"Sticky: Asian Women and White Men: The Truth, From a Hapa, Half-Asian Male"

There were a few half-Asian kids in my high school. The girls did fine. The boys did not.

I have for decades thought that if a white and Asian had a kid, the kid should be female. If male, he's looking at being in Hell. After all, NOWAG means "No One Wants Asian Guys." Elliot Roger proved the truth of that.

This article is from this blog. Unfortunately he had an insane father, which only added to his inherent problems.

The article starts here.

Use this blog as an example of how troubled Hapas can be, some worse than others. I wrote this essay about two years ago, at the peak of a very damaging breakdown. Since then, thanks to a supportive community and a small group of Eurasians putting their brains together, I have transformed this blog into a rational discussion of the dangers of hatred, the reality of race relations even in romance, and even discovered the source of why I was so crazy; my older posts (if you go back to the beginning) can be used as a representation of the kind of damage that was done to my mind, and the kind of psychosis that can be found in mixed young men without proper intervention. If I hadn’t started this blog, I would likely now be dead or imprisoned, and ironically by writing I found the source of the very unsettling problems I had no more than two years ago; hence I won’t change the title. If you don’t believe that I am Hapa, continue reading. I try to present the issues as honestly as I can.

In short, we Hapa men, are Asian men born from Asian women who overtly believed Asian men were inferior or unattractive or unmarriageable in every way; and our fathers were racist (or clueless) enough to support this by virtue of their desire for sex and partnership. The entire basis of our existence is that Asian women found Asian men inferior to white.

We Hapas / Eurasians / Half-Asian people are almost overwhelming born from white fathers, implying that Asian features, when on a male, indicate undesirability, not only romantically, but by society itself.

The myth of “Hapa / half-Asian beauty” is just a myth, and if we are not beautiful, or just look Asian, we are just reminded that Asian men are at the bottom of the hierarchy socially, romantically, as evidenced by even our own mothers’ choices. The entire value of Hapas then, becomes his looks or his ability to not look Asian, and if he fails to meet this criteria he will be poorly equipped to deal with it.

Claims of cultural flaws of Asian men also conveniently coincide with Asian men being rated the least desirable. Moreover, my father as with many other Hapas’ fathers was an extreme cultural conservative and vitriolic anti-feminist.

Don’t believe me, ask for proof and I’ll provide; I literally am taking a monumental risk writing this blog as the details are fairly specific. There is nothing on this website that can be refuted logically.

My father was borderline-autistic, unable to make eye contact, and saw Asian women as a “replacement white woman” when he was unable to get a white woman; my mother saw his blue eyes and height and saw him as a ticket to integration and higher status in her new life in the west.

It simply does not make sense for an Asian woman who, like millions of others, views Asian men as worthless, then has a half Asian son, and expect him to accept this, rationally. There is no political thesis or alignment that can explain the massive imbalance other than one that is self evident to no one but the children of these relationships and this blog looks to understand and expose them. In fact, none of it makes sense; it’s completely absurd. At the end of the day, despite all the criticism leveled as Asian men, the defense-mechanisms of WMAW couples, and myriad excuses until the end of time – we still are Eurasian men born from uniformly White fathers, and we are left to figure out their sick, racist baggage. Asian women and their insistence on marrying and having children with white men is not something based on love, but rather (at worst) on hate (largely of Asian men) or at best un-attraction, yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind (I’ll discuss how loveless and hateful my parents’ marriage was, later in this essay).

I have come across enough Asian women who thought I was beneath them, to believe that all of us, their half asian sons, must resent and hate our parents in order to truly punish them. Contrarily, embracing this and finding solace in hedonism with white women would effectively mean that I have to admit that I am able to do so because I am half-White; and this is not a moral or healthy choice. I would rather embrace my Asianness and expose these issues – as very few other Hapas are willing to. I no longer want to sit by and watch the hypocrisy and hatred flying through the Asian community and the effect this has on people much more susceptible than me (as you can see how susceptible I was two years ago).

For reference, I am in my 20’s, look similar to a whiter version of Hong Kong celebrity Daniel Wu (the kind of Hapa that looks white to some; Asian to others; yet photographs more Asian; porcelain white skin that sunburns, very dark brown, thick and difficult to maintain hair, brown-greenish eyes, hairless chest and arms but hairy legs), am Ivy League educated and from a considerably wealthy Chinese American family on the East Coast (the wealth is not mine, directly). I also have one mentally ill brother, in his 30’s, unemployed, institutionalized and a virgin, who looks significantly more Asian than me. My father was, when younger, 6’3″, blue eyed, red haired and with a large beard, my mother 5’3″ or 5’4″, slender, with dyed red hair, colored contacts, and a sexless and unhappy marriage as long as I can remember.

We are lauded up as some kind of beautiful Hapa miracle children, but in reality we are born out of nothing other than cultural fetishization and the pursuit of certain physical attributes, neither of which we are capable of having, since we are, after all, Asian men.

Only after we are born do our parents begin to panic and start trying to instill self-esteem in us by teaching us about our heritage, falsely encouraging us to believe that we will be accepted by whites, or worse, by Asians, the same Asians that our mothers were trying to escape from. The irony of teaching Hapas to be proud to be Asian when Asian women are willfully throwing themselves at white men, is staggering.

But it’s obvious by just going outside, where you can see White male / Asian woman couples sitting next to other white male / Asian woman couples they don’t even know – that love is not colorblind, and as a Eurasian male this became evident to me in my teens, despite the fact that I do not look that Asian.

In fact, Hapas and Eurasians are still treated as Asians by discerning whites (anyone who bothers to make the distinction will not make the distinction between full, and half) turned down not only by white women but by also Asian women, subject to jokes and insults by the white majority where he is, and then outcast by full Asians who view him as an oddity.

Hapas and Eurasians are supposed to merely accept that white men were the ideal in their mothers’ eyes, and that no matter what we will never be the full white person, or allowed entry into white culture, the same one that our mothers had such an easy time integrating with.

The only reason that talking about this is taboo is because of our culture in which such sensitive subjects of race and gender are immediately shut down in favor of a sugar-coated anti-reality that seeks to ignore that the vast, vast, vast majority of Eurasians have white fathers. So we literally see hundreds of thousands of Eurasians with white last names parading around like they are unique, when really we represent the obvious failings of Asian men to procreate.

Still don’t believe me?

If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of “marrying up”. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not.

If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

Hapa men are unique in that they are the direct result of hatred, not love (I will explain how my parents’ marriage was in actuality later) and “breeding up,” where we are considered inferior and superior at the same time. Just look at the fetishization of Hapas as being beautiful and talented, rather than the fetishization of Asians as being beautiful and talented; Whites are assumed to be beautiful and talented and Hapas only so because we are mixed with whites. After we are born, we are paraded around as accessories, our own mothers treating us preferentially on how Asian or un-Asian we look, all to the background of our parents’ marriage collapsing (e.g., separate bedrooms, constant fighting) since it was never based on the love in the first place.

We are a unique group of people who are destroyed the second we are conceived, and grow to become aware of the seething hatred our own mothers were capable of the minute we reach young adulthood. We literally are Asian men (even though some of us don’t even look that Asian, whites still remind us that we are) born to Asian women who, for whatever reason, savagely hated Asian men – then on top of that, our own fathers took these sadistic women into their homes and asked us to listen to their authority and advice on how to conduct our lives, because they believed that Asian women were deferential to whites. We are therefore the most unstable and at risk people on earth, and seek to destroy our own families, as mine as been rightfully destroyed with my dead mother and my pathetic, impoverished father and schizophrenic brother. I have nothing to live for – my belief in love and meaning is shot, only believing in the realities of evolution and sexual selection.

For this reason, I refuse to be their “dream child,” I will live my life hedonistically and lazily and avoid success, and I will expose the poison that is this kind of relationship, and the lies about being Hapa, until I am dead. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Hapa men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own parents – especially with the amount of REAL LIFE hatred that these couples exhibit.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

Hapa sons inherit all of the physical qualities that make Asian men unattractive, with the added advantage that we know that our own mothers attempted to breed it out. In my case I looked significantly “whiter” when I was younger and gradually, into my 20’s, began to look more Asian and was ill equipped to deal with the fallout from this. For example, on being told several times that I “looked more Asian” – as an insult, and denied relationships because (she) “didn’t like Asians,” made me realize that love itself isn’t real, as we would imagine it.

These physical characteristics include: smaller frame from our mothers, narrower rib cage, larger heads, oily skin, thick, unmanageable hair, narrower jaws, lack of normal skin coloring (a lot of Hapas have really pale skin, rather than reddish or tan), adiposity around the mid-section and chest, etc.

The Hapas who somehow deny this look white enough to “pass,” are gay, or essentially are so drawn in by the honeyed lies of their parents that they could never possibly imagine them being as awful as they were.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me. I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, all the while despite being described as “beautiful,” having had men and women photograph me randomly on the subway (seriously), having women balk at me in public, being labeled as gorgeous and as “the most handsome man” they’ve known in real life by my straight male, taller, more successful white friends; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Hapa male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints; I was essentially raised as a white child, read western literature every night growing up, and spoon-fed antisemitic and conspiracy theory beliefs since childhood.

Some, in many ways, would consider my father a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened.

