Why Do Men Obey?

Seven reasons. Women cast the deciding vote.

Uniformed Consent, Uninformed Consent

Last week, CONSENT was the #3 most active keyword in the global news corpus, after OUTAGE and CASINO.

The game-change on this term, however, came back in July, when the outrage over a minor's rights to CONSENT to GENDER-AFFIRMING care drove the term almost overnight from a stable and sleepy ~50 WPM into Primary (100+ WPM) range with crypto-like volatility, stunningly visible in the chart below

Last week’s activity was more seasonal than political. A lot of software subscriptions renewing, pulling along predictable collocates like USER, AGREEMENT, COOKIES, BROWSER, OPT-OUT, and SETTINGS.

There were also a dozen or so articles about predatory Nigerian doctors, and a feature article in The Telegraph wondering why the world stopped having sex.

And it all came down to giving CONSENT.

Why Do Men Obey?

Or why do they CONSENT to being governed? Almost as vexing a question as What do women want? Fifty years ago the great political philosopher Gene Sharp took a crack at it, and came up with seven reasons why men put up with abusive regimes:

1. Habit

2. Fear of sanctions

3. Moral obligation

4. Self-interest

5. Psychological identification with the rulers 

6. Indifference

7. Absence of self-confidence among subjects

That last one speaks to the borderlessness we are seeing among American males-- many with real combat experience in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. From the halls of Congress to corporate boardrooms, to factory lunchrooms, to faculty lounges, to precinct briefing rooms, those we expect to set and enforce boundaries, borders, and standards are simply standing down, paralyzed to protect their own country and communities or stand up to the massive invasions of rights, security, privacy, elections, and autonomy unleashed under the Biden Regime.

This happens, Sharp argues, when a regime succeeds in "atomizing" its citizens, who through the institutional psyops have been

…turned into a mass of isolated individuals, unable to work together, to confide in each other, or do much of anything at their own initiative. The result is predictable: the population becomes weak, lacks self-confidence, and is incapable of resistance. ¹

Yet obedience and resistance are both based in CONSENT:

The personal choice between obeying and disobeying will be influenced by an evaluation of the consequences of obeying and disobeying. If the subject perceives the consequences of obedience to be worse than the consequences of disobedience, then disobedience is more likely.²

In other words, is disobedience — withdrawing consent to being governed—worth it?

My Prison Chains, Or Your Supply Chain?

Truckers are figuring out it’s better to be ungovernable, and have started withdrawing their CONSENT to deliver to cities that are providing venue for lawfare. Skepticism is running high on both sides, but just a quick land-mass equation shows that Blue Nation has shrunk to a thin constellation of metro areas under Woke control, with little over three days of food and medical inventory and no access to resources should they be cut off from their supply chains.

The Regime could not press asylum seekers into truckers, Uber drivers, rail operators, pilots, mechanics into service fast enough should our really essential workers make up their minds to disobey, and act quickly.

Blue cities would be brought to their knees, emaciated inhabitants would be stumbling out with white flags and the heads of Soros prosecutors on every pike, and this nightmare would be over.

Why Do Men Disobey?

Want the simple answer? It’s a trade-off: the consequences of obedience must become worse than the consequences of disobedience. It has to be worth it. And that “worth-it-ness” is typically packaged in the (beautiful) form of women worth fighting for.

Right now our self-proclaimed, strong, independent, I-don't need no-man, chewy, alpha, amazing women of the West are not worth fighting for. Don’t need it, wouldn’t appreciate it. We've got this, they've been reminding us for the past forty years. We can do anything a man can do... and better!

Raising another vexing question: How's that working out for you?

Hint: It’s okay to admit that it’s not.

About Malwords

Malwords are keywords weaponized for information warfare. They function within public discourse as intellectual malware, verbal viruses designed to spread quickly for the purposes of a) silencing dissent through control of language, narrative, and speech, b) increasing public tolerance for government-sanctioned atrocity and c) emboldening officials to commit acts of atrocity.

Malword strength is measured by their frequency of appearance in the published body of language (corpus), and expressed in words per million (WPM) linguistic units (words, numbers, symbols, acronyms, etc).

Malword WPM’s typically follow a three-phase lifecycle: Pre-Curve test-markets the new term and puts up the store front; Curve, is launch phase, characterized by a rapid, exponential liftoff and sudden plunge; Post-Curve is a long, asymptotic tail and is the period in which primary-objective atrocities are implemented. If you enjoyed, please subscribe… And leave a comment!

Harvey Oxenhorn, is a cybersecurity consultant, founder of Malwords Weekly, and author of the upcoming book, Biography of an Angel: The Eternal Life of Ginevra de’ Benci (1520-2020). He writes The Five Stages of Unf*ck, Red Pill Journey to January 2.0. , also on Substack. Follow him on Gettr, Gab, @HarveyOxenhorn, and on Twitter @HarvOxenhorn

1. Sharp, Gene. From Dictatorship to Democracy (p. 5). New Press.

2. Sharp, Gene. How Nonviolent Struggle Works (p. 19). The Albert Einstein Institution.