The Game Theory Of Immigration

Imagine a situation – let’s call it 1970s Sweden – where 99% of the population are Swedish. In such a homogenous society, there is a high level of genetic relatedness. Even people who are not direct family will have a common ancestor a few dozen generations back. Any two Swedes from the same city have an excellent chance of having common family, even if through marriage.

In such an environment, the nation is like an extended family. Any two randomly-chosen Swedes will be some kind of cousin, even if distant. Going back 25 generations – some 500-600 years – means a person will have tens of millions of ancestors. In a country of ten million such as Sweden, that means multiple common ancestors.

Imagine an altruistic action that cost a Swedish person, but which benefitted their society. Putting a shopping trolley away, picking up rubbish, volunteering for community work, donating to charity, choking down rage when someone offends them.

Lets say this person’s pro-social action cost them 100 units of misery, but provided two units of joy to 100 people in their community. If 99 out of 100 members of their community are related to them in some way, that means that 198 units of joy were created for that person’s kin. If everyone in the community contributed in such a manner, then even with a few freeriders it would be possible to have a very high standard of living.

Now imagine a situation – let’s call it 2020s America – where some 50% of the population are of one nation, related by flesh and blood, and where some 50% of the population are from other nations. In such a heterogenous society, flesh and blood relations are not the norm. It’s more common for people to live in neighbourhoods with others who don’t share recent common ancestors.

In an environment like this, society is not like an extended family. Half of the people one meets will be complete strangers – friendly? hostile? no-one has any idea. Any two randomly-chosen Americans have a 50% chance of being part of the same nation, and a 50% chance of being as distant as any two randomly-chosen Earthlings.

Lets say, as in Sweden, that a person’s pro-social action cost them 100 units of misery, but provided two units of joy to 100 people in their community. Because only 50% of the community are kin, that means 100 units of joy were created for the American’s kin from that action. It’s an even equation, and we would expect, therefore, the average American to be somewhat indifferent about such pro-social actions. And they are. This is the main reason why American infrastructure is less well maintained than Swedish.

Now imagine an immigrant whose kin makes up 1% of the local population. It doesn’t matter which country they live in, just as long as their kin are only 1% of the population, and the other 99% are mere strangers.

This person’s pro-social action also costs them 100 units of misery and provides two units of joy to 100 people in the community, just like it does for everyone else. But there’s a difference for the immigrant. Only 1% of the community belong to the immigrant’s kin. So the pro-social action – which costs 100 units of misery just as for anyone else – only provides two units of joy to the immigrant’s kin.

Why not, then, restrict pro-social actions solely to one’s nearest kin?

This is the question that many immigrants end up asking themselves – and the more diverse a society becomes, the more others ask it as well. The inevitable end result is a low trust, dog-eat-dog society.

Imagine now, an action that cost only ten units of misery but produced two units of joy to 100 people in the community. This wouldn’t be a major volunteer effort: it would be more like putting one’s shopping trolley away or putting one’s litter in the bin. Those basic civil behaviours that many Westerners consider normal if they’ve never been to the Third World.

The Swede and the American would both do it without thinking. The payoff for both is obvious. But the logic for the immigrant is different. Ten units of misery might not be much, but 99% of the benefit from making the effort will go to strangers. Only two units of joy will be received by the immigrant’s kin. So it’s still not worth taking the action.

One can see, therefore, that even minor acts of civil respect are no longer performed once the surrounding population is sufficiently different.

These potential actions constitute a basic Prisoner’s Dilemma. Do I cooperate or defect? Co-operating here means to spend time or energy on upkeeping or improving society. Defecting is spending time and energy on one’s closest kin or oneself only.

We can see from basic evolutionary psychology and game theory that people are much more likely to cooperate if doing so would benefit their kin. They know that their kin are much more likely to cooperate in return. This is the basis of altruism. But there’s a flipside: if not enough of one’s kin would benefit from an action being taken, one doesn’t take it.