He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males (however I doubt he thought about it this way). Ironically, despite all of this, my father is also a stringent Asiaphile, having strong fantasies (particularly about Japan) about Asian conservatism and social order; and even more ironically he dislikes the Chinese for their embracing of Communism.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believed that 9/11 was indicative of the coming Apocalypse, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant yet equal cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am now both antisocial (having once been known as outgoing albeit eccentric), have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women sleeping with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is a phase in my life worth mentioning as it will be increasingly common among young men with white fathers and non-white mothers.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. This is a patent lie. This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are too controlling, patriarchal and conservative.

I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death; her rage at him, even calling the police because he had told her that the Holocaust did not happen (this is still a vivid memory in my head). Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of hypocrisy and hatred that I cannot ignore or forgive. The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal.

The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise my own mother with a vehement passion. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally racially cuckolded by my own mother and women in my family, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself. Even the tiniest saying that “you look Asian” was enough to set me off, as I had long equated being Asian with being inferior, naturally.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be somehow discouraged, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by our own mothers.

On top of this, I simply have no desire to be a “good son,” and merely want to either spend the rest of my life exposing these issues or, god forbid, as the title of the blog says, kill myself, which was the original plan when this blog started. (December 2015, 2 years after the blog began, I have decided to change this and instead devote time to writing, ironically this blog having been helpful in finding my sanity).

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become guilty by association for actively being part of the self-congratulating group of Asian women who hate Asian men and think they are too good for Asian men.

For this, my own mother is guilty, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Hapa” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men.

The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the overvaluation of whiteness, and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother.

Mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I simply cannot love a person who would harbor such preference, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

The only reason it is me writing this blog and not some other Hapa is because I am free from the mental compulsion that my mother would otherwise have forced on me; I started out looking white but gradually have become more Asian in appearance; I am not a coward; I have empathy towards full Asian men; I am likely of above average emotional intelligence than is commonly found among Hapas.

I Am Historical, Not Political

Politics is based on a friend/enemy distinction, which is narcissistic (we're good and they're bad). It's a surrogate for war, just like sports, and just like sports, there is "our" team and "their" team. And just like the artificial distinctions between sports teams, there are artificial distinctions between political parties. In reality there is about a dime's difference: they're two wings of the same party. The Republicans are the right wing and the Democrats and the left wing.

Again, same party, which is why you ended up with the Clintons, the Bushes and the Soeteros all being so friendly with each other.

Most people don't seem to understand this. They think they're candidate is an angel and opposing candidate is a devil.

Some people thought George Bush was a devil who was going to destroy the country, declare martial law and not leave office. They cheered when Barry Soetero was elected. When he was elected there was some who claimed he was going to destroy the country, declare martial law and not leave office...

Angels and Demons. In fantasy.

I said that politics was a surrogate for war. For sports.

Chris Hedges, in his book, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, wrote this: "The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble."

Robert Nisbet, in his The Quest for Community, also suggested people like to be in a group because it allows them to exalt themselves. It allows them to become part of something they consider greater than they are, even if it isn't.

During the time of the Roman Empire the government staged chariot races as part of the Bread and Circuses for the masses (the Reds and the Blues). Fans of each team would brawl in the streets.

Some people get meaning, importance and community out of supporting their candidates and parties. It's worthless, but everyone needs those three things.

Now the historical.

Government is the greatest killer in the world, and in the history of the world. It's the greatest oppressor, the greatest poverty-generator. The Founding Fathers considered it like fire, a good servant but a dangerous master. They intentionally tried to cripple it and didn't want it to be "efficient," because they knew that meant oppression and poverty.

People have generally got their meaning, importance and community from religion and family. But not so much anymore.

I've written before about narcissism, scapegoating, human sacrifice. Those things apply to politics, in fact is inherent in it.

The more politics dominates our world, the worse it is for our world. That's an eternal law of human nature.

"Mixed Kids are not Prettier: Blowing Up 'Hybrid Vigor'"

I've always known "hybrid vigor" was nonsense (look up a picture of Redd Foxx sometime, whose TV show was on the air when I was a teenager). As for today, there is the unattractive and dull-witted Barry Soetero.

The few half-breeds I know have been pretty ugly and not smart at all.

Every race want to get white blood into them. They think it's going to improve their kids. But most whites don't want to put white blood into them, with the exception of some Asian women. And a lot of that is due to so many white women being disgusting.

This article is from Choptensil.

The article starts here.

Okay, I am a bit sick of hearing people talk about mixed folks like we’re some sort of science experiment:

A few days ago, my cousin (“E”), his girlfriend (“J”), and I (“me”) met up with a married couple that they are friends with. In this couple, the man is a white Australian man, and the woman is a Chinese woman. The guy’s a nice one, but he’s not killing it in the looks department. The woman (also quite wonderful) is average-looking. She’s pregnant.

So after we part ways, “J” (also Chinese) is excited about the baby, and she says, “I can’t wait for their baby to be born – she is going to be so beautiful. Because she is Chinese and he is a foreigner, the baby must be so pretty.”

Record-scratch. I look at her, “What?!” I don’t say it, but I’m thinking – ‘Has she looked at the father? What is wrong with people?’

Because this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this kind of thing. I hear it all the time – “mixed kids are just so pretty.” And – although I’d love to bathe in the ego-stroking that entails (an interesting counterpoint to “Asian men aren’t hot”) – I’m not having it. And before I break it down further, let me just say that I know plenty of mixed folks, and there’s not always a whole lot of “beautiful” running around (I’m sorry, but I just got to be honest here). The few that are actually above-average? Well, the ones with the above-average parents, of course. Just like with the majority of pretty “mono-racial” children.

It doesn’t end there, though. I’ve also heard that mixed kids are “so intelligent” (mostly here in China). I’ve even been told (back in high school) that “all mixed kids are just so nice.”

When this topic gets brought up on a larger level – how beautiful and wonderful and healthy mixed kids are – we inevitably get a reference to “hybrid vigor.” In these cases, the person making the argument (wrongly) describes “hybrid vigor” as the genetic superiority of “cross-bred” animals and plants in the world. “It’s science,” they say – and people usually buy it.

Well, sorry, people – but this particular gorgeous, super-intelligent and wondrously kind mixed-race “cross-breed” has a science background. And y’all – apparently, from your mis-use of scientific understanding – don’t.

So step into my class for a second.

First-off, don’t wrongly cite Gregor Mendel and his pea-experiments as any sort of evidence – either way – of “hybrid vigor.” Yes, his cross-breeds did better than those plants he did not cross-breed, on an overall level.

But . . . uh . . . you’re missing a vital fact here: those plants that he didn’t cross-breed? He self-pollinated them. As in, they were inbred. Even closer relatives than brother and sister – because the sex cells came from the same plant. It was practically cloning. And even though lots of people like to say members of a particular “mono-racial” group “all look the same,” you’re really not all clones.

Okay, so then our faulty scientists will say, “well fine, what about with dogs and pigs and horses and sheep, etc.? Cross-breeding them increases fitness.”

Well, yes and no. First off, “hybrid vigor” actually just references the times when cross-breeding happens to increase fitness – not a fact that it always occurs. There’s another term, “outbreeding depression,” for when cross-breeding causes more problems. So, again, y’all are skipping some important details.

“But cross-breeding more often increases fitness, then.” Sure, sure. In dogs and pigs and other domestic animals, that’s true. But again – look at the comparison – those animals that do not get cross-bred: these are either “pure-bred” animals (like pugs, for instance) or “inbred” animals. We’ve talked about inbreeding (and no, I don’t think mono-racial folks are all the products of thousands of years of inbreeding), so . . .

“Pure-breeds”? Artificially, selectively-bred animals? These are animals that have been forced to breed together for many many generations to enhance some specific physical characteristics – at the cost of a lot of health problems. These are not real-world animals. Outside of the domesticated world, “pure-breeds” simply do not exist. Because, in the real world, “pure-breeds” would die out within a couple generations because of all their problems. All that remains in the natural world are cross-bred animals.

So comparing races or ethnicities to “breeds” is just lazy, and poor science. Every racial and ethnic group out there is a result of “cross-breeding.” Our human gene pool is all mixed up – because we have been (mostly) avoiding the inbreeding and artificial selection that creates domestic animals. Our DNA is more varied within any particular “racial group” than it is between them. Which then suggests that – if any of this “science” can be applied to human beings – then, perhaps, so-called “mono-racial” offspring would be more likely to have the advantage of “hybrid vigor” than multi-racial offspring.

Of course, that would also be abusing the science, but I hope you can see my point – there is no such thing as “purity” in race. Every “race” is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of inter-breeding, cross-breeding. We’ve survived as long as we have because we are not “pure.”

Mixed kids? The result of exactly the same reproductive processes and selection pressures as the rest of humanity. Flat-out. Some of us are super-hot or wondrously intelligent (or both), for sure. But, sorry, some of us just have to pull on inner beauty or wouldn’t exactly astound others with our coherence of thought (or both), as well.

Untrue “positive” stereotypes like this are just as damaging as negative ones (on a large scale). Allowing ourselves to be reduced to the equivalence of domesticated animals? Hell no. Let somebody “other” you in a “positive” way, and you’re just setting yourself up for the negative stereotypes and prejudice to follow suit – and trust me, it’s going to happen.

