Before venturing into this, read this post by Rollo about misperceptions surrounding hypergamy. If you don't want to bother, here's the summary: hypergamy is a big problem, affects all men, threatens civilization, and isn't going away.

Having discussed my reaction to this post here in the sub today, I've coalesced my thinking into a call to action. This isn't a proposal for a movement. Rather, this is a suggestion of a common approach that men can take to fix this situation. All we need to do is spread the idea in a decentralized fashion, determine our own ability and willingness to participate, and let the thing take care of itself.

TL;DR: Civilization exists because primitive man created an alliance between alpha and beta males, where each would make small concessions, but both groups would reap more benefits than they would otherwise. Women didn't have a thing to do with it. They are accessories to civilization, not its founders or maintainers. Their subconscious reproductive programming is stronger than their ability to adapt to civilization. Civilization doesn't make sense to them, and they will sabotage it if they can. The solution is a second "Great Alliance" between alpha and beta males, each making a few small concessions, to develop a critical mass of male solidarity in the culture that will hack female behavior and mitigate feminist imperatives. The only goal of the alliance is for all men to strive to develop "meta-frame", a permanent cultural attitude of men that insulates civilization from female sabotage.

1. Civilization is the product of an alliance between alphas and betas.

Civilization is the idea that alpha males can save personal resources otherwise devoted to fighting and policing status, by acquiescing to a few basic ground rules. These rules are tribal customs, usually oriented around property. We call this the "rule of law over the rule of man".

Beta males took the deal, because it set them up as consistent providers, getting them sex. More significantly, it took less pressure off of betas to fight for their right to be in the tribe. Betas no longer had to die off young for tribal politics to work.

Consider why evolution adapted alpha and beta distinctions. The Pareto ration says that any optimal distribution will rest at around 80-20. This means, in the case of a society, that 20% of the people control 80% of the resources. The reason why this is mathematically, naturally optimal is that humans in a society can produce more if their labor is coordinated. But they need coordination. Having 20 percent be the coordinators, and 80 percent be the coordinated, for some esoteric mathematical reason, is more efficient than having 5 percent coordinate the 95 percent, or 40 percent coordinate the 60 percent.

There have to be alphas, and there have to be betas. This optimizes tribal organization. However, property through legal custom changed the game.

Property custom enables voluntary exchange mechanics, which creates a marketplace. A marketplace enables commerce, money, and so forth.

Now, society isn't 20 percent alpha males, 80 percent beta males. It's some number of males, where 20 percent hold 80 percent of the wealth. Now it's money and property that coordinates social organization, as opposed to personal power struggles. Paying armed mercenaries gold is more important than being able to knock out five betas in a bare knuckles fist fight. This is civilization.

Civilization, it turns out (the weapons technology and mercenaries factor being no small part of the picture), was wildly successful at increasing resource acquisition levels for men. Both alphas and betas, on average, were living leaps and bounds better than they had in tribal conditions.

The tribe was no primal diet, MMA all day, hunting for fun paradise. It was brutal, merciless, starvation, mass killing, constant vying for status, helpless against the elements.

The nice thing about civilization is that when you want to play primitive you can. Sport, gladiators, hunting, camping, exploring, excursions. Business competition. Fist fights in a back alley. Civilization didn't preclude men from being able to do what they like to do. In every way it made more of this more accessible to more men.

How do women fit in? They are accessories to it. It wasn't there idea. They weren't part of the alliance.

In nature, men sort out which men live or die, which men are at the top. Women, then, fit into the aftermath. Female instincts are adapted to this primitive setting, and women don't actually have agency when it comes to their social and sexual imperative vis-a-vis their innate expectation that men fight and kill each other for status.

Women benefit materially from civilization, but it wasn't there idea, they couldn't have thought of it, they don't know how or why it really works, and it has nothing to do with their social or sexual priorities.

Thus, in order to "fit women into" civilization, the male alliance created marriage. Marriage is a check against female imperative. It sets limits on female hypergamous expectations. It provides them a subtle outlet. It gives women access to providers in a formal, customary way. It rewards beauty with access to status.

I propose that marriage was not a "deal" between men and women, at the dawn of civilization. I propose that marriage was a deal between alpha and beta males - the founders of civilization - and women didn't know what the fuck to do, but it was designed for them so they went along.

2. Modernity has broken marriage, and messed up the formula.

Modernity has been great for men. No longer do we have to fuck up our backs in a coal mine. We can do it playing football.

However, modernity has messed up marriage. How?

Marriage was a successful container for female imperative because women needed providers. Women acquiesced to marriage because it was better than any possible alternative. Modernity has exploded societal wealth.

Previously, unless they were whores or aristocrats, women were functionally unable to add value to society. It's not that men didn't let them. It's that women aren't strong enough to dig in a mine, on average (and even near the top). Also, women don't have dynamic social instincts. They can't commit to a decision, come what may. And when men clash, they resolve it, then move on. Women hold grudges.

