THEOSOPHY, Vol. 20, No. 12, October, 1932
(Pages 557-559; Size: 9K)
(Number 10 of a 57-part series)



(In Three Parts)


The monsters bred in sin and shame by the Atlantean giants, "blurred copies" of their bestial sires, and hence of modern man ... now mislead and overwhelm with error the speculative Anthropologist of European Science. (S.D. II, 679).
THE theme of miscegenation is fundamental and far-reaching on all planes. Generically, miscegenation is the reproductive transgression of biological caste lines; and once considered under that definition, will be seen to have a wider bearing than the word usually implies.

A paradox arises. From the beginning of time, inbreeding has been regarded with distaste and even abhorrence. In "primitive" peoples -- that is to say, peoples whose civilized history lies so far back as to have been forgotten -- marriage without the tribe, or at least in another sept, is often compulsory. The biological wisdom of this is proven by the fact that pure stocks always degenerate, while two races in crossing will often give rise to a new and powerful tribe where both left by themselves would have died. The most striking present example of this is America.

But where draw the line? In union between white and negro we transcend in the general opinion the limits of decency. That the opinion is justified is shown by the undesirable results. And in the Atlantean crime -- the tendency to which is still powerful among us -- we reach a horror whose progeny Nature herself now cuts off at the source. There is a line somewhere between cross-breeding and miscegenation; and popular feeling cannot be considered an accurate indicator of it. Is there a fixed criterion? Only within the mandate of the caste system of Nature. Even in those limited manifestations regarded by science as living, the sharp distinction between levels of life is evident. To the Theosophist, who regards the stone -- aye, Space itself -- as living, such lines are still more evident. Each level is obviously the result of millions of years of special evolution, involving the development of special inter-relationships, special inter-dependences, between varieties. Those lines cannot be broken, those relationships abruptly altered, without stemming the whole tide, blaspheming the whole mandate of nature; and common sense, plus even a slight knowledge of Karma, ought to tell us that every such act must entrain its dark consequences.

The relationship between man -- the cultivator, preserver, and consumer -- and wheat, the nourisher, is one of those happy caste relationships. But suppose the man chooses a novel method of ingestion, cuts open his flesh and thrusts a handful of wheat within? There results poisoning, suppuration, mortification, ejection. But suppose that the cells of the flesh and the wheat-grains were still sufficiently akin to breed together -- would not the results be infinitely more dire, productive of some dread hybridization with the man's body?

Life having a common origin, physically as well as metaphysically, the possibility of interbreeding must once have existed between all species. The closer two species today, the more potent the possibility of renewed interbreeding; the revivification through contact of long-dormant affinities. It is not in the forms, but particularly in the constituent parts of organisms, in the cells and not in the organs, that the caste lines of life become most nearly indistinguishable. No one can mistake a dog for a man. But place a cell from a dog-body beside one from a man, and it takes skilled and special training to distinguish. The cell of the animal and the cell of man are as close together as the body of white and the body of negro. Can then an animal cell and a human cell in juxta-position miscegenate and reproduce; and has that possibility been thwarted through the ages by the walls of the respective bodies in which those types of cells have been confined? What is the evidence? Of late it has become plentiful, and it has become appalling. Note, however, that certain things of importance which happen, happen rarely or under special conditions only. The mule, offspring of horse and ass, is not supposed to be able to reproduce. Rarely, it does, however, and so in many other cases.

There is a deep mystery involved in the difference between the germ cells and the body cells. Indistinguishable in form, the former when fertilized reproduce and build up the whole, the latter becoming the bricks in the final edifice. They, however, cannot be fertilized -- that is, so the scientist thinks. But the evidence is accumulating that under certain conditions they can be. If they could, what would happen? Division, multiplication, reproduction! And suppose such a cell, buried among its inert neighbors, were to be so fertilized? It would produce an evergrowing colony of crowding, predatory cells within the flesh, destroying the organs of the body and themselves. But this is the precise clinical picture of cancer! Is cancer then the result of an abnormal fertilization? Cancer is often closely connected with local irritation. Such an irritation has a way of drawing to its seat a variegated collection of the different forms of life in the body. Is it possible that among those forms may sometimes be breeds near enough akin to the local cells to fertilize them? If so, under what conditions are they present? Are there conditions known under which foreign, but kindred living substances are in the body of man? If so, have they reproductive results in other directions than cancer also?

Dr. Quigley, reporting to the Radiological Society, says that cancer cells are defence cells which have lost a battle to save the part of the body to which they belong, and in the process have been forced to multiply so rapidly that they have lost discipline.(1) But cancer appears in parts where no other diseased condition is visible.

The influence exerted by the cells of one kind of body upon those of another kind is shown by Prof. H. H. Collins.(2) Tissues thus transferred are affected in their nature by the cells of the host and in turn affect that host. Animals engrafted with the organs of the opposite sex take on in varying degree the characters of the sex from which the graft was received. Is it not clear then that when animal substance is made one with the substance of another animal by direct implantation, the other animal is changed in psychic as well as physical nature? What, therefore, of the effect upon those alleged humans who have the sexual organs of apes engrafted into their bodies to replace powers lost by misuse; or on those who enact the same horror with the organs of the goat, the animal which has been a symbol of lechery down the ages? Possibly, however, such beings can hardly be damaged by any characteristics they may acquire from the animal kingdom! But the same thing takes place, under disguise, with the most moral of men as the victims and under a thick mantle of respectability, as may be observed.

Next article:
(In Three Parts)
(Part 11 of a 57-part series)

Back to the
series complete list of articles.

Back to the full listing containing all of the
"Additional Categories of Articles".


(1) Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1931.
Back to text.

(2) Scientific Monthly, March, 1932.
Back to text.

Main Page | Introductory Brochure | Volume 1--> Setting the Stage
Karma and Reincarnation | Science | Education | Economics | Race Relations
The WISDOM WORLD | World Problems & Solutions | The People*s Voice | Misc.