And, finally, for those anecdotalists out there who want to say, “but, really, all the mixed people I know really are beautiful,” I’ve got some things for you to ask yourself:

First off – are they “beautiful” simply because they’re “different” and “exotic?” That would be my first guess if they literally all are so gorgeous, in your eyes. And I don’t need to go further into that one about why that’s not okay.

Second – honestly, how many normal, everyday mixed people do you make note of? What does it take for you to even get to the point where you know for sure that we are mixed? Chances are, for us to be noticed on that level, we either have to be in the media (which is going to obviously over-represent the “hot” mixed folks), or else we just have to stand out from the backdrop of everyday life. And if we’re good-looking, that’s one way to do so.

I mean, how often do you think about or even ask some “below-average” guy or gal, “wow – you have such an interesting look, what is your racial background?” Right. You don’t. So you likely aren’t even aware of the thousands of mixed people you walked right by on the street that were not “beautiful.”

It’s Confirmation Bias, people (and if you don’t know what that is, it’s important – please look it up).

Mixed folks are great – GO US – but it’s simply not due to our genetic difference from the rest of humanity. We are not aliens; we are not dogs or other domesticated animals. We’re just another socially-defined group of people, and a force to be reckoned with – like the rest of our species.

And if you still don’t believe me . . ? Well, dang, please don’t make me be such a jerk that I have to send you photos . . .

Eaten by Envy

I am close to being almost constitutionally incapable of envy. I never felt it until I was 27 years old, and it was because of a relationship with a woman. Then I understood it completely: the rage, the hate, the desire for vengeance, revenge. I remember thinking, this is very nasty stuff. I don't want to feel this anymore.

Before that, I was the object of envy, but didn't realize it. And it was because of some guys' envy of me, because I was a lot more popular with women than they were. The backstabbing, the talking behind my back, the claims they were going to take the women away from me (which led me to laugh in their faces). Why are they acting like this? I thought.

Then, years later, I understood. And the main characteristic is putting someone down when they are completely innocent.

I've mentioned before I've had women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." These women were middle-aged, unmarried, without home, husband and children, yet had jobs making $45,000 a year.

Envy of men, so they had to put them down to make themselves feel better.

Leftism (and feminism is leftist) is based on dragging people down to make the envier feel better. That's what it's all about: making themselves feel better.

Some years ago I saw a march on TV of a mob of "Hispanics" (an "ethnic group" that doesn't exist - Cubans, for example, look down on Mexicans) and they were carrying signs that read, "Go back to Europe!" I thought, pure envy, of a "people" (Mexicans, specifically) that had a mean average IQ of 89 and therefore couldn't maintain a civilization. They couldn't stand the fact there were people and cultures far superior to them, so, out of envy, they'd cut their own throats if need be, to make sure no one was better than they.

I've seen the same envy among blacks, Jews, women, leftists, Muslims, towards the dominant culture. They want to destroy it, even if they destroy themselve.

"Dead White Males," "slave-owners," "patriarchy," etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Let's destroy it! I can't stand feeling the envy, the feelings of humiliation, the feelings of inferiority! I have to replace these feelings of shame with pride!

Enviers will never admit their envy. They use code words such as "justice" and "fairness," when it's never about justice and fairness. It's just envy, and feeling envy is hellish.

If you want to see a "revolution" based almost completely on envy, then check out the French Revolution. If there was a hell on earth, that was it.

The benign form of envy, as the ancient Greeks noticed, is admiration. And part of admiration is gratitude. That's why there are all those folk tales (and Aesop's fables, too) illustrating the fact you can't feel envy and gratitude at the same time.

I see an awful lot of envy and ingratitude but little appreciation and admiration.

Think "Cinderella," in which the stepmother's daughters cut off parts of their own feet, to make them fit into the slipper. They envy Cinderella and her relationship with the Prince (I've read Manosphere delusions about "Alpha" and "hypergamy" concerning this folk tale, which means they didn't understand it at all).

I don't care that Bill Gates is Scrooge McDuck rich, or that Geoge Clooney is better looking than me. How exactly do those things damage my life? They don't, not at all.

It's too bad politicians judges and clergyman don't understand the massive destruction caused by envy. It'd save a lot of trouble.

"To Understand the Future, One Must Understand Human Nature, Genetics and Disruptive Technologies"

The below is what I have been saying for a long time. All empires in the past have collapsed, but we have something never seen before: almost magical, Arthur C. Clarkian science and technology. And stupid, inbred people - say Arabs - are no threat except for creating violence and chaos. Let them create it over there, not here.

Below is part of a article from al finn next level.

In a world of innovation and disruptive technologies that incorporates the genetic engineering of the human genome, whatever one believes about present trends is likely to be proven wrong by subsequent events processes.

New drugs and technologies seem to take forever to be adopted, in today’s world of massive bureaucracy, regulation, vested interests, ubiquitous lawsuits, and short attention – span perpetually adolescent psychological neotenates.

But when the enhanced humans ARE the “disruptive technologies” themselves, change does not take so long at all. And when large central bureaucracies lose the power to extend their reach over some of the more prolific regions of innovation, other innovations may leap from the drawing board to reality with unbelievable speed.

It is impossible to say how far any particular region will travel down the road of dysgenic Idiocracy and coming anarchy. But location has to count for something.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It is never too late to have a Dangerous Childhood.

Remember: Dangerous Children preserve crucial skills and technologies as well as practicing them. Dangerous Children help form Dangerous Communities, which in turn help form networked trade alliances that can provide a regional resilience in difficult times.

Pagan Blood Sacrifices

Occasionally I'll encounter someone who'll claim Christianity is a Middle Eastern or Jewish religion, and has no place in the West - even though the West was founded upon Christianity. They always recommend some modern, made-up pagan "European" religion, like Wicca or Asatru. I see the same claim made in America.

These people never understand the history of Christianity.

The Roman authorities considered Christians to be atheists because they believed in one god. The main reason the authorities considered Christians such a threat is because they wouldn't make sacrifices to the many Roman gods - and the emperor. Usually the sacrifice was a bull and not a human, as in the past.

Those who wouldn't make these sacrifices sometimes ended up dying in the Coliseum. They became sacrifices themselves - and "sacrifice" really means to give up the lesser for the greater, although sometimes in reality it's the other way around.

The amount of human sacrifice thoughout history - including that of babies - was staggering. Sometimes I say that much of history can be explained by the worship of Moloch and Mammon - blood and money.

Modern pagans (and atheists) consider Christianity to be a war-like blood-thirsty religion. To the extent it has fallen away from its tenets, yes, this is true. But inherent in all paganism (and atheism) is blood sacrifice, and I guarantee you the more paganism makes inroads into society, the more more blood sacrifices we're going to see.

I've mentioned recently about the blood-thirsty leftist Jewish atheist "Ayn Rand," whose entire pagan belief-system was based on human sacrifice. Thank God it never went anywhere and never will, no matter what naive teenagers think.

Unfortunately, the entire 20th Century was a century of leftist atheist blood sacrifice - perhaps 200 million people sacrificed to Communism, Nazism, fascism and atheism. They're pagan religions (the Nazis tried to get Nazism declared a religion in the U.S.).

Multicultural societies are always pagan societies. Their governments can't be based on any religious tenets at all - and contrary to the ignorant, America was founded on Christianity, including the government (although technically, it was a secular government founded on Christian principles).

In multicultural societies, the government ends up being the religion. It has to be enormous to keep some sort of peace and order, no matter how poorly. Leftists especially worship it as some sort of god - a modern-day emperor.

The more diverse the United States becomes, and the more multicultural, the more blood sacrifices we will see of one group sacrificing "outsiders" to itself. Think of the murder of over 3100 Americans on American soil by Muslims - all sacrificed to Moloch.

The United States government is also sacrificing Muslims in other countries to itself - I consider ISIS/Iraq to be a live-action weapons laboratory to test modern weapons. Mass murder - sacrifices to refine government weapons.

Think of all the dangerous and destructive nonsense about "Dead White Males" and "patriarchy," and the attempts to destroy them. This is an attempt by various tribes to sacrifice people to itself (I and many others have noticed feminism is not about equality - it's about women sacrificing men, which means women are cutting their own throats, since men created and maintain civilization).

The ancient pagan gods were not nice gods. They demanded blood sacrifices so they wouldn't kill peope and wipe out societies. Think of the tens of thousands of people who had their hearts cut out by the Aztecs so the sun wouldn't go out.

A year or so ago I saw the movie, The Cabin in the Woods (which I have mentioned), in which those ancient pagan gods really did exist, and were asleep under the earth, and demanded a yearly gruesome human sacifice of several innocent teenagers so they wouldn't wake up and demolish the human race. And who ultimately ran the sacrificial rites? The government.

These same vicious, brutal gods exist even today...disguised as people. Most people have no clue about this - especially the government demanding sacrifices to itself, of blood and money, to maintain itself, just as the Roman emperors did.

The Hildebeast Takes a Dump on National TV

I decided to make a little YouTube video. It's kinda rough, but I'll get better.

Love, Sex, Companionship

My experience has been relationships are based on three things: love, sex and companionship.

Sex is easy to find and always has been. Relationships based in it never last, and the so-called "leaders" of the Manosphere are adolescents when it comes to it.

Companionship is pretty much obvious and I don't think I have to expand on that.

Ah, now love. That's the rub.

Love, unfortunately, sometimes doesn't last. The "Seven Year Itch" is a real thing.

