It really helps the algorithm get this message in front of people. Thank you so much.
To summarize what I’ve written so far, Red Pill has developed a brand of neoconservatism that I call bioconservatism, in which a patriarchal social order is justified through the misuse of evolutionary psychological research. This rigid moral hierarchy of faux family values and (likely) genuine intention for a well-functioning society, which also happens to oppress women and lesser men, contradicts the neoliberal individualism that frees “Men” to dominate the world as they see fit for their own self-interest. This contradiction is resolved by the bridge of androcentrism that connects selfish male interest with the biology of bioconservatism.
I’ve already spent a lot of time criticizing and referencing criticisms of the idea that evolutionary psychology can be used to justify this patriarchal worldview. Such criticisms don’t only come from outside evopsych, but from within the field as well. People like Alex of Date Psychology, who I’ve obviously referenced throughout, and like Macken Murphy.17,18
However, I think when it really comes down to it, one of the lynchpin assumptions of Red Pill, is this idea of the Primordial man. I’ve heard people within the community say, “since time immemorial” men have been in control. Even if this idea was true, biological evolution does not work this way because it is about continual change given present environmental conditions rather than permanent cleaving to the past, and that’s without even considering cultural evolution. On top of that, this idea isn’t even true and largely comes from a lineage through Freud who wrote about a primordial past where “the father ruled”.19,20
Furthermore, Dr. Hibbs has written how non-European cultures were misinterpreted by the European researchers who studied them. She writes:21
“Often expressions of women’s identity were ignored, dismissed, or overlooked, following the logic that men’s expressions represented a culture, while women’s expressions were incomplete, faulty, or deviant […] women from nonWestern cultures are assumed to suffer under patriarchy and are assumed to have little autonomy or power.”
The point is that if we analyze different cultures with these assumptions, then we are likely going to find evidence that confirms these assumptions. We’ll then talk about them as if they’re human universals that prove some sort of evolutionary origin for our own culture’s assumptions.
If you remember all the way back to my introductory essay for this substack, I said that one of my long term goals was to find a way to bring evolutionary psychology together with feminism, sociology, and postmodernism. The two groups often define themselves against each other. That’s not what I intend to do by bringing Hibb’s point up, but instead to connect it with what I said in my essay on Red Pill’s Ontology. This is that Red Pill’s issue, perhaps their worst, is that their worldview is far too closed and they treat open questions as decided answers. By bringing to light Dr. Hibbs criticisms of evolutionary psychology and the assumption of patriarchy where it may not exist, I mean to show that these are open questions.
Additionally, David Graeber and David Wengrow have written a tome about how our assumptions of early human societies are far too narrow. Connecting all of this to Red Pill, the assumption that we have been a patriarchal species since time immemorial simply isn’t true. While in many cases we haven’t been perfectly egalitarian, with every job split 50/50 and paid exactly the same, the idea that we have always had men conquering women as biology ordains seems to be false.22
Even from an evolutionary perspective there is more than enough evidence to say that women have had a strong hand in the evolution of the complex social cognition that makes us human. It was collaboration and cooperation that made us rational and intelligent, rather than only competition between Alpha males to establish the rule of the most Alpha.20,23
The evolutionary psychologist Dr. Gary Clark has this to add:20
“Darwinian feminists like Hrdy and Gowaty believe that biological differences play a very important role in human social life – but such differences, however important they may be, are only one variable among many others of a more sociocultural nature. Acknowledging evolved sex differences by no means entails the belief that biology is destiny in any rigid and deterministic manner.”
“[Sullivan and Todd] go on to argue that ‘acknowledging sex differences is not the same as arguing that such difference justifies social and political inequality”
As we’ve learned throughout this series on Red Pill’s axiology, we have been taught to devalue and denigrate our collective interests as people, while we’re simultaneously mobilized toward the interests of the corporation or even just the market itself, as construed by neoliberal corporatist interests. This cultural and systemic condition leads to Epithymia, this algorithm-driven addiction to nihilistic hedonism, which is married to neoliberalism and then justified by a bioconservative andocentrism. The result is a generation of Zombified men bereft of and antagonistic to the Witch. You can check out all those essays in the series The Dark Forest of Autonomy1, which charted the disintegration that marks our cultural moment and its affect on masculinity.
