The Lack of Our Rites of Passage

All "primitive" societies have forced boys, right around the age of 12, to undergo initiation rites in which they symbolically died as children and then were reborn as adults, under the direction of learned elders (I'm going to repeat that -- learned elders, not just elders).

One of the reasons for this "rebirth" is to boys pull away from the mother, who at her worst is represented by the motherly/destructive/seductive mythic goddess Kali (today, I use the example of the Borg Queen), and these days by society-destroying feminism, which although the average woman does not believe in it as an ideology, has still been infected with its ideas.

Mircea Eliade defined initiation as "a basic change in existential condition which liberates man from profane time and history," he wrote. "Initiation recapitulates the sacred history of the world and through this recapitulation, the whole world is sanctified anew...[the initiated] can perceive the world as a sacred work, a creation of the Gods."

He also believed the purpose of rites was "help [new generations] assume the responsibility of being truly men and hence of participating in culture." In short, to transmit cultural values.

The mythologist Joseph Campbel divided it into thee parts: Departure (sometimes called Separation), Initiation and Return.

This pulling away is necessary for boys to be introduced to the world of men, otherwise, under the influence under the worst aspect of the feminine (which pretty much means weak or absent fathers), they end up showing every imaginable pathology that exists.

These boys, in essence, were being taught to be budding patriarchs, and since all successful cultures are patriarchal (being that women destroy everything they get involved in) these initiation rites, being that they are universal, are absolutely necessary.

To a much lesser extent, there have been rites of passages for girls. In both cases, it happens right at puberty, when the body and brain are changing rapidly and profoundly.

Nowadays, we've lost these rites, at least the good ones. Did we ever have good ones? I'm sure we did, but offhand, I can't think of what they were. Currently, we're got some bad ones, and the kids and society pay for it. And pay and pay and pay. The lack of them is damaging to individuals and to the culture. "Culture is the public expression of group continuity," commented one thoughtful man, and I couldn't agree more.

Many people either don't know, or don't want to admit, how fragile society is, and that one of its purposes is to repress or transform all the imperfections inherent in human nature. When societies lose those myths, rituals and rites that help transform into something better, worse rites will take their place. That's how we end up with kids wearing tribal tattoos and acting like whiggers.

Here's an example, and it's about a woman instead of a man (if it's this important for a young girl, imagine how much for important it is for a boy): when I was about 23, and in college, I was sitting in the room of this woman, who was about 21 years old. We were just passing time listening to her CDs.

I was casual friends with her, but had noticed she was a bit more intelligent, sensitive and creative than the other girls who lived in her house, almost all of whom, in my opinion, were callow and not-very-bright college students. The one I was talking to was an art/design major, the only one in her house of 11 girls. Most of the others were studying to be grade-school teachers.

To this day, I have no idea why she told me the things she did. She starting telling me about her time in 7th grade, when she was pudgy and wore those kind of horn-rimmed glasses that always sit crooked on your face. She showed me a picture; personally, I thought she was rather cute.

She was certainly cute at 21, certainly much better-looking than the other girls in the house.

She told me that because of the way she looked, she was ostracized by the other 7th-graders. Twelve years old and an outsider and a scapegoat. Just great. No wonder Stephen King's novel Carrie was such a big hit. Public schools...

Over the summer, she told me, she grew up, lost the baby fat, filled out, and got contacts. Ugly duckling to swan in less than three months. When she came back for the 8th-grade all the kids who ostracized her now wanted to be her friends. She ignored them.

The way she was treated in the 7th-grade affected her for the rest of her life. She told me she was never attracted to what most people would consider "good-looking" men and was instead attracted to what she called "unusual-looking guys."

I got a big laugh out of this one: she told me she liked guys who looked like Peter Noone. I didn't recognize the name, until she told me he was the lead singer Herman of "Herman and the Hermits." They were popular about the time she was being born.

I saw her a few years later, after we had graduated. She had married a guy who looked like him.