My experience has also been there are an awful lot of guys out there who spend their time playing video games. They don't have real jobs. I mean ones in their thirties. That's "failure to launch."

As for women, they're the ones with the real problems. Of course, they don't know it, because women are notorious for blaming their problems on men.

I didn't notice women having any particular problems in middle school and high school. But college! There you go!

In college I once met a woman who told me she was going to marry a rich man and have him support her in music career. In Jamaica, of all places.

I asked her what she brought to such a relationship to think she was deserved such support.What's so special about you that makes you lovable? Sex? A cheap commodity. I told her some women were amazing at at - it's like they were made for it - but most were pretty lousy. Companionship? With your mercenary attitude?

I've forgotten what she answered, but it was cheap excuses and rationalizations. She later told a friend of mine she didn't like me. Do tell.

See? I tell her the truth and she blames me for popping her bubble.

Last I heard, she got married and was living in Springfield, Illinois. Her music career? Jamaica? Poof. Gone. Never even got off of the ground.

She's lucky she got what she did - if she still has it.

I've noticed, as have many people, that women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities. I first noticed that about 30 years ago, when I mentioned it to a retired man, who was about 70, and he said, "You know, you're right."

They want the same right as men to attempt to get an easy, indoor, high-paying career (but be a carpenter, as I was? - never!) but still expect men to treat them as traditional woman - court them, ask them out, pay their way.

And they wonder why relationships and marriage and having babies is in such big trouble?

To me, and many others, the problems are obvious!

Women have neve been "oppressed" by some non-existent "patriarchy." Women almost always have had it easier than men. They've been protected and provided for, because they really are the weaker vessel. That's why you don't see them as carpenters and cab drivers and coal miners and loggers and iron workers.

Men do the hard, dirty, dangerous work and then women follow and want the easy stuff.

These problems have occurred in the past many times, in many cultures. When societies try to make men and women equal, it really means giving women special privileges but ignoring the fact that's what it really is.

Such cultures have always collapsed. As best as I can remember, about 80 of them.

Exactly how many women ask themselves, "What do I have to offer? If I act like a man, will men love me? What kind of a pleasant companion am I? And why is so much about adolescent sex today? Is any of it my fault? It can't all be men's fault."

The Narcissism and Human Sacrifice of "Ayn Rand"

"Ayn Rand"'s real name was Alice Rosenbaum, and she was a Christianity-hating, left-wing Jew atheist (she was not American, but Russian). She ostensibly supported capitalism, but the base on which she tried to support it would never work and would in fact destroy it. By the way, I personally know some leftist, Russian Jew atheists - and they're buffoons).

Rosenbaum was mentally ill, and her friends used to discuss whether or not whe was evil - and could never come to a conclusion. She was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder - character disorders in which the afflicted always claims, "It's not my fault; it's yours!" (It's no surprise Rosembaum claimed she was "the perfect woman.")

It's amazing anyone ever took this worshiper of Dionysus seriously.

I refer to Atlas Shrugged as "the Talmud Lite for Naive Goyim," although almost all of her early followers were Jewish (no surprise there). It's a book for lost 12-year-olds, which is what all leftists are, Jewish or not.

The whole book is a perfect example of narcissism - her perfect, grandiose John Galtian heroes and her subhuman "looters" and "parasites," whom she casts into an undifferentiated damnation and slaughters by the hundreds of millions.

I've had people tell me Rosenbaum didn't kill these people, that they killed themselves. I've responded that her characters don't exist and that Rosenbaum, as the author, was responsible for everything her characters did. And she admitted enjoying killing off the world.

Rosenbaum was engaging in human sacrifice - murdering people to save society from something that supposedly will destroy it. Since Rand had that left-wing, immature Jewish hate of things-as-they-are, she wanted to destroy it to save her "heroes."

As I said, a severely disturbed woman.

It doesn't surprise me that Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard, two nuts, were both involved with Rosenbaum's "Objectivism" early in their careers.

I, on the other hand, saw through her nonsense instantly.

Men Do All the Hard, Dangerous Work, Then Women Follow and Demand, "Give All of It to Me"

I've been thinking about this for decades, long before the Internet and certainly long before the Manosphere (which is why I know so much of it is adolescent nonsense).

Ingratitude is one of the worst vices in the world. It's a species of envy: "You've got it, now give it to me."

Men invented everything in the world. Okay, maybe not everything. Just 99.99% of it. Women did invent some things (who has ever heard of Grace Hopper?) but those women are extreme outliers.

Men invent, discover, create, then many women follow, feel sorry for themselves, start whining about a non-existent "oppression" and "patriarchy," then howl, "Give me my cut! No, wait! Give all of it to me because I can run it just as well as men!"

Astonishing!

I've had women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world" (what is this, 1968?) All of them were unmarried, middle-aged, and made about $45,000 a year from jobs created by men. Gratitude? Appreciation? What are those? But envy? Certainly.

Women would literally be up shit creek if men didn't love them. Those goofy evo-psych/Manosphere hallucinations about it all being about sex - goofy as hell. It's about love - and if love didn't exist we'd be on the same level as cats and dogs. Both men and women.

I've mentioned before about "The Little House on the Prairie Books," which everyone should read. There is a scene in which Laura Ingalls Wilder's father ("Pa") builds a house basically with an ax. He chops down trees, has the horses haul them to the site, makes logs out of them, builds a house, then splits logs lengthwise, smooths the insides, then uses them for the floor. Then he builds the furniture!

This is what he did for his wife and children.

His wife ("Ma") did the cooking, cleaning, cannng, etc. Could she have built the house? BWAHAHA!!!

And I don't think Pa was as big or strong as me. I know what he went through, since my father was a general contractor and I started building houses when I was 12. It was pretty horrible. I almost got killed once and hurt myself several times - smashing your thumb with a hammer is not funny, no matter what the cartoons tell us.

I once found the tip of a guy's finger when he fell off of a ladder and grabbed the wrong thing. I've also seen guys run power saws over their hands and fingers and shoot themselves in the feet with nailguns.

I occasionally ask women what would happen to them if men withdrew from running and maintaining the world. No more water or electricity or food. Poof! Just like that.

One woman told me, "Men wouldn't get paid," to which I responded, "You just don't get it at all, do you? Men invented everything in the world."

Carl Jung understood this. Men are culturally indispensable since they created everything and women are biologically indispensable since they have the babies. Until we create artificial wombs and sexbots!

I've mentioned before about the wisdom of the story of the Garden of Eden. Women's greatest flaw is envy (the "serpent" is a symbol of envy) and men's greatest flaw in listening to envious women - and apparently being unable to perceive that they are envious!

Envy wants to drag people down. It shows no gratitude and appreciation. So when women put men down and demand things from them (especially without giving anything in return), those are the main signs of envy. Do nothing for them. Stay away from them.

This envy of women, with men unable to recognize it, is part of the Battle of the Sexes, which has now apparently taken on the dimensions of a war!

Marriage rates have collapsed, which of course women blame on men - since they refuse to look in the mirror. And babies being born? Not so much anymore.

Why should men get married and have children? What's in it for them anymore? Being the object of envious attacks and and having every problem in the world blamed on them? Who needs that?

These problems have happened in the past, along with imperial overstretch and catastropic economic problems.

Yet people don't learn from history. In fact, if there is one lesson from history everyone should know, it's that people don't learn from it.

Bugs Bunny to the Rescue

The best definition of "reason" I've run across is "the ability to make connections." I consider it part science, part art. That might be a better definition: "the art and science of making connections."

Let's use Bugs Bunny for an example. Bugs belongs to the archetype known as the Trickster. This archetype exists in nearly every culture and is thousands of years old. It is an aspect of the Holy Fool archetype, which is someone who rejects the conventional, false wisdom, believes in the ancient, true wisdom, and is considered a fool and a danger by the authorities and the "wise."

In the Western world, Jesus is the best-known example of the Trickster and the Holy Fool (it's clear the authorities thought him a fool).

So...Jesus and Bugs Bunny are connected to each other.

It's not as odd as it sounds.

Bugs was always outsmarting, tricking and ridiculing his opponents. He didn't use violence. You could say he "persuaded" them by trickery. His opponents, on the other hand, were always violent. There was the humorless and much-too-earnest Elmer Fudd, always attempting to blast Bugs with his shotgun; the Tasmanian Devil, an insane whirlwind always wanting to eat our hero; Marvin the Martian, who though brilliant, was also a lunatic and armed with a disintegrator ray. They would have made great employees of the State, whether today or in the Roman occupation of its various conquered lands.

What we have is the eternal Natural Law of Persuasion versus Coercion, in the form of a cartoon. I see Natural Law as in some way being in the structure of the universe. Humans are conduits for it: we discover it and then project it into literature, myth, fables, fairy tales...and even cartoons. By watching good cartoons we are looking at the eternal laws of the universe.

This is what Alfred North Whitehead, the British philosopher, had to say about Persuasion and Coercion, in his book, Adventures of Ideas:

"The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force...Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is the disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals...

"Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force."

The economist Mark Skousen puts it this way: "The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society."

Anyone who watches cartoons knows that Bugs is a Trickster, but Christianity, for some reason, has tried to gloss over the fact that Jesus was both a Trickster, and a very witty one. You need look no further than Elton Trueblood's slim book, The Humor of Christ.

