- Joined
- May 19, 2026
- Messages
- 748
- Thread Author
- #1
They have been successfully debunked by omegavirginrevolt, by me, by feminists, and probably also by others. I dont know all people who debunked hypergamy.
The only time there was an organized effort to debunk one of the redpill narratives was for RK selection meme, where multiple youtubers came together, and science communicators and others supported them. The RK selection meme was destroyed successfully, and the manuresphere was humiliated bent to its knees.
Another time there was an academia rebellion against alpha-beta dynamics used by redpillers, but this one failed. The author of the wolf pack study also personally intervened to halt the redpillers. Even right wing personalities started to intervene, to stop the proliferation of alpha-beta nonsense from the redpillers. But the redpillers relented, persevered, ignored all criticism, insulated and grifted and conned even larger audiences.
What it became obvious to me, is that we need organized mass scale efforts and government funds, but how do we do it without incurring in the risk of establishing somthing like "minister of truth"? We are playing with fire. On one hand we need help, we need funds, we desperately need academia support, but on the other hand we already seen what classes of people like "fact checkers" or "the experts" can do. We need investigative journalists, academia people who are afforded excess time to go online and challenge grifters, we need some level of authority, but at the same time we have to bulid checks so that they do not become "minister of truth" and produce the excesses of the "fact checkers" or the "skeptics community".
When it comes to hypergamy, its fairly obvious why they defend it. Or, to be honest, its unfair to say they "defend it", they mostly ignore the criticisms of their idea, but they do it on purpose. Hypergamy is one of the pilars of their entire narrative structure.
With a building block like hypergamy, you can construct anything. You can derive the idea that relationships are competitive markets and train the readers or listeners to think female attraction is primarily a method to seek social status, or you can undermine the ideas someone has related to commitment and love ideology, you can make someone feel uncertain and give him doomer narratives and depattern and do demoralization. Demoralization can allow you to influence the subject you can teach him a false "cynicism" telling him that qualities like sharing interests or hobby or affection or anything else is stupid and "bluepilled".
You can do even more, and its here where hypergamy really becomes dangerous. You can describe macro-level trends, call them "hypergamy", you invent the meaning of "hypergamy" the more you go on. You talk about declining marriage rates, divorce, dating apps. The usual platitudes.
You can appeal to lonely people, guys who have unstable family or guys who hate their parents.
You can say "society itself is being shaped or corrupted by female mating preferences. Thru leaps of logic you can say liberalism is the cause of it, and jump into topics like individualism, and modernity and various -isms. You can take the liberty to define nothing, be shallow immoral and dishonest. All redpillers are dishonest immoral and horribly stupid.
I show you an example how it could play out.
Step1: Introduce the reader to "hypergamy", say that women have too much choice.
Step 2: Tell a tale, invent it, say that traditional constraints have disappeared. Obviously you take the liberty to use the word "traditional" very liberally, you invent it.
Step 3, you repeat that hypergamy is running "unchecked". The readers will probably accept the term "hypergamy" by now.
Conclude: society is becoming unstable, we have to become orthodox christian.
Or something else, it can be the imbecile redpiller next time promotes islam or nazism or communism. You get the point.
The only time there was an organized effort to debunk one of the redpill narratives was for RK selection meme, where multiple youtubers came together, and science communicators and others supported them. The RK selection meme was destroyed successfully, and the manuresphere was humiliated bent to its knees.
Another time there was an academia rebellion against alpha-beta dynamics used by redpillers, but this one failed. The author of the wolf pack study also personally intervened to halt the redpillers. Even right wing personalities started to intervene, to stop the proliferation of alpha-beta nonsense from the redpillers. But the redpillers relented, persevered, ignored all criticism, insulated and grifted and conned even larger audiences.
What it became obvious to me, is that we need organized mass scale efforts and government funds, but how do we do it without incurring in the risk of establishing somthing like "minister of truth"? We are playing with fire. On one hand we need help, we need funds, we desperately need academia support, but on the other hand we already seen what classes of people like "fact checkers" or "the experts" can do. We need investigative journalists, academia people who are afforded excess time to go online and challenge grifters, we need some level of authority, but at the same time we have to bulid checks so that they do not become "minister of truth" and produce the excesses of the "fact checkers" or the "skeptics community".
When it comes to hypergamy, its fairly obvious why they defend it. Or, to be honest, its unfair to say they "defend it", they mostly ignore the criticisms of their idea, but they do it on purpose. Hypergamy is one of the pilars of their entire narrative structure.
With a building block like hypergamy, you can construct anything. You can derive the idea that relationships are competitive markets and train the readers or listeners to think female attraction is primarily a method to seek social status, or you can undermine the ideas someone has related to commitment and love ideology, you can make someone feel uncertain and give him doomer narratives and depattern and do demoralization. Demoralization can allow you to influence the subject you can teach him a false "cynicism" telling him that qualities like sharing interests or hobby or affection or anything else is stupid and "bluepilled".
You can do even more, and its here where hypergamy really becomes dangerous. You can describe macro-level trends, call them "hypergamy", you invent the meaning of "hypergamy" the more you go on. You talk about declining marriage rates, divorce, dating apps. The usual platitudes.
You can appeal to lonely people, guys who have unstable family or guys who hate their parents.
You can say "society itself is being shaped or corrupted by female mating preferences. Thru leaps of logic you can say liberalism is the cause of it, and jump into topics like individualism, and modernity and various -isms. You can take the liberty to define nothing, be shallow immoral and dishonest. All redpillers are dishonest immoral and horribly stupid.
I show you an example how it could play out.
Step1: Introduce the reader to "hypergamy", say that women have too much choice.
Step 2: Tell a tale, invent it, say that traditional constraints have disappeared. Obviously you take the liberty to use the word "traditional" very liberally, you invent it.
Step 3, you repeat that hypergamy is running "unchecked". The readers will probably accept the term "hypergamy" by now.
Conclude: society is becoming unstable, we have to become orthodox christian.
Or something else, it can be the imbecile redpiller next time promotes islam or nazism or communism. You get the point.
