Society teaches men to be pawns for the elite, and in the most potent form that has existed among slaves: asking for permission. The existence of permission is an incontestable truth that you are not free. The free do as they like. You do not.
Even now, permission has taken different forms. Not only in words or explicit rules, as in the past, but in a suffocating economy. And to obtain money, you need the necessary qualifications, usually requiring credentials and diplomas. Even then, you need to perform expectedly in front of human resources and employers. Or your freedom? Your house and family? They only exist if you play the game correctly. The pressure is eternal, but your resistance and happiness are not.
So ingrained has this become that permission is required from even your own bodies to act upon simple things, like expressing opinions freely at work, school, or other public areas, without fear of life-altering consequences, or asking a girl out without facing retribution or insults, a sadly ordinary affair men report. This anxiety cages potential. It hinders life-enriching action. It is called somatic censorship—wherein the body censors itself through biochemical means such as stress. It begins in the past during childhood when we are punished for specific acts that go against the grain. Anxiety accompanies the thought of action, not just the action itself, so that it may more effectively regulate you.
This phenomenon has another aspect: many people do not receive enriching training and therefore do not feel confident in themselves or their abilities. They fear speaking in public or defending themselves from their "superiors." All these small acts add up and solidify your self-inflicted, low-status position. The fear of conflict and repercussions is a barrier to entry for success. These people see you as a threat to their power and so they benefit when you take yourself out of the race. Your strength lies in not caring.
It is strange to me that in the fight for natural and sexual resources—and the implicit logic in that we compete against other men—why so many men then adopt a servile behavior and not one of conquest and domination? It is almost as if they play according to the benefit of an abusive system, and consequently, other men. Because the system does not benefit them, not in terms of the economy, women, or other areas.
This trepidation emanates from a disgust of their own nature. They are not honest about their desires. It is almost as if they are fighting internally against their social programming and nature.
At the heart of the issue, men are too nice and agreeable. This is the reason massive demographic changes are occurring in Europe and the United States, and why traditions have been eroded to the point of extinction. Power continues to consolidate in the elite groups while depriving the common man of his liberties; the same powerful men who promote conflict among men and women by training women to be masculine and men to be passive—feminine.
In consequence, men think they need to learn or compete with women as equals—how absurd! You are in a combat for resources among men. Do you honestly believe that women are equal or superior to you? Do you hold this to be true for other men? Or do you think that many may even be superior? Perhaps they deserve to deflower your future wife, earn more money, or live in a bigger house, also? If you admit as much, then you deserve it and are beyond redemption. Redemption would require a revolution of your thinking, and you lack the mettle to survive long enough to enjoy life as a conqueror, not a servant.
They have indoctrinated you well to think that women are equals. But forgotten is the point of life for men: to be superior, the strongest, most innovative, and most powerful because resources must be obtained and preserved, and a man who cannot do so is weak and vulnerable; his family suffers because of his weakness. And examine the logic: in all the world, there is no equality—there are always consequential differences. Life is a constant battle. The man who can say with force that he is superior to women is also the same man who can say that about his competition—for isn't that the point of competition, to be the best? The first act is to lay claim; then to annex it and defend it. If one lacks the confidence for this, how can a wife feel safe on such a weak foundation?
The men who think in terms of equality are weak because they submit to others. They do so partly because they cannot compete to begin with. So, socialism—equality—appears attractive to the weak and the insufficient. Otherwise, a capable man would gravitate toward competition because he would be in a better position materially than in a socialist state. And the only thing a man, or woman, must do is affirm they are better and set out to prove it. If women, en masse, can, why can't men? I refuse to renounce my birthright. What is there to fear? We are forged for this, where we distinguish ourselves and win. This is not an arena for women. But if they insist on participating, well, they will be treated as equals, and that will be the moment they lose.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com