Here's a good example, in Mark. In it, a Canaanite woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter. In those days, Canaanites were the traditional enemies of Jews, and were considered ritually unclean pagans and idolators. Jesus was not supposed to talk to her, or she to him. They weren't even supposed to acknowledge each other's presence.

She says to him, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon." And how does he answer? At first he ignores her. His disciples urge him to send her away. She keeps shouting after Jesus until finally he answers, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

On the face of it this is a shocking thing to say. The woman answers his insult thusly: "Yes, but even the dogs can eat the crumbs that fall from the table." To this Jesus answers, "If you can give me an answer like that, I will heal your daughter."

When Jesus called her a dog, he used the diminutive "little dog," meaning a puppy that begs for food at the table. He was giving her the answer: "Yes, but even the puppies can eat the crumbs that fall from the table."

This is an example of his trickery and wit. He tricked his disciples, and he tricked the woman. He got around the iron-clad customs of his time, so he could heal the woman's daughter. In essence, he was ridiculing the foolish mores of his society.

That's not the only time he tricked people. In Luke 20: 19-26 his opponents ask him, "Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

In those days that was a very dangerous question that could cost you your life if you answered the wrong way. Jesus answers, "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Jesus answers, "Then give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

There is more going on here than is generally known. His opponents, being pious Jews, were not supposed to have that coin on them because it was a graven image -- it bore the face of Caesar. It is clearly stated that Jesus asked for the coin. There is no evidence he gave it back. And they couldn't ask for its return. Again, evidence of his wit and persuasive trickery, and of ridiculing and making fools of his opponents.

One of the most important messages of the Trickster and the Holy Fool is, "Lighten up." The Trickster never seems to hate; that's usually reserved for the ambitious satans clawing their way to the top of the State. Tricksters, though, are wise enough to protect themselves. They are "as wise as serpents as and harmless as doves," and are as "sheep in the midst of wolves."

The ideas of Persuasion versus Force are well-known. What is apparently not as well-known is that there is a "trickiness" to the best persuasion. In the long run, it's what works. This is what Bugs and Jesus teach us. Christianity are still around. The Roman Empire disappeared a long time ago. Persuasion, with a little bit of trickery and wit, will always beat Force. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Voltaire's most famous saying is, "Lord, please make my opponents ridiculous."

The wisdom of cartoons teaches us one of the ways to attack the wrong is by ridiculing it. By outsmarting and tricking it. Evil can't stand to be ridiculed. If the Devil really is wandering around somewhere, he doesn't scare me. I'll just laugh at him.

I pay great attention to the amount of ridicule directed at politicians and the State. I do not believe any State can survive once the ridicule of the public reaches a critical mass. I've haven't seen it yet, but I have seen it happen to politicians.

I am a great fan of Bugs. And Jesus, too. William Wittmann had this to say about Bugs (and it applies to others, too): "He is never in a rush, he takes vacations, he always enjoys himself, and he likes everyone he meets, even those that want to destroy the planet. However, he does not confuse his liking someone with thinking they are sane. He knows that Marvin the Martian is crazy. Bugs doesn’t get hurt by him, and he doesn’t dislike him. Pretty wonderful trick. He is essentially, a healer. His tool is tricking people into becoming whole."

Good cartoons are wise and wonderful things. That's my motto, one that I follow faithfully every day.

Shame, Humiliation and Murder

“The infernal serpent; it was he whose guile/Stirred up with envy and revenge/Deceived the mother of mankind…” – Paradise Lost

About 15 years ago I was listening to NPR when a man named Dr. James Gilligan was interviewed. He had spent 35 years interviewing murderers, wondering why they murdered. He said what he heard, over and over, was "He dissed me." (Or their mothers, or children, or friends.)

One day he suddenly realized what he was hearing was the story of Cain and Abel. Cain felt he had been disrespected and humiliated, and got revenge on Abel by murdering him. Revenge, resentment, envy - that's what leads to murder. And all explained by a simple story thousands of years old.

It's the attempt to replace shame with pride.

Gilligan once wrote of a murderer who killed a woman and put her eyes out. Why? "She was looking at me." He was so excruciatingly self-conscious he became paranoid and imagined women were looking at him and thinking bad things. He could not tolerate it.

I almost instinctively knew this was the explanation, having been raised in a not-good area and having seen a lot of bullying. I've seen the bullied simply explode and pound the bully. And that was the end of the bullying.

All human evil in the world is explained by the myth of Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Abel – the archetypical dysfunctional family. I consider it the most important story in Western culture. Since it’s Biblical in origin, even though it’s as much mythology as the Iliad and the Odyssey, you’ll never see it taught in public schools.

While the story of the Garden of Eden is not literally true, it is part of the oral tradition of mythology – a story, refined through hundreds if not thousands of years, that entertained and educated at the same time. It is unfortunate that at one time it was perverted into placing the blame entirely on women for bringing evil into the world…completely ignoring the fact that Adam was just as infantile and irresponsible.

Scapegoating is what Adam did to Eve, what Eve did to the serpent, and what Cain did to Abel. Adam said, “She made me do it,” Eve said, “The serpent made me do it,” and Cain demonstrated in deed if not in words, “Abel made me kill him, and he deserved it, the jerk.” Each was saying, “It’s not my fault…you made it do it…look what you made me do.”

Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden, thereby bringing evil into the world. In some versions, their refusal to take responsibility for their actions is what gets them expelled.

In the story of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve become self-conscious (and conscious of “good” and “evil”) after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ironically, the “good” and “evil” they know isn’t good and evil at all – it’s the primitive, narcissistic belief that “I am good; you are bad, and since you’re the cause of what I define as evil I will kill you.” It’s the kind of simplistic knowledge that brought evil into the world.

They can't do any evil until they become self-conscious - just as the man who put the woman's eyes out would have never done it except of his self-consciousness.

The late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck wrote, “Scapegoating is the genesis of human evil,” and he is exactly right. Scapegoating is when you project all of your problems onto other people and believe if you can get rid of them, then your problems will depart this world.

He wrote of scapegoating “as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion…they must perceive others as bad…[t]hey project their own evil onto the world.” And political power, as Hannah Arendt wrote, is the power to turn a live human being into a corpse.

Scapegoating – or projection – as Melanie Klein wrote in her magnum opus, Envy and Gratitude, is the first and most primitive of our defenses. What parent has not encountered a child exclaiming, “He/she/they/you made me do it!” Unfortunately, it’s also the first defense of adults, and especially of ethnic tribes – as I see it, it’s their only defense.

Klein’s colleague Joan Riviere wrote, “The first and the most fundamental of our insurances or safety measures against feelings of pain, of being attacked, or of helplessness—one from which so many others spring—is that device we call projection. All painful and unpleasant sensations and feelings in the mind are by this device automatically relegated outside oneself... [W]e blame them on someone else. [Insofar] as such destructive forces are recognized in ourselves we claim that they have come there arbitrarily and by some external agency....[P]rojection is the…first reaction to pain and it probably remains the most spontaneous reaction in all of us to any painful feeling throughout our lives.”

Perpetually blaming your problems on others is technically known as a character disorder. They fall into several categories: Anti-social Personality Disorder (sociopath/psychopath), Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder.

I have met several of these people in my life and the havoc they wreak is astonishing. Bizarrely, they don’t even know they’re doing it – they’re as unconscious of their antics as a two-year-old. Being self-centered and inconsiderate, they are clueless about the effect they have on others.

The easiest way to identify them: they believe it’s never their fault, always someone else’s. Someone else is always responsible for their problems – they’re never guilty of anything. While they have no idea what they do to others, they are hypersensitive to what others do to them – even to the point of imaging it.

I am reminded of a scene in the movie Jaws, in which two boys are caught pretending to be sharks. One immediately points at the other and says, “He made me do it!” For a not so humorous example, there was the case of a woman who murdered her husband by running him over with her car, then exclaimed, “Look what you made me do!” In her mind he was guilty, not her.

The serpent, as Milton pointed out in Paradise Lost, is the symbol of “envy and revenge” (because, as the author suggests, his pride is hurt – he writes of Satan’s “obdurate pride and steadfast hate”). Envy and revenge are inextricably linked; you might as well call them envy/revenge. Or better yet, envy/hate/revenge.

The story of the Garden of Eden illustrates that evil comes into the world because of scapegoating, almost all of which is based on envy. And with envy comes the desire for revenge, to “bring down” the other, the way the serpent wanted to bring down Adam and Eve.

While Adam and Eve are merely ashamed because they are naked, the serpent is one big step beyond mere shame – he is humiliated (and powerless) because Adam and Eve are God’s favorites instead of him. So here is the dynamic: feeling humiliated and powerless leads to envy and hate and the desire for revenge.

“Serpent,” though, isn’t necessarily the correct word. The word it’s translated from is “nachash,” which is a very interesting word indeed.

“Nachash” has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator. Think of the lying Iago manipulating Othello into murdering his innocent wife, or Salieri’s hate-fueled backstabbing envy of Mozart in Amadeus. In each case each villain used words, and as Rudyard Kipling noticed, “words are the most powerful drug ever invented.” And in each case they desired to predict -- indeed cause—the future of their “enemies”: destruction, ruin, death.