Regardless of what else we could say about biological sex differences between males and females, one of the most important things that I want you to take away from this series, is that they cannot be treated as immutable moral dogmas. In the next part of this mini-series on Red Pill, we’ll begin to look at their praxeology, or what they believe men ought to do given the foundation set by their ontology, epistemology, and axiology.
Until then, thank you so much for your time and attention. Please hit the like button and subscribe for more conversations on masculinity, psychological development, and the cultivation of your own personal mythology. Thanks again, and all the best to you on whatever journey you find yourself on.
References:
1 – By. (n.d.). Jordan Peterson’s “Postmodern Neomarxism” Is Pure Hokum. Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://jacobin.com/2022/03/jordan-peterson-postmodernism-marxism-philosophy-zizek
2 – 5 of Kanye West’s Antisemitic Remarks, Explained | AJC. (2022, October 13). https://www.ajc.org/news/5-of-kanye-wests-antisemitic-remarks-explained
3 – Russell Brand’s ‘Jesus’ complex is complete and fuelled by conspiracy theories. (2024, September 30). The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-baptism-tucker-carlson-allegations-doing-now-b2621216.html
4 – Tomassi, R. (2013). The Rational Male. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
5 – Destiny (Director). (2022, August 14). Debate Roundtable w/ 9 Women... Fresh And Fit w/ Sneako AFTERHOURS Show [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=juS-lQ3j9B0
6 – whatever (Director). (2023, May 16). HEATED DEBATE w/ Destiny! OBNOXIOUS Feminist KICKED OUT! | Dating Talk #75 [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=h0Eet_Csujk
7 – Brown, W. (2006). American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization. Political Theory, 34(6), 690–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591706293016
8 – The Rational Male (Director). (2020, March 11). What makes a man an Alpha Male? | #therationalmale #rollotomassi [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=7fpruwewGiY
9 – Alexander. (2024, July 23). Rollo Tomassi vs Evolutionary Psychology—Date Psychology. https://datepsychology.com/rollo-tomassi-vs-evolutionary-psychology/
10 – Van Valkenburgh, S. P. (2021). Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 24(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816118
11 – Nakamura, K., Sheps, S., & Clara Arck, P. (2008). Stress and reproductive failure: Past notions, present insights and future directions. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 25(2–3), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9206-5
12 – Nargund, V. H. (2015). Effects of psychological stress on male fertility. Nature Reviews. Urology, 12(7), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.112
13 – Loomer, B. (1976). Two Conceptions of Power – Religion Online. https://www.religion-online.org/article/two-conceptions-of-power/
14 – Aba N Preach (Director). (2025, February 14). “Why You Shouldn’t Live With Your Woman... BUT WITH YOUR BOYS INSTEAD”—Fresh & Fit [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=1-9XQp-kwA0
15 – Gilligan, C. (2003). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
16 – Chris Williamson (Director). (2022, February 7). An Evolutionary Psychologist’s Dating Advice—Geoffrey Miller [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=3Eg2b79w4Q0
17 – alex.datepsych (Director). (2024, June 11). Did Münecat debunk evolutionary psychology? [Video recording]. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=b8r5efHXjQo
18 – Macken Murphy. (n.d.). Macken Murphy. YouTube. Retrieved May 17, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtQ2Sgxiod7z8bUxaXGPnSw
19 – Marcuse, H. (2015). Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Beacon Press.
20 – Clark, G. (2025). Carl Jung and the Evolutionary Sciences: A New Vision for Analytical Psychology. Routledge.
21 – Hibbs, C. (2014). Androcentrism. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 94–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_16
22 – Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2023). The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Signal.
23 – Lent, J. (2021). The Web of Meaning: Integrating Science and Traditional Wisdom to Find our Place in the Universe. New Society Publishers.
For whatever reason we can’t organize the list ourselves so you start at the bottom and work your way up. Gotta figure out how to change that if I can lol.