She turned out just fine, but her initiation rites in 7th-grade consisted of a bright, creative, sensitive girl being ostracized and humiliated in public school. What she had gone through were unwitting initiation rites, ones that, I repeat, affected her for the rest of her life.

She was lucky enough to make it through them, even without wise elders, just teachers instead, although in a sense she was scarred for the rest of her life. She symbolically died and was reborn courtesy of being poorly treated by a bunch of dim-witted, immature 12-year-olds tossed together in public schools (which I think should be burned down and the ground salted). Those were not good rites of passage for her.

As bad as it was for her, I think this lack of initiation rites is a lot worse for boys. A lot worse, and I can't emphasize just how bad I think this lack is. We still have them, to a degree, although they're exactly the same as my friend went through: being tossed into the mish-mash that is public-school 7th-grade. It's not working.

My time in middle school consisted in getting into fights, trying to avoid them, being bored, and daydreaming. That was about it.

The fact we don't have any initiation affects us politically. Politically, the leftist nanny-state is Mommy. Why do men fall for it? Because, even though raised with two parents, they're still stuck in mommy-mode, due to the lack of initiation rites that pull them away from mommy and toward daddy. In other words, when boys don't go through the correct initiation rites, they can turn into leftists - or women haters, which is an attempt to get away from them.

This away-from-dominating-mommy/searching-for-daddy can be seen in gangs, most of whom were raised without fathers and with unfit mothers. They found all-male gangs, ones that denigrate women. Their initiation rites and lives are all in the bad-male mode.

Teenagers have a vague, inchoate, instinctive understanding of their need for initiation rites. That's why they act and dress as they do. I did it when I was a teenager. Almost all of us did. Almost all of us used drugs, although in those days it was booze and marijuana. Then it was Ecstasy and raves. I understand.

Looking back on it, I realize my friends and I were rather wild, at least compared to the other kids. There were a lot of us, creating our own initiation rites of drugs and booze and parties. We had no true mentors, be it parents or teachers. There was no ritualistic adjustment from childhood to adulthood. Nothing. These days, we'd be given Ritalin.

The way I see it, in American society, the skyrocketing rise of gangs and reckless behavior dramatizes how youth seek some sort of initiation rites, made worse in the absence of anything provided by the culture (read "learned elders" for "culture"). Unfortunately, old geezers fear young people, not realizing their wildness and energy are really just an unending longing for initiation into the adult world.

Adolescents hunger for real tests, somewhat risky ordeals by which they can turn into adults, ones with a purpose in life. What ceremonies and rituals and rites do we have? High school graduation? College graduation? Meaningless. They're not tests. Nearly everyone wants to feel like the Hero on a Quest. Luke Skywalker. That is why those movies are still so popular?

True rites involve some risk, some pain, and self- discipline and self-sacrifice. Look how many boys want to join the Marines. When those things are offered, then there is community. It doesn't matter what it is -- it can be anything from gangs to religious cults.

That lack of serious rites is one of the reasons Christianity is in the trouble it is in. It's too soft; it doesn't challenge. Make it harder, make it challenging, make it involve self-discipline and self-sacrifice, and the softness that plagues it will disappear.

We don't have, and we certainly need, adolescent initiations that meet the needs of kids today, ones that draw on tribal rites, ones that are feasible in a modern, urban culture. Since we live in a highly technological society, we need new rituals appropriate to urban teenagers. Then, of course, the other essential ingredients are elders and mentors willing to devise and perform such rituals and a supportive community -- that "group continuity" -- into which the initiated teens are brought.

The way things are now, we're turning into a society without fathers. When women try to raise children along, they almost automatically turn into Terrible Mothers, even though they don't mean to. They're just ignorant. Abysmally ignorant. The law has, foolishly and destructively, decided fathers are optional, and when they aren't, when a couple has to work to make ends meet and give their six-week-old baby to a pre-school, that's just another way of saying we no longer have elders. The government is no substitute.