The word “enchant” means “to chant,” as in hypnotize (it can also mean “to sing,” as Kaa the serpent did in the movie version of The Jungle Books when he sang, “Trust in me…”). Essentially it’s the same as a “spell,” meaning “tale,” or “the use of words.” The serpent used words in an attempt to cast a spell on Eve (by telling her she could be god-like), to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring down her and Adam.

You might even consider what the nachash did the first known use of the basic techniques of propaganda: convince (I like the word “ensorcel”) people into believing their problems are caused by someone else.

The envious never say, “I envy you.” It’s too excruciatingly painful for them to even admit it to themselves—they call it something else, such as misnaming it as “justice” or “fairness.” Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn’t any fun. It is one of the most corrosive feelings in the world. Instead, the envious almost always whisper, lie, and go behind people’s backs, the way Salieri got Mozart to believe he was Mozart’s friend. They are subtle about their envy, the way the nachash was “the most subtle.”

There is no murder in the story of Adam and Eve. That escalation happens with their children, Cain and Abel. Cain’s sacrifice is rejected by God while Abel’s is accepted.

Convinced he’s humiliated, and envious of Abel, Cain seeks his revenge by murdering his brother. Cain blames his problems on Abel; he scapegoats him and takes it a step further than their parents. If someone had asked Cain why he killed Abel, I believe he would have answered, “It’s his fault…he made me do it...look at what he made me do” – an O.J. Simpson excuse thousands of years ago.

Speaking of Gilligan again, he also commented “The most dangerous men on earth are those who are afraid they are wimps.”

And here I take a detour in the Manosphere, which exists only because of envious, hate-filled, leftist feminism, which wants to shame and bring down men. And men have responded with grandiose nonsense about psychopathic/narcisstic "alphas." And where does the ancient wisdom tell us where all this will lead? It's not hard to figure out.

One of my posters made a comment about women in some bars playing a game with men, called "Marry, fuck, kill." I thought, can these stupid women not know where this will lead? Resentment and revenge, maybe?

John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler of serial killers, and the author of several best-selling books, stated that every serial murderer he encountered was an “inadequate” type (i.e., he felt humiliated) who covered it up with grandiosity (i.e., an immense Satanic pride) and sought revenge on anyone who reminded him of those who believed caused his problems in the first place. Again, feelings of humiliation leading to murder.

Wrote Douglas in The Anatomy of Motive about one mass murder: “…this crime…[was] a kind of revenge…it was retaliation for some perceived wrong – real or imagined – perpetrated against the killer” (in another case, a teenage school shooter said, “The world has wronged me, and I could take it no more”—his pride was hurt).

The desire for revenge, as much of the world’s literature attests, even enters into our most intimate relationships (the influential The Count of Monte Cristo is about little else but revenge – I’ve seen its influence in mysteries, science-fiction, westerns and hard-boiled detective fiction).

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her article, “How We Mate,” laments the destruction of romance and courtship leading to long-term marriage (all of which are Western institutions). Instead, what we have now are temporary relationships; “hookup-breakup.” This destruction, not surprisingly, leads to humiliated partners seeking revenge.

“Women content themselves with revenge fantasies to exorcise their jealousy and anger,” she writes, then goes on to list what happens when it goes beyond fantasy, such as cutting the crotch out of every pair of pants the man owned. “If this…sounds like junior high,” she continues, “it should. The pattern of hookup-breakup is adolescent, and perpetually so.”

The men in these relationships, Whitehead pointed out, have a tendency to become violent, and for the same reasons: feelings of humiliation leading to envy/hate, to revenge.

Revenge is a misguided attempt to replace shame with pride. It’s doomed because instead of increasing pride – self-respect, self-esteem, a good self-image – it instead increases reciprocal violence.

People who believe they have been victimized may not necessarily been shamed or humiliated; sometimes they think they have when they haven’t. They believe they’ve suffered some unjust loss or injury. As a result they feel rage, hate, anger, shame, jealousy or envy – and want find someone responsible for it, and to make them “pay for it.”

I’ve seen people from shame-based cultures, such as ones in Asia, who in America have accused people of trying to humiliate them in public when the people were doing no such thing. This flawed perception, conditioned by a foreign culture, is what caused the problem.

The stories of Adam and Even and Cain and Abel explain much of the political trouble in the world these days.

Osama bin Laden said the attacks on 9-11 were “a copy” of what the U.S. had been doing to the Islamic world. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were revenge and vengeance, caused by the Hubris-afflicted U.S. empire humiliating and shaming the countries in the Middle East, if not most of the world. This is why so many people in the world hate the United States government.

Incidentally, Hubris – the goddess of arrogance, moral blindness, insolence and wanton violence – is followed by Nemesis, who is the goddess of fate and retribution. Thousands of years ago the Greeks noticed insolence and violence against others is fated to breed revenge. The same observation is found in the Bible: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit leads to a fall.”

9-11 wasn’t, as Bush believed, because the attackers were the Evil Ones who “attacked us for our goodness.” It was revenge, pure and simple. Revenge, the old saying advises us, is a dish best served cold – served after about 60 years of the U.S. supporting dictators and repressive regimes in the Middle East. But then, there’s this warning: if you’re going to seek revenge, dig two graves.

The U.S. was attacked by those seeking revenge; we attacked them seeking revenge on them. I call it the Cycle of Murder and Revenge; it is, again, the misguided attempt to replace shame with pride. Many have died on both sides because of this cycle, necessitating far more than two graves.

Currently, clueless - and dangerous - politicians are talking about destroying our Muslim enemies in the Middle East while letting them into the United States. The result of this? More dead Americans, murdered by those we let in. There is no way around this.

This problem with humiliation – whether it’s real or imaged - leading to the desire for revenge is something we’re never going to rid ourselves of, being that the human race is decidedly imperfect.

So the Cycle of Murder and Revenge will continue as long as the human race exists.

Great Wine in Old Bottles

I am a believer in Natural Law. That is, there are laws in the universe, and human nature, and they can be discovered, just as they are in physics and chemistry. You don't have to have a Ph.D. to discover them or to understand if you follow them things will work out for you and society, and if you don't, instead bad things will happen.

Many of these laws have already been discovered thousands of years ago. Since Natural Laws are universal, you can find them in the moral codes of all societies and all religions.

Let's take a little book called the Tao Te Ching, a book written a few thousand years ago, by Lao Tze. I have a few translations of this book. Here are some of the sayings in it:

"Why are people starving? Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes. Therefore the people are starving."

I have modern-day books by Ludwig von Mises and Richard Maybury others like him, all of whom have expanded greatly on that comment above. I have dozens of books, with thousands of pages. Yet, those three lines, millenia old and true as can be, stay in my mind.

By the way, Christianity was originally called "the Way."

"Why are the people rebellious? Because the rulers interfere too much. Therefore they are rebellious."

Well, that's certainly true, isn't it? The State never learns that lesson, does it?

"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be."

Hey, Lao Tze was a libertarian -sort of.. Crushing rules and regulations make people poor.

"The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers."

Yep. Not just the average joe, but the people in the State stealing people's money through misnamed "taxes."

"Therefore, The sage does nothing and people govern themselves, Provokes no one and people are peaceful, Does not interfere and people prosper, Is without desire and people fulfill themselves."

Throw out all the Ph.D.s in Political Science from Harvard and Yale and Princeton and other places. Instead, teach the sayings in this article starting in grade school.

"The more people are controlled, the less contented they become. But when will leaders understand the significance of this? "

Apparently leaders will never understand it.

“The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects; The next best are loved and praised; The next are feared; The next despised: They have no faith in their people, And their people become unfaithful to them.”

I think I’m not going to make any more comments. Lao Tze doesn’t really need them, since he’s self-explanatory.

“When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own..

“When harmonious relationships dissolve Then respect and devotion arise; When a nation falls to chaos Then loyalty and patriotism are born.

“Those who wish to change the world According with their desire Cannot succeed.

“The world is shaped by the Way; It cannot be shaped by the self. Trying to change it, you damage it; Trying to possess it, you lose it.

“Powerful men are well advised not to use violence, For violence has a habit of returning; Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes, And lean years follow a great war.

“A general is well advised To achieve nothing more than his orders: Not to take advantage of his victory. Nor to glory, boast or pride himself; To do what is dictated by necessity, But not by choice.

“For even the strongest force will weaken with time, And then its violence will return, and kill it.

“Armies are tools of violence; They cause men to hate and fear. The sage will not join them. His purpose is creation; Their purpose is destruction.

“Weapons are tools of violence, Not of the sage; He uses them only when there is no choice, And then calmly, and with tact, For he finds no beauty in them.

“Whoever finds beauty in weapons Delights in the slaughter of men; And who delights in slaughter Cannot content himself with peace.

“So slaughters must be mourned And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

“To reduce someone's influence, first expand it; To reduce someone's force, first increase it; To overthrow someone, first exalt them; To take from someone, first give to them.

“This is the subtlety by which the weak overcome the strong: Fish should not leave their depths, And swords should not leave their scabbards.

“Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted; Closely held beliefs are not easily released; So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

“When government is lazy and informal The people are kind and honest; When government is efficient and severe The people are discontented and deceitful.

“Who recognizes his limitations is healthy; Who ignores his limitations is sick. The sage recognizes this sickness as a limitation. And so becomes immune.

“When people have nothing more to lose, Then revolution will result.

“Do not take away their lands, And do not destroy their livelihoods; If your burden is not heavy then they will not shirk it.