It’s not as simple as this, of course. People in reality don’t make such hard distinctions between kin and non-kin as in this thought experiment. But however you figure it, there are thresholds of diversity that, once passed, dissuade people from taking various pro-social actions. If the energy from a pro-social action does not help one’s kin but instead just dissipates into the wider world, then why bother? Many people reason this way, and it’s entirely natural.

It’s often asked by social commentators why people don’t contribute anymore. The answer is blackpilling: society has become so diverse that it no longer makes sense to. In diverse societies, people tend to “hunker down”, as described by Robert Putnam in his lecture E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. Putnam summarises the findings of social psychology research into diversity with “The more ethnically diverse the people we live around, the less we trust them.”

In more specific terms, consider the above logic in terms of support for taxation.

A Swede in 1970 might pay 100,000 Swedish krona in taxes, and not complain, reasoning that his kin will get 99,000 krona in value from it. Even if he assumes that there are no economies of scale from government spending, and that taxation has a redistributionary purpose only, enough of his kin benefit from the redistribution that he can easily reason society is made better thereby.

An American in 2025, by contrast, might pay the equivalent of 100,000 Swedish krona in taxes, and complain heavily, reasoning that his kin will only get 50,000 krona in value. “I can spend my own money better than the Government can,” is a common refrain in America, for this reason. The tax money one pays mostly goes to someone else’s kin. Any economies of scale earned mostly go to someone else.

An immigrant to either society in 2025 might reason that his 100,000 krona only pays back 2,000 krona in value to his kin. Might as well not even bother working if this is the case. Especially if the tax money that pays your welfare is paid by non-kin. Why would anyone feel guilty about being on welfare, if it’s non-kin who have to pay for it?

All this explains why the more diverse a country is, the less taxes people pay. Countries like Sweden, where taxes mostly go to help the kin of the taxpayer, vote for higher taxes than countries like America. Immigrants, for their part, vote for low taxes if a net tax payer and for high taxes if a net tax receiver.

All this also explains the voting patterns of the various American demographics. Highly white, high-trust states like in New England vote for high taxes, just like highly white, high-trust Sweden. White people in multicultural areas like Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta vote for right-wing parties and for low taxes. Blacks and Hispanics vote for high taxes and more welfare; Asians and Indians vote for low taxes and less welfare. These patterns are to be expected given the game theory of immigration.

As a final thought experiment, flip misery and joy around and think about crimes.

A Swede will be highly disinclined to commit a crime against a random member of his community, because they are probably related. Although many crimes, in practice, are committed against kin, this is almost entirely a function of the proximity effect. In terms of inclination to commit a crime, the vast majority of people are more inclined to attack non-kin, which is the main reason Swedes commit so few crimes.

An American who lives in a community that is 50% kin can be predicted to be only moderately disinclined to crime. Indeed, crime rates are much higher in America than in Sweden. Revealingly, white Americans in 95% white American communities commit crime at a similar rate to white Europeans in 95% white European communities. It’s a different story in the urban jungles of the big cities. There it’s possible to find whites much more violence-prone than the average Swede.

An immigrant who lives in a community that is only 1% kin has very little reason to care about crime. If 99% of people are non-kin, then crime and its consequences are someone else’s problem. Thus you might as well do crime if you feel like it. This is principally the main reason why certain immigrant groups commit such tremendous rates of violent and sexual crimes against the locals. As can be seen in the table above, Kuwaitis commit an incredible amount of violent crimes in Denmark, yet Kuwait itself is not particularly dangerous.

In summary, investigating the game theory of immigration makes it clear that as a society becomes more diverse, ever-more marginal pro-social actions get taken less often, and that society deteriorates. A study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics found that “Trustworthiness declines when partners are of different races or nationalities”. In other words, diversity destroys trust. Because the solidarity inspired by trust is the bedrock of society, it’s no exaggeration to say that diversity destroys society itself.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

The First Acceptance Of Alternative Centrism

The First Acceptance of alternative centrism is the acceptance that the Establishment Right is correct when they speak of the importance of order.

