The conclusions of the epigenetic science are the best in explaining the “psychological” (misnomer) conditions of any given person. By this Science, the mingling of an innocent with the guilty, either through verbal contact, or something more physical, would imply guilt by association. After all, every protective mother warns her sons and daughters of “bad influences”, mentors warn of “peer pressure”. Is this defiling of the innocent really a matter of the will of the innocent (a riddle)? It does not have to be. To the innocent, the fortress of the mind is not guarded, they do not stand watch, keeping themselves from impure elements. Everything from colour to shape, to size to sound can influence the decision making process. The forced integration of the white and the innocent with the coloured and the criminal has severely degraded the white people. How much of this relates to telegony and how much relates to epigenetics is mostly indeterminable. It is clear that a person is melded by their circumstance, immediate and consequential (circumstance is the consequence of previous circumstance, only in this way does previous circumstance maintain control over the personality),so ,even though it is more prevalent than preferred, much of the miscegenation of character and person is the result of factors other than adulterous sex with lascivious creatures, (this is not to suggest that adulterous sex with lascivious creatures is not a constant.) Studies of precocious puberty have shown that “sensual touch”, a demonstration of sexual affection, even in the absence of the mighty semen, can cause [intracorporeal] hormonal discharge in a prepubescent girl. The rationale for covering the bare flesh of girls, even before they have developed passion in their privies, is that a sensual touch, even a fantastic glance, can defile the initially pure virgin. The sexual faculty is the pearl of a girly, the treasure of her other half, and ,as rightly asserted by sexual theorists and experts, the tender heart of the artichoke is the sex act. The loins, being the resting place of the life-essence, are unfortunately (unjustly so) dependent on the rest of the creature in it’s fallible and mistaken inattentive groping in the darkness for the sustenance of the appetites. Dancing, music, conversation, eye contact, all kindling in the raging fire of the loins. Just as the pipes of pan can drive a dainty, otherwise fastidious, nymphette to fornicate with a debauched faun, so too can the jingle of a product advertisement or the primitive beat of a pop “music” piece drive the appetite into foolish spontaneity. How manichaean is it to suggest that evil is a physical expression, that the makeup of a poison is just as evil as its use in an act of murder? To keep the sacred apart from the profane, the innocent away from the guilty, the pure away from the impure, the bottom-feeders away from the upright, is this unjust? Is it not unjust to be unequally yoked with unbelievers? Is it not unjust that the sacred should be offended, God forbid, in the presence of the profane? That the elect, the seams of destiny, should be distracted by the insignificant, the temporary, the common, the base? How can an honest man claim to be in the world but not of it, how can honest men call a retreat from the snares of the world an act of cowardice? How can the rule of justice, the favour of the innocent and the fear of the guilty, spare the life of even one, when innocence is torn from the soul, like the child from the womb of his mother? Though a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, and no purity resides in the impure, there must be a segregation of the aforementioned evils from the eternally beneficent. The understanding of evil as the absence of Good (sinedeo)can only explain so much, rather it would seem that Good is the absence of the linen of leaven, love devoid of apishness , as Dr. Jörg Lanz had pictured it. Fashioned in purity was the creation, fallen from grace are the creatures. The illusion of excellence rising out of the deep, or ordo ab chao is fallacious and purposely so, rather obvious is a plummet from the heights, a crashing collapse. There can be no passive coexistence of ordo and chao , the just must be kept ignorant of the unjust, the shining city on the hill should never gaze down into the monster-ridden lagoon of the moat. As Lot’s wife had been taught, the abyss does not suffer a stare lightly, not without staring back. The wisdom of the serpent and the behaviour of the dove is the preoccupation of the heroic, the chivalrous knight. The damsel,in her impatient lust for the dragon’s enormous member, invalidates the heroic ritual. Once again, there can be no integration. For purity’s sake there mustn’t be. For the sake of the inviolate of the Actus Purus, what fellowship hath righteousness with lawlessness, light with darkness? The potentiality of sin should not afflict the pious, every act must have its limit, as the wise Psalms sing, Man is an unlimited (if possible) creature. When the Good Shepherd bestowed upon his flock the authority to trample upon serpents (Calcandi Serpentes) also the achievement of victory over the power of death (Habebat Mortis Imperium, in other words, the devil) had he done so in vain (if it were possible)? In the way of the lamb, the flock is the sole abode of the sheepfold, not the prison of every unclean bird or the den of thievery. Let us assume the sword that he came wielding, to divide neighbour from neighbour, to cast out every demon, every whore, all that is foul and unclean.