When reality collapses into absurdity, men surrender to despair. Many social truths are now dominated by such absurdness: unattainable mortgages, unfit mates, ubiquitous unfairness. Achievement is largely impractical, and the effort and sacrifice are not worth the diminished rewards, if any. Even if rewards are to be had, they are tainted. A house, but it carries perpetual property taxes and hides costly repairs; a wife, but she conceals an ugly past that ambushes you later in the form of divorce and alimony; an office job, but the environment is hostile and ruins your reputation and livelihood.
A large proportion of men—to the point it has begun to debilitate the economy—parade the phrase, "The game is rigged: the only winning move is to not play." This newly acquired axiom in our modern discourse has gained followers, but not for the right reasons. The sentence itself does not provide an antagonist, the people responsible for the "rigging" of the game. For that reason alone, the claim does not stand on its own; it is intellectually lazy and dishonest because it is incomplete. It is also a ship without sails, meaning that the men who cling to such things are stranded in a semantic abyss—it offers no positive direction or outlet for their frustration or anger. As a result, they cannot progress, cannot achieve, because they have not even named the enemy or defined a destination.
The second part of the claim, that "the only winning move is to not play," appears to contain a seeming truth, but further investigation reveals the hollowness of this phrase, as well. Do not "play," they say, yet what is the alternative? Here we obtain some answers: focus on oneself and pursue your own "goals and dreams." Yet these "goals and dreams" often mean sexual or monetary ends, which exist within the apparatus of the "rigged game." So, any effort to better oneself must be accomplished within the confines of an unjust society.
Monetary and sexual success are touted as the end goal. Financial freedom would allow individuals to enjoy their lives to the fullest and to acquire the ideal family. The problem is that they are still contributing to "the game" through taxation, time, energy. Here, the situation, I hope, has already become obvious: first, we must understand how the game was rigged in the first place and by whom.
Has it, as many waywardly believe, been rigged through economic means? Through demographic changes? All of this on the surface may appear true but they cover the underlying motives. What drives these societal movements? It is ideology, belief, and philosophy. Thus, the enemy is not a single man, but rather an ethos.
If we were to dig even deeper, where does such philosophy emerge from? If we reduce society to its essential components—the tribe, the truth becomes obvious. For what is the ultimate goal of man, but to conquer and acquire natural, monetary, and sexual resources? These provide him the means to live and to afford luxury, security, and contentment. To say that men are not meant intrinsically for conquest argues against biology, and the logic of needing natural resources for survival.
In its earliest and most essential form, the village man competed against other villagers to obtain the prettiest and most wives. He fought daily for his place at the head of the table. Alliances were forged, and soon there was a clear distinction between the "elite" men and the "weak" men. Women chose their warriors and heroes accordingly, and the weak men groveled for leftovers. Soon land deeds and social titles such as knight, prince, and magistrate, were administered, furthering the genetic divide between the desirable and undesirable men who occupied low status positions.
Now in a position to acquire adequate nutrition and the most fertile and attractive women, their progeny were genetically superior as a result. The divide among them furthered, and millennia later, we witness their ancestors, taking to social media to complain about "unfairness." Blame the unfairness, I say, but save some for your weak ancestors and work to make amends with nature.
The advent of technology and fast travel have narrowed the distance between these male hierarchies. Now competition occurs on a broader level. There still exists that primal, earlier battle between the elite and the weak men, only now it has reached global, more convoluted gradations. We know this to be the case because what drives the majority of complaints among the excess men? It always returns to societal shifts that benefit the elite while depriving the weak.
Other men, then, are the enemy. It has always been. Many have fallen behind in the fight, so far behind that they have surrendered to despair. That surrender itself is a victory for the elite because their contrived absurdity has worked—it has demoralized and frightened the weak. These elite men now have less competition, less threat and more resources.
Men mistakenly believe they can opt out of the "rigged game," yet what is that game? It is not a game. It is our natural, biological imperative to annex and remain at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. Through strategic alliances, intelligence, and strength, such is possible. Therefore, life cannot be quit, unless by suicide, which more have resorted to in the past year. The only winning move is to play because there is no other choice—not if any amount of success is desired.
Returning to the issue of philosophy, which drives the behavior of the elite men, this is a two-part issue: the weak men have a philosophy of their own, but it is mangled and not fully expressed for fear of societal repercussions. Expressing an opposing view that challenges the foundation could have disastrous consequences for career and safety, so the weak acquiesce in certain of their beliefs to be accepted. That surrender is itself the defeat.
Victory can then be achieved through philosophical combat and a refusal to budge on these beliefs. The elite have restructured the world in their image. Therefore, behaving as you desire reality to be and not accepting anything less is a necessary contingent to restore personal power. In situations where a wife is disrespectful, boss is abusive, or someone cuts in line, for example, assert dominance and draw a line in the sand. Conversely, however, men have been convinced to avoid conflict and to appease. Power is not asked for: it is taken.
Personal problems must be assessed as political, not individual. For everything a man struggles with, it can and will be traced back to his origin and the artificially constructed and absurd environment that he inhabits. It comes down to a battle between inferior and superior traits. At the end, nature crowns her winners and women choose the dominant. To become better at "the game" is the winning move, and the only optimal move. War—in whatever form—is won through conquest, not perpetual retreat.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com