Both forms of the right tend to take a more historical perspective than the left. As such, the right generally understands better than the left that the initial state of the human being is one of chaos. Early man had to contend not with rival kingdoms but with the predations of Nature, in particular the elements and wild animals.

This chaos was deadly. Nature seemed to will the death and dissolution of the bodies of early men. The first order, then, was imposed in a simple effort to survive.

At some point, an intelligent warrior among the early men would have figured out something profound: he was more likely to win battles if he had other men by his side. Through charm and threat, this intelligent early warrior would have marshalled other males in his tribe to form a war band, much like the ones seen today in places like the Amazon Basin or Papua New Guinea. The first war band whose leader commanded two dozen or so males would have quickly dominated the males of other tribes. The organisational structure of this war band would have spread, like a technology. Sooner or later various tribes would have united into a clan.

Thus began a process by which social order continued to increase – with temporary and localised setbacks – until it developed into the political world of today.

Perhaps the greatest imposition of order in human history was the establishment of law. The first full-scale lawgiving enterprise was that of Hammurabi of Babylonia, who gave us the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi was responsible for the order of Babylonian society – order sufficient to develop into a great empire.

Law and order are in many cases synonymous; one tends to follow the other. The Establishment Right represents the powers that imposed the initial order that created civilisation. In this sense it manifests as the warrior-king or the kshatriya class. In a modern context, the Establishment Right represents The Man, the Big Daddy who imposes order upon society.

A state of Nature is similar to a state of chaos in many respects – the most obvious being the absence of human civilisation. The Establishment Right exhorts us to accept order on the basis that, without it, there is nothing. And they’re right in the sense that, without order, humankind falls prey to the elements and to wild animals again.

Characteristic of the Establishment Right mindset is that order is to be imposed whether people like it or not. It’s too important to worry about whether others agree. The government has the right to run over people who resist the order. The Establishment Right values hierarchy, and therefore does not value consensus. This is why they also value law enforcement. The sort of person who has a “Back the Blue” bumper sticker is very likely a supporter of the Establishment Right.

This is why it’s usually members of the Establishment Right who have the least sympathy for people arrested for victimless crimes. Because order is its own good, people are obliged to obey unjust laws. This corresponds closely to the ‘Law and Order Morality’ that Lawrence Kohlberg considered to be the fourth stage in his six-stage model of moral development. This is also why it’s the Establishment Right who most strongly supports conscription.

This is also why the Establishment Right supports inheritance rights the hardest. The most orderly way to advance through the generations is for each man to inherit his father’s position. Any other sons can go into the military or the clergy. This was basically the feudal model of medieval Europe, a time that many in the Establishment Right look back upon fondly.

Related to all this, the Establishment Right likes to support any aspect of the status quo that maintains order, even if there are obvious flaws with that aspect, and even if that aspect causes immense harm to many. For example, the Establishment Right is the biggest supporter of Christianity in the West. They are also the strongest proponents of the divine right of kings.

The imperative to uphold order is why the armies of the world shoot deserters. If people are allowed to desert, order is lost, and when order is lost so is the battle. Part of the First Acceptance is accepting that the Establishment Right is correct when it says we need to shoot deserters. In fact, many unpleasant things have to be done to maintain social order.

Aristotle wrote in Politics that the purpose of politics was happiness, and that this was mostly achieved by justice. Justice, in turn, is mostly achieved by a well-ordered polis. This (like Aristotle in general) is an argument that the Establishment Right agrees with. Order is understood to be the basis of justice, and therefore of happiness. The alternative centrist is happy to accept that, without order, nothing political is possible.

The basis of the First Acceptance, then, is accepting that the imposition of order makes everything else in society possible. All the wealth and culture that exists is dependent entirely on the initial imposition of order by the first warrior-kings, and the maintenance of that order. Should that order ever be fully lost, so too would society be lost. Order is the great defensive line ensuring human survival against Nature.