When you're looking at young gang members, you're looking at people with no fathers or elders. So we either develop true fathers and elders and mentors, or the amount of violence will increase year by year. This is not something that can be replaced by government programs.

Sooner or later, we'll have to figure it out. We have to. But until we do, all the Ph.D.s and government studies and programs, are in vain, just chaff flying in the whirlwind.

Hierarchical Societies and the Fraud of the "Alpha"

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. - (2 Peter 2:1-3)

I find it exceedingly curious how the concept of the "alpha" popped up and has been given such enthusiastic approval by some. I do know it is a reaction to the degradations of politically-imposed feminism against men. But that concept of "alpha" was never given any approval in the past, and for good reason: it is an almost clinical description of a narcissist/psychopath, who have been, in their various degrees, responsible for almost of the murder and destruction in the world.

The real name for the common definition of an Alpha is a narcissist, and the old word for a man who lied to and seduced many women is a Cad. They're tricksters, who use lies and deception and end up being trouble-makers.

The Greek referred to extreme narcissism as Hubris, and they considered a type of insanity in which the lost their moral sense and became consumed with power. The word "hubris," by the way, originally meant "to humiliate someone in public," and they considered it so obscene (which originally meant something unfit for public view) that they banned it from their theaters.

The word "alpha" was taken from the study of wolves and applied to humans. Among wolves, the word "alpha" means one thing, and one thing only: parents. So, then, the alpha wolves are actually beta providers for their offspring. So then, to use Manosphere terms, alphas are betas.

Wolf packs are generally six to twelve members in size, and they usually consist of the parents and their offspring. The word "alpha," taken from the study of wolves and applied to humans, has been given a redefinition that has nothing to do with how it is applied to wolves. The redefinition is wrong, too, as I just pointed out: it's really about narcissists and cads.

It was Rudolph Schenkel, an animal behaviorist who, in back in the '30s and '40s, popularized the term "alpha" as it applied to wolves. Later he realized it only applied to wolves in captivity. To wolves in the wild it didn't apply at all.

Later, L. David Mech, who studied wolves in the '70s, also used the term "alpha," but when he realized it was being misappropriated, wrote, "The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top dog' ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots is particularly misleading."

In other words, the term "alpha" is based on bad science and is wrong from the beginning.

What I find fascinating is that the researchers only found the modern concept of "alpha" wolves among captive wolves, i.e. wolves in zoos. In the wild, the way wolves acted was completely different.

So, then, there exists the possibility that the modern concept of "alpha" only exists in unfree societies. And we don't have much of a free society anymore, not compared to the way in the past. Back then, alphas were considered patriarchs, which barely exist today.

"Patriarchs," outside the family, might be considered natural leader of men, that is, the men that other men followed willingly. If force and coercion is involved, that's not a natural leader. And in the long run, force and coercion doesn't work.

There is an entire world of difference between a voluntarily hierarchy based on legitimate authority and an illegitimate one based on fraud and force.

Look at it this way: in human prisons there is a strict hierarchy - cop killers on top, child molesters on bottom, whom it is okay to kill. And such a strict hierarchy only exists among wolves...in prison. It's not for free wolves.

Our society in many ways has become extremely hierarchical, especially when it comes to money and power. That is why there exists the widespread belief that only one percent of people have nearly all the money and power. Which, in many ways is true. Everyone else is pretty much an indentured servant, almost poverty-stricken, helpless and hopeless.

The modern concept of alpha is an attempt to free oneself of the shackles of an unfree, hierarchical society - from from the worst of women, free from oppression - "Men Going Their Own Way.". But the concept, as is now stands, won't do that. For one thing, Alpha to Omega is a strict hierarchy, and that is not a good thing. And with human nature being decidedly imperfect (and many ignorant of that fact), those who truly believe in the hierarchy of Alpha to Omega are going to say, "I am an Alpha/Sigma and if you disagree with my hierarchical beliefs you are a Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omega!"

