Open Hypergamy is a marketing campaign. It wont be myself or any other Red Pill writer who unplugs the majority of men. It will be women's unignorable hubris that will make the most men 'aware'.
Don't bother to criticize this. You'll just be "less of a man" if you do.
Resist the reflex to flip the script. “If you reversed the gender this commercial never gets made” is the rage the agency wants to prompt. The goal of this isn’t to sell an item, it’s to prompt “men are insecure” dialogue, which makes it memorable.
It’s better to use this commercial as a proof of concept. If you have a friend who’s resistant to the Red Pill, this is one of those opportunities to ask him pointed questions that illustrate women’s nature.
This commercial is a much better lesson in teaching women’s innate nature than as outrage bait. Agree and amplify isn’t just limited to Game. It’s psychosocial judo. Use your adversary’s energy against them...
...I’m sure the wife would love a hot sexy man to be available. Look at the pathetic, insecure Beta she married? Don’t all women deserve a successful, famous Alpha lover?
This is a prime example of an Alpha Widow. There’s so much to work with here. It’s really a Red Pill gift.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women, yet remains emotionally aloof. The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who too readily engages in grand romantic gestures.
What men need to understand is that when they leap to profess their feelings at the first opportunity, they are viewed by women as being akin to the male version of the woman who doesn't hesitate to make herself sexually available on the first date.
This is the crux of the Simp. He is his own worst enemy and perpetuates his state all the easier in the age of social media.
Women approach love opportunistically. Few ever acknowledge that their only true agency is a depreciating commodity. They believe they should be loved idealistically, but reciprocity is an option based on men’s performance. This only lasts until their sexual market value decays.
She is a perfect example of gynocentric entitlement. Open Hypergamy; openly embracing her transactional mating strategy. Women make rules for Betas and break rules for Alphas. This is her rule for any Beta: you must make 2x my salary and respect my self-entitlement.
This is an egoistic compromise for her: “if I have to settle on a less arousing Beta in the long term my inflated sense of sexual market value demands at least 2x the provisioning I can provide for myself.” Her rules and hubris is only reserved for Beta males.
The Red Pill, with respect to intersexual dynamics, is, and will always be a praxeology. It is unconcerned with value judgements. Issues of how one interprets the data presented by Red Pill praxeology as right or wrong is an exercise in subjectivity and personal belief.
In essence the Red Pill should always be about what IS – not what should be, not what seems moral, immoral or amoral. What one does with the data the Red Pill praxeology aggregates, and how one interprets that information, is up to the individual.
The prescriptions we create for ourselves with this knowledge are almost always a value call.
The #MeToo movement was only EVER a political/ideological weapon. Its only intent was the personal destruction of men. This is now glaringly, provably obvious in light of the gross duplicity of the Tara Reade accusations of Biden.
The indifference openly displayed by…
…female politicians about these accusations only emphasizes the latent purpose of #MeToo – its intent was to be weaponized – only to be used to serve the interests of the Sisterhood Über Alles. If Biden wasn't seen as a vehicle to put a future female VP in the Whitehouse…
…he'd be sitting next to Bill Cosby in the old folks penitentiary. And he'd be one more scalp for the Sisterhood. @TuckerCarlson is seeing this now, but he wont push it over the edge. He makes distinctions of "institutionalized" feminism vs. "good" feminism like a good Trad-Con.
One of the effects of feminism is that men of my generation have had a much wider opportunity to cook. I can’t think of any men my age or younger who don’t know how to cook. Moreover, I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking.
[thread]
This is in stark contrast to the women of the same generations, who (typically) view cooking as an indignity. The reason for the difference in attitude boils down to what cooking is all about. Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others.
Cooking is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands. This is precisely what troubles the modern woman so much about cooking (or cleaning, or changing diapers).