To a major extent, order is imposed by fear. There’s a very strong correlation between suffering intense feelings of helplessness and trauma in childhood and growing up to become a control freak. By the same token, its often fear that creates the will to impose order. This is why populations that become afraid often react by putting the Establishment Right back in power.

The dark side of this fear-based will to impose order is, as mentioned above, control freakery. There is an element of the Establishment Right that will go into hysteria if anything changes at all, no matter how minor, believing this to be the first step on the slippery slope to chaos. This element has aspects of childishness and autism to it. The displeasure it causes is the basis of the First Rejection.

There are many historical examples of fear leading to too much order, causing unhappiness: the Inquisition, the War on Drugs, the Satanic Panic and burqas are just some. When this happens, it leads naturally to the First Rejection of Alternative Centrism.

This chapter is from The Alternative Centrist Manifesto, the book that offers the answers to the political problems of the West.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Clinical Narcissism: Think Lightly Of Yourself And Deeply Of The World

Guest Post by Thomas S.

According to ancient Greek mythology, Narcissus was a youth of incomparable beauty, born from the coupling of the river deity Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope. Such was his beauty that bewildered and broke the hearts of all those who chanced to see him, that the blind prophet Tiresias cautioned Liriope that her son would live a long life, so long as he never came to know himself.

Followed by wanton eyes and beseeched by the lusts and longings of hopeful lovers, Narcissus would reject all advances made upon him. This eventually led to a curse by Ameinias, who upon rejection was handed a sword with which to commit suicide, but not before appealing to Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, that Narcissus would never be able to obtain the one he would one day fall in love with.

It was after losing his way while out hunting in the forest one day, that this curse of Ameinias, as well as the prophecy of Tiresias, would eventually bear fruit. Tired and thirsty, Narcissus happened upon a pool of water, which he stooped over to drink from.

Meanwhile, a mountain nymph named Echo was weeping nearby, having been the most recent suitress to have been rejected by Narcissus after having fallen in love with his beauty and made shy advances upon him.

Interestingly, the nymph, who had been cursed by Hera, the Queen of Heaven, for having deliberately distracted her with idle gossip in order to prevent her from discovering the affairs of her husband Zeus, was only able to utter the last few words of another, and was otherwise deprived of the ability of speech.

Unable to bear the torment of rejection by Narcissus, the mountain nymph was consumed by grief and her physical form melted away, leaving nothing more than a whisper, capable only of mimicking the words spoken by another, as is our experience of an echo still to this day.

While Echo’s voice trailed away, Narcissus scooped water from the pool in order to quench his thirst. As he did so however, a charming face below the shimmering waters caught his eye and soon became the object of his own heart’s desire – an object, which as per the curse of Ameinian, would remain unobtainable to him.

Forgetting his thirst, Narcissus reached toward his own reflection, while his reflection reached upward in return, only to be dispersed by the splashing until the stillness of the waters resumed between each failed attempt to clasp his beloved’s hand.

Eventually, Narcissus gave up his life due to the torment of being unable to attain himself, and was transformed into the daffodil flower.

Like many Greek myths which are etiological in nature, the story of Narcissus offers an explanation for why observable phenomena within our human experience, have come to be.

Clinical Narcissism

In the modern day, this same phenomenon of excessive self adoration, which was also evident in ancient times and thus deserving of an origin story, has come to be known as the narcissistic personality disorder, which can also sometimes be regarded as being pathological in nature.

While a high degree of variability of character is evident in those diagnosed with the condition, such as being either socially reclusive or highly extroverted, self-loathing or self aggrandising, having a history on the right or the wrong side of the law, and demonstrating all manner of success or failure in the professional field, narcissism can be problematic to diagnose clinically.

Additionally, there are specific clinical subtypes of this condition, and while narcissism is often associated with the grandiose and overtly arrogant and exploitative stereotype, there are also those who are fragile, shy and hypersensitive to the evaluations of others while harbouring deeply envious as well as grandiose delusions.