I can't imagine a sailing ship in the 17th century, crewed by women alone, sailing the world. At the first hardship, there'd be a breakdown of decision making. Again, not because women "can't" endure hardship. Because their social instincts are their worst enemy.

Remember that male evolutionary psychology gave men "alpha-ness", a natural paradigm for coordinating social behavior optimally. Even a group of alphas can fall into an 80-20 decision making hierarchy. Even betas can do this. Average women have a tough time.

So, what this means is that women had no options except marriage.

With wealth has come a slurry of "useless" jobs. That is, jobs that don't add to society's wealth, but which - due to society having so much spare wealth - are pleasant or convenient to some, end up getting resources from sectors which do generate wealth. The "service sector". Government. And so forth.

Women are able to be functionally successful in these inane, fourth-tier careers. With technology like birth control, and other comforts which insulate daily life from nature's harsh reality (making it more manageable and comfortable for once-a-month bleeders), women now fit into the economy in massive numbers.

Suddenly, they don't need what marriage was meant to be.

This is our problem. Because women are not biologically disposed to deal with civilization. They want "top cock", they gain a totally false impression of their own sexual marketplace value, they disdain most men, they patronize most men, and expect to be provided for. They feel morally superior to men, and use shame and sex to impose more and more unreasonable demands.

And men, relying on marriage to deal with women, having adapted to the new reality.

Women haven't changed, neither have men, neither has marriage. Economics has changed. There's more wealth.

What's the solution? We can't just force women into marriage. The secret of power is that when people willingly consent to a system, it's a powerful system. Forcing people to do anything is incredibly costly. Most governments rely on consent, and then the implicit threat of force. The governments that rely of raw force for control tend to collapse.

Women used to go into marriage because it was the best deal for them. It's not anymore.

Can we use war to kick back our development level to a more primitive economy, to restore marriage? Dude, why do you want to do that. I love driving cars, flying in planes, having the internet and all the music of the world at my fingertips. To eat what I want, when I want. To sleep with beautiful women from all over, without consequences. Primitivism is not an option.

3. The Second Great Alliance

Faggoty name, for sure. But this is what we need. Not since men founded civilization with the first property customs, thousands of years ago, has so great and important a paradigm shift been needed. I'm saying that what we need to do will be as epochal as the first time. It could give us the stars.

Alphas and betas need to unite again, and make some concessions (not terrible ones), and act differently than what we're accustomed to. What we do will replace marriage as the great check on female imperative. It will enable civilization to survive abundance.

4. The Great Frame

I'm proposing we build "The Great Frame". TGF.

This is a great work of civilization, and enduring cultural phenomenon that defines the future, and distinguishes it from the past. There's a reason why the Chinese Wall is called "Great", and so with the Egyptian Pyramid.

The basic premise is that men will teach and support each other in practicing and perfecting "meta-frame" technique. This is in the same way that fathers teach sons about women, or alphas mentor proteges, or betas parrot alphas.

We will create a cultural sense of masculinity, and maintain it as a permanent fixture of our future civilization. We will commit to this frame as a common object and purpose for all of us.

What Alphas have to concede: Alphas will have to be willing to think of "meta-frame" in addition to personal frame. They have to be willing to take their game to a bigger playing field, on top of their own home base. That's not in alpha nature, but it's not against alpha prerogatives.

No alpha needs to stop what their doing, or change who they are. They just need to be aware enough to adopt a greater frame consciousness, for their own sake, to check female imperative.

The bigger sacrifice of alphas is to incorporate the meta-frame into their personal frame. This means that "male solidarity" will become part of personal game. This isn't meant as a cuck-y "fuck my beta friend too". In fact, an alpha can still get away with fucking a cuck's woman - the guy should have been better.

All alpha's need to do is be steadfast 1) against white-knighting and 2) support the beta male right to "go your own way".

Alphas have a natural game of humiliation of betas. Sure, fine. In a male-to-male context that's fine. What has to change is the adoption of a purer "bros before hos" mindset.

Specifically this: alphas need to refrain from joining in with female shaming.

Why would alphas have this problem? Because alpha females are good at manipulating alpha men, despite their frame. It's how females control their end of things. Alpha men can get pussy-whipped, and their females will use their alphas to manipulate beta males.

That sort of shit needs to stop. Calling out cucks and MGTOWs, etc., in front of women needs to stop (unless he's the guy you're cuckolding).

If an alpha wants to dominate, he should do it on a male basis. Show that one man is weaker than another man.

The wrong way to show dominance is to use women as a measuring stick of male worth. To participate in female shaming of low-value men.

Women need to know that the highest value female is below the value of the lowest value male. That's the idea of male solidarity.

What betas need to do is step up and learn game. Practice it. Take risks. Learn what they can get away with. Not to chase women, but to build meta-frame.