If we lived in a free society, the modern concept of "alpha" would be again be considered horrendously destructive, and the patriarch would again ascend to its rightful place.

Unfortunately, women destroy everything they get involved in, if too many of them get involved. It's because so many of them are natural socialists/fascists and don't even know it.

Under "patriarchy" women are prevented, as much as possible, from destroying anything of value. That is why every successful culture that has ever existed has been a "patriarchy" and there has never been, contrary to the delusions of some, a matriarchy. The closest to one is what we have today, and it has been destructive to the point society is on the edge of collapse.

None of this doesn't mean women don't have a necessary place in society. They do. But it is not a place where, as some think, they are gold-digging, heartless "hypergamous" whores who rationalize everything and are only interested in "Alpha Fux and Beta Fux."

If we had a politically and economically free society, what it look like? Probably somewhere along the lines of "Leave It To Beaver" and "Andy Griffith." Bill Bryson, who has written about his life growing up in the '50s, described a wonderful life and a simpler, sillier time I never knew existed outside of TV.

And in all of them, where are the strict, exploitative hierarchies that exist today? I didn't see them. They did exist, of course, but where? Where there was no freedom - in the strict hierarchies of prisons and militaries and "police officers" - as opposed to "peace officers". (As an aside, where else do you often find strict and sometimes brutal hierarchies? The public schools, especially high schools.)

Humans are not meant to live strict, unfree hierarchies. They are meant to be free. Sometimes, unfortunately, they don't know how to get there (to be precise, back to there, when the purpose of government was to be as small as possible and only protect "life, liberty and property") and often make destructive detours until they again find the right path.

The bigger the State grows, the more civilization retreats, and the more "liberty" turns into "libertinism" - anything goes. Like the modern Sodom and Gomorrah that we have in some places today.

I am most definitely reminded of the literary theme of the Machine State vs. the Natural State. The example I generally use is that of Star Wars, specifically the second one, with the Ewoks.

The Ewoks live in natural state, as opposed to the Empire, which is a world-destroying machine with the Emperor on top and Darth Vader (whom the late mythologist Joseph Campbell called "the perfect bureaucrat") as second-in-command - and he was half man, half machine, "twisted and evil." In a free society, both would go nowhere. Their "authority" is based on pain, terror, murder, destruction.

In Ewok society, if anyone appears to have any kind of legitimate authority, it's the Storyteller, who, even though I didn't understand a word he was saying, was clearly passing on the culture to the younger. That's what good storytellers do.

As for the Empire, the Stormtroopers are identical and interchangeable - disposable cogs in the Machine. It is not a good life - those in control are interested only in that: control. Power. Domination. That is the nature of the State. Along with...

....turning you into a machine - these days, a replaceable cog in a decadent hierarchy. In the past we probably reached our peak of the Natural State in the '50s - again, for an example, read Bill Bryson. Or take a second look at the graphic above.

It doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are deserting the cities and moving into rural areas - to get away from the hierarchies of soul-degrading work, from incompetent schools, from fascist police, from the strict, destructive force-and-force hierarchies of the State.

"Most educated morons try to model the dynamics of human societies based on what we sorta know about bee colonies, wolf packs or troops of monkeys and apes." - "Playing the Devil's Advocate"

How to Insult a Leftist

"The longer a discussion with a leftist grows, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." - A variation of Godwin's Law

I don't debate leftists. They are four years old emotionally, operate on those emotions, and are immune to reason. Because of this, I only insult them. It's more fun pushing their buttons and watching them explode.

To use the Manosphere term, "frame," I never let them maintain it. I never answer them, just change the frame by insult. I am never serious when I do it, because I never take them seriously. I always smile.

I used to try to have conservations with them, but I quit after, say, the first time. I remember making the comment, "I find it unfortunate that blacks commit so many crimes, and I don't know why they do it." The woman (whom, it turned out, was a completely idiotic - and unattractive - leftist studying political science and hoping to be a college professor, responded, "I suppose you support apartheid in South Africa?" I told her that was a non-sequitur, but to the leftist mind, there is no such thing as a non-sequitur, just "I'm good and anyone who disagrees with me is evil."

