It goes without saying that there exists a cultural war against men. The reason is that they have the power to dictate the rules of society due to their strength. This power is seen as a threat to feminists and globalists, or truly to anyone who desires to have authority. What makes men so influential is their masculinity; that is, assertiveness, confidence, and fortitude. So it makes sense that many women would like to destroy the figure of the patriarch.
Our adversaries gain ground in various ways. The masculine advantage is testosterone—the lifeblood of man—and for this reason there are numerous chemical substances in our food and water. Even plastics, which are omnipresent, hinder testosterone production. Men already contend with an environmental disadvantage. We see it in the general degeneration of attitude; and we wonder where the assertiveness, confidence, and fortitude have gone? They remained on the battlefield where they surrendered, not through a great struggle, but through the silent submission of consuming the Trojan horse: our toxic foods and beverages.
Even men who resist the chemical war against them are not immune to psychological tactics. Recently, psychologists have identified a new "defect": bigorexia. They claim it is a symptom in people, usually men, who have a fixation on developing muscle and losing fat. So, according to the fantastic feminist minds, men who desire to be healthy are mentally compromised. If this is not evidence of hatred and fear toward masculinity, then what greater evidence is required?
They attack weight training because these processes produce testosterone. Consequently, these men exhibit much more confidence, assertiveness, and fortitude: they are much more difficult to manipulate. There is nothing more frightening to the feminist than a man who has not only the fortitude and confidence to ignore her, but who takes control of his own destiny. Simply having the confidence to say "no" is enough to defeat the feeble illusion of women's authority.
But these men who, despite the chemicals and psychological programming, have a good level of testosterone and desire to rise socially face unique difficulties. Not very different from our ancestors, the apes, we organize our groups in terms of a chemical gradient: testosterone. Now, the silverback gorilla—who is really just a normal gorilla—grows in terms of size and strength; we cannot say the same about a man who lives within a social pyramid. Or can we?
Because men who have the "magic" of testosterone and embody the characteristics associated with masculinity, such as charisma and social power, have much more sexual and economic access. And it is this social advantage that allows the man the time, relaxation, and financial resources to eat healthily and exercise regularly. Contrast this with the poor and ugly man who cannot afford these luxuries. So you might ask yourself: can he not aspire to compete in some way? With what motivation? With what psychological framework? Women have labeled him a pervert, a failure, and poor. Those words sink deep and rot his potential. We have not even discussed the biochemical benefits of sex: motivation and well-being, health and social benefit. We do not arrive at this point, and neither does he in our discussion. He cannot conceptualize that, while he labors for years to enjoy a drop of love, there are men who sip it effortlessly.
What about the humble man who recognizes such injustice and decides to play unfairly? There are many social mechanisms to ensure that such a man never reaches higher status. These are insignificant—as they must be. In fact, the more absurd and petty, the more demoralizing; once the woman feels threatened by the man's transcendence, she deliberately tests his mettle to confirm or deny his superior status. It can be something as stupid as criticizing your style or your stature, or denouncing you before a female tribunal; not that they do it to punish you, but simply to test you. But this is where men fail, because they cannot see women for what they are: social regulators. And they fail for a practical reason: because women intensify their criticism, and he confuses this intensification with disapproval, when in reality it is admiration for his flagrant masculinity. Once he claims his place on the social throne, the female yields and even offers herself as sexual reward—though not always; but some type of reward is received—it has to be. That is the law of the jungle, and the human female is not very different from her simian counterparts.
If she were so different, her relationship with status would be different, if not nonexistent; because a human woman should choose a man based on his compatibility and his potential, not on perceived social status, as monkeys do. And in reality, with modernity terraforming both our social and economic landscape, is a new sexual strategy not required? Yet they behave almost ferociously when dealing their supposed inferior males, and so, how can we see them differently from hairless monkeys? In fact, seeing them through rose-colored glasses is the reason why men find themselves at the base of the hierarchy; the female monkey is not someone to reason with, but someone to dominate.
All relationships exist on a chemical gradient. If we ignore the role of testosterone in sexual relations, then we reject a fundamental truth: women operate in a savage and archaic mentality. Not respecting that difference in evolution is an insult to them and a condemnation of our own masculinity. We can reason that men want to be soft and kind is truly a desire to propagate modernity. But women will never be able to exist in the future under that logic. For them it is something attacking and oppressive, so they resist tooth and nail. But I don't recall asking women. And I forget where my concern came from.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com