5. How it will work

The goal is for men of all ranks to build a critical mass of attitude and behavior to hack female subconscious triggers, to keep their bullshit in check. This, as a permanent cultural institution, will allow humanity to live in abundance despite women trying to fuck it up.

First, the idea needs to be spread. We have the channels to do this. In fact this is probably the proper endgame of the last 20 years of the "Manosphere". This is what it has all built up to.

Once the idea is spread, each individual man can test out and decide upon his desired level of personal involvement. More beta men will have to put themselves out there and do more upfront effort, practicing literal lines, facial gestures in the mirror, eye contact, and so forth. Alphas will have to start growing a perception (the don't naturally have) of male solidarity, and start to notice and intervene when women engage in power shaming.

White Knights need to fucking stood against the wall and talked to.

In the long run, what we learn and accomplish will become a cultural tradition. Just like people used to take gender roles and marriage for granted, we will go forward only to the degree by which men - collectively - take our collective masculinity seriously, and are committed to helping each other develop it.

The goal is not equality among men. It's to create a cultural attitude that most men are respected and valued more than most women

6. Some examples

More mansplaining. Every interaction between men and women should be with a mansplaining tone. Even if courtesy, professional, and so forth, tone, frame, word usage, eye contact should convey the idea that nothing a woman says will affect your confidence in what you're saying.

I know the alphas are rolling their eyes here. I'm saying all men need to adopt this mode of behavior with women. Even if they're not chasing tail.

The goal is to create the impression, among women, whether they agree with it or not, that men believe that civilization is our project, not theirs. That we firmly believe this, and that even a woman who disagrees won't change our mind.

The purpose is not to change a woman's mind, or pressure her into agreeing. It's to hack her subconscious bullshit so that she submits happily. Women will go along with whatever the hell men are confidently doing.

Drunk Rape. A good meta-frame for this is to insist that you believe that if a man and woman are both drunk, then they're equally to blame. Since it's equal, neither side is right, and since you're a man, you'll take what's to your advantage: the pussy. If a horrified woman insists you'll go to jail, just reply that 1) you won't, because the other woman will love the sex and 2) it doesn't matter what the law is, because you're personally powerful enough as a man to do what you want and she won't be able to do a thing about it.

In other words, the meta-frame is

If everything is equal between a man and woman, or if equality is impossible, then men should get the advantage. I think so because I'm a man. And what I think matters because, as a man, I'm more powerful than women.

That's the frame, gents. The Great Frame.

6. This is a project of the subconscious

I bet we could proclaim this project to the world, and explain clearly to every woman what we're doing and why. It won't matter. The meaningfulness of it won't register with them, it won't integrate with the source of their emotional imperatives. Only frame will, and only subconsciously.

We're not trying to dominate, persuade, trick, manipulate, or pressure women into adopting a better world for men. We're simply choosing to live in that world ourselves, and putting up a screen against their haywire inanity. They have no true opinion on it one way or another. And, for what it's worth, they really do seem happier when expectations are set on their behalf.

The goal is not a return to marriage and patriarchy. It's the construction of a virtual Patriarchy. An imaginary subconscious Patriarchy. The goal is to satiate female bullshit.

Then, women can live in society as individual human beings, albeit with perhaps less average abilities then male individuals.

7. In Conclusion

Spread the idea, discuss it.

Alphas: do you see how this female bullshit is threatening even you? Can you perceive male solidarity? Can you understand the meta-frame, and do you see how integrating it into your personal frame won't hurt your game? Can you reach out to betas to help their frame?

Betas: Time to be a fucking man. Learn game. It's technical, you're good at that. It's scary, you suck at that. But you can't survive unless something is done. You will die. You won't be able to go your own way. You will prove all the women out there that you really don't deserve their love or respect, fundamentally, even if they weren't hypergamous. Do the right thing, learn game, practice the frame.

As we try this out personally, talk about it, and spread the idea, I believe things will slowly change. Women do react to this bullshit. They're that petty and shallow of mind.

Civilization will fall. Look at the Islamic invasion of Europe. That's how, practically, the end happens. Women prevent men from resisting barbarism, and in the end barbarism makes more sense to women anyway. We have to stop letting women fuck it up.

Don't talk about race, don't talk about Islam, don't talk about immigration. I don't mean that literally, I mean it rhetorically. I mean that if you fix this women problem, all the other problems will fix themselves with very little effort. Even big cuck reasonable liberal men have realized that you can't afford open immigration and welfare. They'd be on board with reasonable measures that protect civilization. It's the fucking women that fuck it up by throwing logic out the fucking window and poisoning all politics in the Western world.

No, marriage is mostly gone. Women will probably become like the lowest beta men: subpar contributors, but part of the work force. They'll be part of reciprocal sexual relationships, but these won't be grand and romantic and forever. Many men will still be excluded. False accusation, alimony bullshit will stop. Women will get that a relationship is a sacrifice they have to make to get something their bullshit psychology needs. Relationships will happen, they won't be romanticized.

I've made my point. Good luck.