I have memorized a few of these insults.

"You know why I don't take leftists seriously and don't debate them? Because talking to a leftist is like playing chess with a chicken. No matter how good you are, the chicken will knock the pieces over, crap all over the board, then strut around squawking like it's won."

"You know what's black on top and white on the bottom? Rape."

"Every time leftists open their mouths they subtract from the sum of human knowledge."

"Watching a leftist trying to make sense is like watching a monkey try to fuck a football."

These are best said on the way out the door, so they don't have time to think of some comeback, which is usually along the lines of shrieking "racist" or "Nazi" after you.

Women Who Have No Respect for Themselves

"The less fortunate girls who grow up without a father figure in their lives often go into the adult world with a specific set of psychological wounds that can create some serious struggles in their lives: depression, promiscuity, failed relationships, addiction."

That quote above? I was one time involved with a woman like that - for about two weeks. On the surface they are funny and charming. What they are disguising are those four disturbed traits listed.

I'll say one thing about depression before I go any further: sometimes it doesn't mean feeling bad. It can mean feeling little or nothing. I was told that by a therapist I was interviewing when I was a newspaper reporter.

Now onward.

One of the delusions in some parts of the Manosphere is that "chicks dig jerks" and if you exhibit the Dark Triad they'll automatically, irresistibly be attracted to you.

Nope.

I was raised in a pretty awful area (murders, rapes, suicides, fatal drug overdoses, a serial killer), and have met several of the kinds of women who get attached to "bad boys." I have never been impressed by them. Not once.

I also know what the Dark Triad means in real life and not theory, and it is something you want nothing to do with and instead should run away from as fast as you can. They are the conscienceless, the manipulators, the con-men, the liars, the thieves, the rapists, the murderers - those with fragmented, sometimes disintegrated, selves.

The closest researchers can describe these people is that they have many selves, and none of them are connected to the others. This is why they can murder and mutilate, then sit down to dinner and act totally normal ("He seemed like such a normal guy...I had no idea he was a rapist and a serial killer!")

The idea of many disconnected selves is not a new one: "So Jesus asked him, 'What is your name!' The man answered, 'My name is Mob - there are so many of us!'" (Sometimes "Legion" is used instead of "Mob" - and a Roman legion was 6000 men.)

When I first read as a teenager that episode about Jesus and the disturbed man I had no idea what it meant. I do now.

What these "I dig losers" women have in common is that they have no respect for themselves, and they are attracted to men who have no respect for themselves, either.

Like attracts like.

Most of the women I have met who are like this are drug addicts, whores, groupies, ex-cons.

I'll use one example I know very well. (How many examples am I supposed to use? Ten? I can do that.)

This woman does not want to work. She thinks she should be supported. She uses marijuana every day, and has for decades. She is a mooch, and a parasite - a vampire. She even mooches off her children, who she thinks should support her.

Every man she gets involved with is bottom of the barrel - drug addicts, ex-cons, welfare bums, thieves. Emotionally unstable bums. One is consistently getting arrested by the police, who told him, "We are going to arrest you until you leave the city and never come back."

These guys are not "Alphas." They are the true Omegas.

One theory is that women think their love can fix these men. I haven't seen that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just haven't seen it.

I have seen rationalizations that these men possess talent, and if they used it they could make a good living. Perhaps. But they don't. In fact, they never do.

Every woman I've meet like this has come from a broken or dysfunctional family. It's got to the point with this particular woman she can no longer recognize a decent man when she meets one.

Some, perhaps most, of these women are drama queens. They find these guys exciting because they are always in trouble. It's their own private soap opera. That's a cheap form of excitement, and only shows these women are immature and emotionally shallow. It's as if they have little or no feelings and are trying to make themselves feel alive.

I've also never seen one with a high IQ. Their IQs have always been average or below-average.