Both subtypes however, are excessively self-absorbed and it is possible for a narcissist to fluctuate between these states, depending on life’s circumstances.

It is also possible for a narcissist to exhibit a mix of these qualities, as well as for a narcissist to be ‘high functioning’ and able to employ their character traits in order to succeed, while their competitive, attention seeking and sexually provocative traits can often go unrecognised.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for instance, could be described in this way, for she employed various devices and rhetoric around themes of compassion and kindness, which all turned out to have been self-serving and politically expedient tools, rather than sincere sentiments. The effects soon wore off during the tyranny which ensued during her time in office.

Despite the diversity of narcissistic personalities, there are however, several indicators which have been published by the American Psychiatric Association, which may contribute to such a diagnosis when several exist concurrently in an individual.

These indicators are as follows:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without conmmensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectation of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes.

Of course, it is reasonable to expect that most people experience some degree of arrogance, selfishness and other character flaws, although clinical narcissism is a condition deeply affecting an individual’s self-esteem, sense of identity and their relations to others.

While the causes of clinical narcissism are not definitively known, there are indications that several factors, including genetics, childhood trauma and parenting, as well as cultural factors, may all contribute to an individual displaying a narcissistic personality disorder.

In particular, abuse, neglect, or parental overindulgence may inhibit the development of a child’s expectations in regards to themselves and other people. Adoption, divorce and losing a parent prematurely through death are also factors which may put a child at risk of developing a narcissistic complex.

Unfortunately however, many cases of emerging clinical narcissism in childhood and adolescence are left to develop without intervention through counselling or behavioural therapy. And later in life, many narcissists remain wholly unaware of their own character flaws and unwilling to admit that they could do well to improve themselves.

And while many narcissists do eventually self destruct under the weight of their own absurdities, the tragedy is that few are willing to learn from these mistakes, instead placing blame on those around them whenever discrepancies are called to account.

True Wealth Of Character

Unlike the narcissist however, there are those in life who in addition to a high degree of personal achievement, also demonstrate those qualities which may be regarded as wealth of character, such as genuine humility, renunciation, compassion and so forth.

The Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi, who lived in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for instance, was a revered martial artist who attained the status of a kensei and was regarded as the most accomplished swordsman of his time, capable even of fighting with a sword in each hand.

After a life of considerable achievement, he eventually took to Buddhism in his later years, retiring from martial arts and taking to deep contemplation and a solitary existence. Musashi produced two works during his retirement, Go Rin No Sho, or The Book of Five Rings, as well as Dokkodo, or The Path of Aloneness.

Both books were passed on to his students in the days prior to his death and have been widely studied in many languages in the centuries since. Most significantly, according to precept four of Dokkodo, Musashi advises one to “think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”.

As this precept suggests, Musashi was grounded in a higher reality afforded by spiritual practice and practical renunciation, rather than base egoism. And interestingly, the seeds of this worldly detachment had also been tended to and nurtured prior to his retirement, throughout his career as a mendicant swordsman where he was confronted with the impermanent nature of life on a regular basis.

This deep sense of renunciation or detachment is one of six primary opulences in life, and is a precursor to the development of finer qualities of character, beyond the base animalistic ambitions. The opulence of wealth for instance, is rendered more desirable when complemented by detachment and a man who humbles himself despite his status, endears himself to others.

Those who are preoccupied by the low-hanging fruits and the bondage associated with self-absorption and egoism however, whether they be clinical narcissists, or simply those who indulge too frequently in their lower nature, are unable to obtain or sustain true wealth of character, despite their worldly achievements.

Thomas S. is a Kiwi writer with an obsessive interest in the truth, especially when it comes to spirituality and politics.