“When rulers take grain so that they may feast, Their people become hungry; When rulers take action to serve their own interests, Their people become rebellious; When rulers take lives so that their own lives are maintained, Their people no longer fear death.”

Who needs all those books when you have this?

Bring Back the Dowry

At one time I was mystified why dowries were paid. A woman got married and her parents gave money and other material possessions to the groom? What was up with that? There had to be some sort of rational explanation for it.

One explanation is that the dowry was "seed money" for the groom. Since men have traditionally supported women (since women got pregnant and squeezed out the babies), the dowry was a leg up to get the family established. That made a great deal of sense.

Gary Becker applied economics to dowries and came up with some interesting conclusions. Where there a shortage of men, dowries are paid. Where there is a shortage of women, bride prices are paid.

These days many women are whining there is shortage of "good men." (My standard answer is they are right where you left them - back in your 20's.)

Maristella Botticini and Aloysius Siow, back in early 2002, claimed "the modern disappearance of dowries is due to a change in the environment for producing bridal wealth and not to a change in the relative values of brides versus grooms. Thus brideprices do not have to appear when dowries disappear."

In other words, when women make more money, the dowry disappears. However, these days women make as much (and sometimes more) money than men not because they qualified, but because of Affirmative Action and the fear of lawsuits.

While dowries have disappeared, bride prices have not - at least to women, many of whom think they shouldn't disappear. They still think men are supposed to ask them out, pay their way, make a decent salary. That will change, too.

And is changing, since so many men have decided it's no longer worth it to get married. They will no longer pay the bride price, which means there is no longer a shortage of women and instead there is a shortage of men. At least, a perceived shortage of certain men.

These changes, of course, have caused major changes in the marriage market, since women are complaining they are educated (actually "schooled") and make a good salary, so where are all the acceptable men? Kicked out of schools and high-paying jobs by government edict, that's where.

Women who don't believe this might want to talk to men and believe what they're telling you. I have seen it happen to my friends and to many men who are just acquaintances.

In other words, there is a shortage of men acceptable to these women. These women (and this is both amusing and tragic) don't have a clue as to what the real problems are. Typically, they blame everything on men, which is one of the major flaws of women.

However, since there are more "schooled" women than men, the logical conclusion is that since there is a shortage of men, the price of men goes up, so women have to pay more to get them. Hence, bring back the dowry.

Of course, this will never happen, no matter how logical it is.

Actually, I'm not serious about this, but it is fun bringing these things up with women, some of whom get completely outraged because it intrudes into their groovy little fantasy worlds and the cognitive dissonance makes their brains blow up.

What really makes them throw seizures is when I tell them they should save up $20,000 or so and use it as a dowry to pay for a husband. I have found that is a really good one.

Instead, all those lazy slackers out there are supposed to crush themselves going to college, then graduate with even more crushing debt, somehow find a high-paying job when they are damned scarce...and when this doesn't happen, it's all their fault.

But it's not. Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our meddling government and most especially because of the inflationary policies of the completely illegal Federal Reserve Bank. So, unless a man has the ability (and many don't) to get a degree in STEM (science, technology, engineering, science) or else works his butt off establishing a business, he's pretty much fucked. Unlike women with worthless degrees (teaching, human resources) who get handed Affirmative Action high-paying jobs over more-qualified and more competent men.

For that matter, if there is such a shortage of men, men should not ask women out, or pay their way, or any of the other things men traditionally do. Let women do these things.

Of course, that's not going to happen, and I'm not serious about it, anyway. But it is an amusing thought-experiment, and proves (to my satisfaction) that a fair number of women want the advantages of both men and women and none of the responsibilities.

And what are men supposed to get out of all this? Women who aren't worth it, and don't even know it. And when told about it, certainly aren't going to believe it. After all, it is men's fault.

What to do? Women can lower their standards (snicker), they can support men (that won't last, because no man wants that, except for the lower-class ones), or men can be paid a lot more than women (which is what again is going to happen in the long run, after everything collapses).

Feminism doesn't need to be slain. Just take away government support from it (that's how it got going in the first place). It'll die a natural death, if you can consider a vampire evaporating in the sunlight a natural death.

In the meantime, women are going to continue in the frustrations, ending up as bitter spinsters with cats or big male dogs, blaming all their problems on men, and never understanding what the problem is.

Face it, girls, if you want to find a guy these days, you have to pay for him. After all, turnabout is fair play.

P.S.

I found this on a forum and I will quote it in full. I'm not saying I agree with all of it but it's pretty funny.

"The dowry was created to prevent female bullshit from getting out of control. They only thing people can agree on throughout the centuries is that we like money and it doesn't grow on trees.

"I propose the following dowry guidelines. For a women to get married her family must provide the groom's family with $200,000, a house, and two functional vehicles paid by them but in the groom's family name. They must also pay for wedding expenses and any extras like wedding rings and honey moon (ring and honey moon are optional because who gives a fuck about that anyway...)

"Penalties:

"The family of a woman that has passed the age of 20 will pay an additional $50,000 for every year over said age. If a woman is found to not be a virgin her family is to double the dowry to $400,000 and $100,000 for every year passed the age of 20.

"Why is this a good idea?

"Well for starters there will be very few woman who could afford to divorce and remarry.

"Secondly women who decide to be teenage cum receptacles will not be able to get married in most cases due to the extreme cost thus would be a positive incentive to behave.

"Women would still be free to educate themselves (drink and fuck in college) but they would have to either accept their spinster status for life or somehow manage to make enough money to pay a guy off to marry her. Considering a whore would be paying 400k up front and 100k every year past the age of 20 the number of women who could do this would be narrowed down to Oprah.

"I see the whole social shit triangle we have going on in the west correcting itself rapidly. Things would be great. Women wouldn't have to pretend to like learning anymore. Families would have men to take care of their daughters and incentive to keep their daughter's marriage working. Women would get their marriage but not at the expense of the groom and they would have incentive to behave as it decreases the cost of the dowry. Whores could drink and fuck their lives away without taking men with them."

Firearms Will Always be Legal in the United States

Occasionally I'll run across people, whom I refer to as Conspironuts, who think there is a conspiracy (to them everything is a conspiracy) to do all kinds of awful things to the U.S. Like make firearms illegal.

They're the kind who think Obama will issue an Executive Order banning firearms, will refuse to leave office (which has been claimed about Presidents for over 200 years). And poof! firearms will be illegal and the Second Amendment null and void.

Now how is this going to happen? I'm not sure how many firearms there are in the U.S. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million. Are the police and military going to search everyone's house and confiscate all 300 hundred million of them? That'll never happen because it's impossible (it would take decades and, of course, people will resist). And how are they going to find buried caches?

It's possible to store on the top shelf of a closet all you need to manufacture a firearm. And with 3-D printing these days...

Others claim all these Third Worlders pouring into the U.S. will get laws passed outlawing firearms. What? The State is some sort of god? The government is not nearly as powerful as people think it is. And immigration into the U.S. is going to stop quite soon.

People who are against firearms aren't against firearms. They're for the government having them, to try to disarm people. And of course the government is so pure and innocent and trustsworthy...

The first time I met a foreigner who was against firearms was some 85-IQ Nigerian, when I was 20 years old. I remember thinking that he was so dumb it never occurred to him that it would be impossible to disarm Americans.

I used to live in Albuquerque. In New Mexico you can openly carry a pistol on your hip. No license is needed. Just carry it. I saw it more than once.

You think if the federal government tries to pass a law telling people in New Mexico they cannot carry firearms openly (first of all it will never pass) that the people there will pay any attention to it? Even the police there for for open-carry. I talked to more than one of them.

I'm originally from Illinois. They've just passed concealed-carry laws there. And I lived in Missouri for a long time. Concealed-carry was just passed there, too.

The idea the Second Amendment being repealed is just, well, stupid. It's not going to happen.

It's not the tool that's the problem. As always, it's the fool. Fool control is the answer.

"Order, Chaos, and Regimentation"

Regimentation is what I refer to as "the Machine State." Prisons, public schools, the military, the Borg... Of course, the opposite of the Machine State is the Natural State. Natural, organic order.

This is from Free Northener.

The article states here.

Reaction is about establishing order. A reactionary society is an ordered one, an ordered society is a conservative one. A disordered society is chaotic. Civilization is order, chaos is barbarism.

Regimentation is not necessarily order. A communist society is heavily regimented, but also chaotic. There is not order. Our growing anarcho-tyranny is heavily regimented, disordered, and chaotic all at once.

Natural order flows flow naturally from the relationships men are inclined towards. Regimentation is artificial, it is unnaturally forced upon society rather than flowing from it.

Regimentation may be necessary at times: a soldier in the army is artificially regimented as opposed to the naturally ordered warrior of a warband, but an army of soldiers is necessary for survival, as the warrior has been made obsolete (for now, 4G looks to be changing that).

Just because something is lined up nicely in a row or is heavily controlled does not mean it’s ordered. In fact, it is likely means it is regimented chaos. Chaos requires regimentation, order does not. In fact, order may look disorganized to the casual observer who doesn’t know better.

Regimentation is not order.

"A Christmas Meditation: St. Augustine on the National Question"

The Roman Empire collapsed for several reasons. Economic collapse, for one thing. Inflation, things like that. Then there was imperial overstretch. Then there was "multicultualism," which never works.