When a woman's attraction to these Omegas is extreme, then it becomes a mental/emotional disorder known as Hybristophilia: "a paraphilia of the predatory type in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage,cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery."

The word "Hybristophilia" is derived a Greek word meaning "to commit an outrage against someone" and is related to the word "hubris," one meaning of which is to humiliate someone in public, which the Greeks considered so obscene they banned it from their theater.

I will say one thing more: the more marriages break up or fail to form, the more women like this will be created, because they have no decent, admirable fathers to look up to. They will end up short on normal feelings, which they try to achieve through drugs and drama. They have little insight into themselves or others. Let's say they lack emotional intelligence

As for those leftist men and women who think children can be raised by a mother without a father, they're lunatics.

It is, after all, far, far easier to sink than fly.

Envy, Competition and Rivalry

When I was six years old and in the first grade, the two smartest boys in the class ended up being best friends. One was Paul and the other was me. (Don't get me started on putting smart kids in with average kids with whom they have very little in common...)

One day Paul brought to class a math workbook (which was independent of the arithmetic we were being taught in school) and began to rapidly do the problems in front of me.

I immediately felt something I had never felt before - a mild sense of envy and competition.

Years later I began to analyze what happened, and I realized that all competition just might have some envy in it. You want to compete to as good or better, i.e to win.

Usually envy is about dragging the other person down, even if you drag yourself down. That's is why it's such a horrible thing. It can destroy cultures if left unchecked. But there was none of that kind of envy towards Paul. I didn't want to best him or drag him down. Instead, I wanted to be as good as he was.

The Greeks noticed thousands of years ago that the benign form of envy is admiration. I'm not sure I admired Paul. After all, I was but six years old.

But perhaps in my six-year-old mind I did admire Paul in some way because I wanted to be like him - that is, I wanted to imitate him. And it is by imitation that people learn. It was not, however, strong enough of a competitive feeling to make me study math outside of class. Or inside it, for that matter.

I don't think I considered Paul a rival. We remained friends for many years, all the way into high school, where we pretty much went our separate ways.

It's all very complex. The ancient Greeks understood that. Zelos, for example, was the spirit (daimon) of eager rivalry, emulation, envy, jealousy and zeal, and he and his siblings, Nike (Victory), Bia (Force) and Kratos (Strength), were the winged enforcers of Zeus, who was was the chief judge of Mount Olympus and settled all disputes fairly. It was he who enforced law, justice and morality.

Zelos may have been identified with Agon, spirit of contest, worshiped at Olympia. He was also sometimes equated with Phthonos the spirit of romantic jealousy, and was closely connected with the god Eris, who is strife as the driving force of competition.

Complicated? Yes.

I will say this: imitation is not enough to learn. There has to be judgment about the quality of who or what to imitate and what is learned. That's why Zeus was the judge of right and wrong, about what should be emulated, about what was best to be victorious in, about rivalry, about how to use your strength.

The Greek gods weren't "out there." They were human traits projected into educating and entertaining stories. They are an example of one of the first things I learned in journalism class: show, don't tell.

There is something in us that judges. That can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on if we judge correctly or not. We have to judge when we should be courageous, which path to choose out of many, when to give people their due, when to exercise self-control.

Here is my take on it: we imitate (emulate) people and ideas, to become educated, because we judge it will improve the quality of our lives. We imitate those whom we admire (the benign form of envy). We have to have enthusiasm (zelos) to do this. We compete with rivals who have different views, to strive by force and strength (usually the strength and forcefulness of our arguments) so that we can achieve victory. We believe our victories are just and moral.

We're never going to get rid of envy, but it can be turned into admiration. That's what the purpose of civilization is - to transform the worst traits of human nature into something better. Things that make our lives better, and society better.

Civilization is a thin veneer on top of a whole lot of terrible human nature. When we start destroying civilization and society because we think we can design something better, we usually end up with the Law of Unintended Consequences. Then we wonder, "How the hell did that happen?"