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Ending The War On Drugs Would Get People Socialising Again

Everyone is lamenting the lack of sociability among young people in recent years. Even Boomer media like Fox News is asking whether the nightclub scene is dying out. The sociability crisis is being blamed for increasing rates of depression and for plummeting birthrates. No truly effective solutions have been offered yet, so this essay suggests a way to get the party (re)started.

This lack of socialising is not good for society. Socialising is how social bonds are created (hence the name), and these bonds are what prevents us from falling back into a dog-eat-dog pre-civilisational jungle. Successful societies, however large or small, are made up of people who are friends. Absent quality socialising, the stress of proximity makes people into enemies.

The problem is that the usual methods of socialising are either absent (as in third spaces) or no longer desired (as in churches or pubs). So many would-be socialisers have become discouraged from the lack of quality social options, leading them to sit at home on the Internet.

I am an early Millennial, which is not young, but it’s young enough to be tired of pisshead culture. It’s so boring. I’m tired of listening to sad old fools droning on about how great they used to be when they were young. I’m also tired of watching young people turn into chimpanzees, and the general narcissistic toddler vibe. I want a different buzz.

These are common sentiments among people younger than 50. We’re tired of alcohol. Moreover, we know how dangerous it is now. People today have access to research like that of Professor David Nutt, which suggests that alcohol actually does more harm than any other drug. People didn’t know that even 20 years ago.

Many young people know this now, though, which is why they’re increasingly choosing to sit at home, on weed, watching YouTube or Netflix, rather than going to pubs. The vast majority of those young people would rather socialise if they had a decent environment in which to do it, but they don’t. This is not an accidental tragedy, but an inevitable result of bad laws.

There’s one obvious solution: end the War on Drugs.

Already it’s very common among people younger than 50 to socialise on the basis of doing drugs other than alcohol. At the moment, the vast majority of this activity takes place in private, by necessity, owing to the law. An alternative to pubs could bring this activity into the sunlight and, with it, the people who are into those alternatives.

Here I’m not talking about places to do hard drugs, such as injection rooms. My approach is simple: anything recognised as a potential social substitute for alcohol, with a safer harm profile than alcohol, should be made readily available to reduce alcohol harms. This means that heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine would remain underground.

If there was a cannabis cafe in my city it would be ideal. I would love to be able to meet interesting travellers without the ever-present threat of violence that comes with pubs. Dutch-style cafes are all that anyone needs in this regard. Cafes in New Zealand could be even better than Dutch ones, because in New Zealand it’s easier to have a sunny courtyard.

MDMA lounges would also attract a younger crowd back into the cities. Like alcohol, MDMA is an entactogen that makes social interaction easier and more fun. But MDMA doesn’t make people violent or aggressive. As such, it could achieve many of the benefits of alcohol use without so many of the drawbacks. People already use MDMA regularly, so being able to access a safe and measured dose of it would improve life for many.

Of course, psychedelic dens would also exist if the War on Drugs ended. Imagine a place like a bar where one could melt into a sofa for a few hours, listening to Shpongle or Alan Watts drum ‘n’ bass remixes. Or not melt, but have great conversation with intelligent people. Somewhere like this could happily sell a basic solid dose of LSD, psilocybin or mescaline for $20-30 and then sell Vs or Red Bulls for $5-10.

The ideal outcome would be a range of venues that offered various combinations of psychoactive experiences, decor and music. All of these places would be safer than pubs, but all are impossible dreams as long as the War on Drugs continues.

The Boomers who oppose this need to get with modern science. Not modern morality (I’m not arguing that), but science. Whether the use of drugs other than alcohol is degenerate is not relevant, because modern science confirms that many of them are much less dangerous than alcohol. And because no-one – especially not me – is arguing for alcohol to become more restricted, the logic is that these safer alternatives to alcohol should be legalised.

The contention of this essay is that young people want to socialise just as much as young people in previous generations. They just no longer want to do alcohol, which is the only realistic choice in most cases. So they tend to stay at home. This is a great tragedy. The solution is ending the War on Drugs.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!