There is a very good reason that Richard Maybury referred to the Third World as "Chaostan" - it means the "land of chaos." We certainly don't need to import it here.

This is written by Chilton Williamson back in 2001 but it is still relevant today. It's from VDARE.

The article starts here.

"Keep order in space, And order in time,"
For disorder is chaos,
And chaos is crime.”
—Anonymous

This Christmas Eve, I will be attending mass at my parish church, St. Laurence O`Toole in Laramie, Wyoming.

Our parish is one of those big enough to sustain Perpetual, round-the-clock, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, a practice encouraged in the Roman Catholic Church, believing as we do in the True Presence of Christ in the consecrated communion host. I generally visit on Friday mornings, between nine and ten. Remembering St. Theresa of Avila, who was unable to pray for sixteen years without a book in her hand, I make a habit of bringing something to read. For the past year it`s been Augustine of Hippo`s City of God.

This is a book as worldly-wise as it is impressively spiritual. Written between 413 and 426 A.D., while the Roman Empire was being overrun by barbarian armies, this work of more than a thousand pages describes the human world as divided between two cities, the City of God and the City of Man. They exist side by side and intermingled. One is comprised of God`s people, the pilgrim Church on Earth. The other is devoted to the ways of man. Each has its distinct and separate destiny awaiting it at the end of the world. But until then, they are linked together in a perplexing and often frustrating symbiosis.

As one of the towering works of the human intellect, City of God is a book to be studied, not read, certainly with a pen and perhaps also a notebook at hand to mark passages with and jot down annotations. The scope of St. Augustine`s mind and his breadth of learning are immense. They propel the book from one level to the next, without losing sight of what has gone before. Perhaps because it was so many years in composition, City of God — like life itself — seems to proceed by phases, each one marked strongly by distinguishing themes as well as, at times, by a distinctive tone.

It was in the middle of Book XX, some 900 pages into my Pelican Classics edition, that I experienced an instance of intellectual déjà vu. I was aware, suddenly, of treading familiar ground, although I had never set foot in this place before.

The most likely explanation, of course, was that Augustine had repeated himself now and again in the course of the previous nineteen books, and that my subconscious had finally taken due note of the fact. Curiously, I scanned a couple of hundred pages back, paying special attention to the marked passages. What I discovered was not repetition but rather a number of extended disquisitions – yet another argument pursued, disconnectedly but most definitely, by the author.

It was nothing less than a fifth-century precursor of the modern debate on maintaining distinct national identities and preserving the integrity of the Western world–what VDARE.COM calls the “National Question.”

Connect these passages. What do we have but a strong suggestion that St. Augustine – one of the most influential Fathers of the Church–held a view much closer to that of us present-day anti-globalist, anti-immigration reactionaries than to the universalist dream that all too many Christians have been persuaded is integral to their faith?

In Book XIX, Chapter 21, Augustine explains why a Roman Commonwealth as defined by Scipio in Cicero`s On the Republic never existed. Scipio`s brief definition of the state or commonwealth was “the weal of the people.” He described “the people” as a multitude “united in association by a common sense of right and a community of interest.” No state, Scipio argued, can be maintained without justice, while without true justice there can be no right.

“Therefore,” Augustine concludes, where there is no true justice there can be no “association of men united by a common sense of right,” and therefore no people answering to the definition of Scipio, or Cicero. And if there is no people then there is no “weal of the people,” but some kind of mob, not deserving the name of a people. If, therefore, a commonwealth is the “weal of the people,” and if a people does not exist where there is no “association by a common sense of right” [my italics], and there is no right where there is no justice, the irresistible conclusion is that where there is no justice there is no commonwealth.

Here is a remarkable anticipation of John Jay`s explanation, in The Federalist Papers, of why an American federal union could work: because there was “one connected country [given] to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs” (The Federalist No.2)!

Augustine agreed with the ancient philosophers that the life of the wise man should be social. “For…how could that City [of God] have made its first start, how could it have advanced along its course, if the life of the saints were not social?” The fundamental requirement for sociability, he argues, is domestic peace, since “[a] man`s [most dangerous] enemies are those of his own household.” Beyond the household, the city or town represents the next social level, and after [them] comes the world, which the philosophers reckon as the third level of human society….Now the world, like a confluence of water, is obviously more full of danger than the other communities by reason of its greater size. To begin with, on this level the diversity of languages separates man from man….[W]hen men cannot communicate their thoughts to each other, simply because of difference of language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail to unite them in fellowship. So true is this that a man would be more cheerful with his dog for company than with a foreigner. I shall be told that the Imperial City has been at pains to impose on conquered peoples not only her yoke but her language also, as a bond of peace and fellowship, so that there should be no lack of interpreters but even a profusion of them. True; but think of the cost of this achievement! Consider the scale of those wars, with all that slaughter of human beings, all the human blood that was shed! (Book XIX, Chapters 6-7)

This passage speaks for itself: on the importance of linguistic (and, by implication, social) differences among peoples, the awkwardness of a foreign presence in society; the evils of imperialist policies that create a polyglot people.

iii.) In his gloss on the Book of Revelation`s account of the chaos which will precede the end of the world, Augustine says, As for the words, “and they went up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved City,” this clearly does not mean that they have come, or will come, to one place, as if the camp of the saints and the beloved City are one and the same place. For these are simply the Church of Christ spread all over the world. It follows that wherever the Church is at that time, and it will be among all the nations–which is the meaning of “over the breadth of the earth”–there the camp of the saints will be, and there God`s beloved City. There it will be surrounded by its enemies – for they also will be present with that City, among all nations – in the savagery of that persecution. That is, the City will be hemmed in, hard pressed, shut up, in the straits of tribulation, yet it will not abandon its warfare, which is here called “the camp.” (Book XX, Chapter 11)

The vision expressed here seems identical to that which inspired Jean Raspail`s novel The Camp of the Saints: A worldwide assault, less racial than cultural and religious, against the West and the Christian religion that, with Hellenism, is one of its two major components.

iv.) Describing of the fate of the City of Man, Augustine writes, “The earthly city will not be everlasting; for when it is condemned to the final punishment it will no longer be a city.” (Book XV, Chapter 4)

This seems a clear prediction that the destroyer of the present world will be neither fire nor ice but social chaos – the end of national identity, Babel Unbound.

G.K. Chesterton said that the problem with the modern world is not that it is wrong, but that it is crazed. Craze is a function of modernism`s addiction to and worship of chaos, the satanic perversion of the divine order established by God. In City of God, Augustine shows himself deeply aware that the interests of the City of God are directly advanced by the encouragement of worldly peace and order in the City of Man. That is why St. Paul tells us to pray for our rulers.

And peace and order in the City of Man are furthered by the recognition of distinctions among individual men and among the peoples of the earth. If these distinctions are not observed, the social order of the earthly city tends to break toward chaos. And chaos, as pointed out by the anonymous poet who provides my epigraph, operates to the detriment of the heavenly city. Its tribulations on earth are only deepened by social and political turmoil.

Augustine appears to have understood the difficulties that socially-complicated societies face in maintaining order and holding chaos at bay – thus securing the ultimate salvation of the City of God. A degree of social complexity is not just inevitable, but a part of God`s plan for humanity. But complexity needs to be minimized wherever possible. This will ensure the social order, intellectual coherence, and religious orthodoxy that the Christian faith requires to accomplish its task: saving the greatest number of souls – while also preparing the world as a final offering to be laid at the feet of Christ Come Again.

As I wrote in The Immigration Mystique, “The Western nations, degenerate as they have become, continue to represent systems of relative order in a world that succumbs a little more each day to radical disorder. Can the salvation of man arise from chaos?”

Consider this final extract from The City Of God:

While the Heavenly City…is on a pilgrimage in this world, she calls out citizens from all nations and so collects a society of aliens, speaking all languages. She takes no account of any differences in customs, laws, and institutions, by which earthly peace is achieved and preserved – not that she annuls or abolishes any of these, rather she maintains them (for whatever divergences there are among the diverse nations, those institutions have one aim – earthly peace), provided that no hindrance is presented thereby to the religion which teaches that the one and true God is to be worshiped.( Book XIX, Chapter 17)

At first glance, Augustine might be read as advocating here the creation of the First Universal Nation comprising “a society of nations, speaking all languages.”

A closer reading shows, however, that the “citizens” are called “out” in a spiritual rather than a physical sense. They are “called out,” not from within the boundaries of their earthly nations to create a supernation in some other part of the world, but from the confinements of their spiritual ignorance and sin, to bear witness to the God Who Is Truth in their own lands.

As John Vinson points out in a letter in the February 2002 number of Chronicles, “Jesus told His followers to go to all nations, not to invite all nations.”

Multiculturalism for St. Augustine would not be the outrageous contradiction in terms as we know it in America today. It would be the genuine article – what used to be called the international community, its international components leavened to a greater or lesser extent by centers or outposts of the heavenly one.

So remember: If, this Christmas, you hear from your pastor or bishop that the spirit of brotherly love demands abolishing our borders and welcoming the entire population of Congo into the state of Maryland, remind him that one Very High Up authority–though not visibly present among us–could tell him differently.

I plan on remembering our readers in my prayers from St. Laurence on Christmas Eve. And I humbly solicit their own communications on behalf of all of us at VDARE.COM, who need them as much as anyone.

Merry Christmas to all!