The Real Story of the Martyrdom of St. Trayvon

Eighth Grader Honor Student and born-genius Trayvon Martin is walking home in his graduation cap and gown, after spending the day tutoring disadvantaged red, yellow, black and white children, for they are precious in his sight.

Short, fat, stupid, ugly, smelly, tiny-dicked, blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan Nation member and Neo-Nazi George Zimmerman is driving around in his Confederate Flag draped pickup while sporting a monocle and a paste-on dueling scar.

Zimmerman spots Trayvon through the night by the near-blinding glow of his halo.

Cackling evilly, the zero-IQ white supremacist Klansman and wannabe-cop takes chase.

The football star nearly outruns him, but he is trapped by a "Do Not Enter" sign.

Faced with certain death or disobeying the law, Trayvon makes his stand.

Trayvon attempts to reason with his attacker using by the degrees in Philosophy and Theology he earned at five years old, but the illiterate hate-filled racist, still seething with rage because he failed the IQ and psychological tests to be a cop, will have none of it.

Zimmerman takes a swing of "Lean" (made from Skittles, Arizona sweet tea and Robitussion) and snarls, "Any last words, nigra?"

Trayvon looks his executioner in the eye and nobly replies, "Truth, Justice and the American Way!"

"WHITE POWER FOREVER!" shrieks the 2'11" Zimmerman as he unloads with his fully-automatic assault rifle, the recoil of which blows him back 20 feet so he lands on his back firing wildly into the sky.

If not for the Republican party Trayvon might have survived, but the skinhead's extended magazine, unfettered by their legislation, had unloaded hundreds of .50 caliber rounds into the future Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Zimmerman then bashes his own head into the curb repeatedly, while screaming in his girlish voice, "Help! Help! I'm being punked by a Negro! He's making me his bitch! Help! Mommy! Daddy! Help!"

When he is finished, Hitler himself steps back into his gas-guzzling vehicle and peels away, seeking kittens and puppies to run over.

As Trayvon lay dying, the last thing he sees is the "Bush Cheney 2004" bumper sticker disappear into the night.

A nanosecond later, he grew his angel's wings and fluttered to heaven, to sit forever at the right hand of God.

The Withdrawal of Chivalry From Almost All Women

A few years ago I had a woman tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." This was in 2010, not 1968, and she wasn't a man-hating lesbian, just a spinster without husband, home and children, which is why she blamed all her problems on men. (Actually, I had two women tell me that in 2010.)

I told her, "No, sweetheart, you've got it exactly backwards. Women ruin everything they get involved in, and men have created culture, civilization and technology."

I had engaged in one of those Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments) that many people think Einstein invented (he just popularized the concept in the U.S.) and had come to some, let's say, rather interesting conclusions. Those conclusions left the aforementioned woman speechless. (I had actually expected her to go all female-hysterical on me.)

Let's imagine if all men withdraw all chivalry from all women. Now of course we have to define chivalry. Let's use a really broad definition: everything that men do, wittingly or unwittingly, to protect and support women.

Using that definition, if all chivalry was withdrawn, what would happen?

Women's lives would completely collapse.

Men created civilization. They created culture. They created technology. If they withdrew all those things from women, women would be, to quote Camille Paglia, reduced to living in grass huts. Or, as humorist P.J. O'Rourke wrote, without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.

Carl Jung thought that men were biologically and universally the natural 'culture makers' – more objective, better leaders, more rational, and more independent. He believed that women were biologically and universally the 'relaters,' who were better at caring for others, knowing their feelings and emotions, and valuing relationships. He also said, "Man cannot stand a meaningless life," so you might want to watch happens when meaning, importance and community are taken out of men's lives - because that is what the purpose of feminism is.

Some women, of course, have added to civilization, culture and technology. But they are a handful - statistically outliers. Of course, leftists (all of whom are self-deluded mental cases) will say the lack of contribution was due to thousands of years of oppression. (If leftism can be defined in one sentence, it's this: "It's your fault, not mine.")

The reason so few women have added to society is because they overwhelmingly don't have the ability. This is why men dominate (and always have, and always will) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math). Men (specifically white men) are responsible for creating discovering about 98% of everything in history.

What do women bring to the table? Their wombs. The ability to have children. And that, ultimately, is why men protect them. No women, no children.

These days, women control their reproduction (thanks to male scientists). They can get divorced and take a man's children and half his income (thanks to laws passed by men). They have access to easy, high-paying jobs because of Affirmative Action (which means "White Men Need Not Apply"). They can get abortions any time they want for any reason, and men can't say a damn thing about it.

I consider all of those things to be "chivalrous," although it's a perversion of true chivalry. A chivalrous man was originally an armed knight of generally high economic and social status, who was willing to do fatal violence to protect the weak and helpless. And as the poster known as Dalrock wrote, "An act of kindness or deference by such a man to someone weaker or lower in status to him is gracious in nature because of the real and immediate ability he possessed to do otherwise."

Unfortunately the modern perversion of "chivalry" has backfired, and in a big way. Men have actually cut their own throats. And as for women in combat, that's not going to happen. What it means in women in the back with easy jobs, and lots of undeserved promotions and raises while men, as always, die or are horribly wounded. Just as they do in dirty, dangerous jobs that women don't want to do.

Many women expect to be treated as a man's equal - except they don't. They still want men to be chivalrous. If men on a sinking ship pushed women out of the way, women would be outraged and horrified about all these terrible men shirking their obligations to die for women they don't even know. There would all kinds of articles about how they are entitled to this. They want these men to be gracious, if you define "gracious" as meaning "I could kill you but I choose to help you instead." It's gotten to the point where some men are saying, "I owe you nothing."

Many men get little respect, gratitude and appreciation. Sometimes, insult, mockery and devaluation. It's got to the point where they have little control over their own lives.

I am reminded of what is called "The Three Laws of RoMANtics:

1. A manbot may not injure a woman being or, through inaction, allow a woman being to come to harm.

2. A manbot must obey any orders given to it by woman beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A manbot may protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Many years ago I told a woman, "Women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either." She said nothing because she had no answer.

I believe women's greatest fear is to be deserted. And the withdrawal of chivalry is, to them, being deserted. On some level they must know that without the contributions and support of men, they're reduced to poverty and destitution. Their lives would be Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short.

Their lives would be horrible. That's one of the reasons they get so bitter without husband, home and children. They think it's their due, along with easy, high-paying, indoor jobs.

Anything women have gotten involved in (because men let them) they destroy. Men gave them the vote, and they have consistently voted socialist. They dominate in education and now we have little boys stuffed with dangerous psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin because they act like boys and not girls. Bring a squirt-gun to school and you could end up in jail (those cops should be ashamed of themselves).

Instead of gratitude toward men there is bitterness, anger and sometimes hate. These are the fruits of feminism: "As you sow, so you shall reap." These are the logical consequences of leftist/lesbian feminism.

You can't be happy unless you feel gratitude. As Meister Eckhardt wrote, "If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."

I had mentioned that without meaning, importance and community in life (Eckhardt's "thank you") you won't have much of a life. Women are not appreciating and saying "thank you" to men anymore and in response men are withdrawing their chivalry from women. Men are returning the resentment and contempt directed at them for the last 40 years.

I'd like to see it taught in school that men created culture and civilization and technology. That might happen someday, but it's not going to be anytime soon, not with "Women's Studies" and other worthless classes and degrees.

Ultimately men are responsible for feminism, because of a misguided sense of fair play. Because of a misguided sense of chivalry. In other words, they don't want to be gracious anymore, and instead want to hurt women out of revenge.

A few years ago I saw a woman try to change a tire with the wrong tools. She would have never gotten that tire off. So I changed it for her.

I will no longer do that. These days, she's on her own. And in more ways than one.