Much of what follows has been touched upon in the essays linked below. This is an effort to pull the varied threads together: To approach the underlying issues from a slightly different perspective; to sharpen the focus.
The malaise of the West, at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, may be characterized as a lost sense of cultural continuity; a lost sense of community purpose, with community defined as it was traditionally, before a collaborating pseudo-elite of presumptuous intellectual poseurs began a campaign to reorient Mankind into the nightmare of an undifferentiated humanity. With all the commentary on other aspects of our Leftward drift, this condition goes largely unremarked; ignored because of the very contrived social pressures, which originally undermined traditional patterns of community identification. Yet untreated, the disease will likely prove fatal to everything that Conservatives hold sacred. While the illustrations that follow and the suggested response will largely reflect an American perspective, the general concept is equally applicable to many other Nations, similarly beset.
Throughout history, normal men and women have tried to provide for their children; have tried to pass on their insights, values, faith and purpose to their descendants. And, if in their struggle, they were able to accumulate something of material wealth, they expected to pass that on as well. The vehicle for this dynamic and ongoing process was the family; and in the more extended sense, the tribe, nation or race. The true purpose of the tribe or nation was never in the affair of the moment, but in this passing forward, generation by generation, the patrimony--spiritual and material--of a people. It was in this passing forward, that Society obtained its moral purpose.
This motivational dynamic worked in two directions. People looked forward, seeking what was best for their heirs. But they gathered inspiration from the struggles of their ancestors. The Land where my Fathers died celebration of America in our patriotic hymn parallels the heritage of almost every people who created a civilization worthy of the name. Rudyard Kipling put the principle thus: Our Fathers in a wondrous age,/ Ere yet the Earth was small,/ Ensured to us an heritage,/ And doubted not at all/ That we, the children of their heart,/ Which then did beat so high,/ In later time should play like part/ For our posterity.
While a people retain a sense of cohesion, a Society based upon heritage and family, for which they feel both deep gratitude and moral responsibility, their civilization flowers. When they lose those qualities, the end is near. A classic example is Rome.
In youth, she represented the achievement of a racial stock with a sense of purpose and responsibility. Going forth to conquer everything in sight, they extended their cultural influence through most of the European, North African and Near Eastern White world. So long as they honored and remained in touch with their roots, they flourished. But in growing mighty, they became cosmopolitan and excessively materialistic. And what was Roman became an incident of place, rather than of heritage. It is estimated that by the time of the Fall, only about 10% of the population were of original Roman stock. And the Society that supplanted them wallowed in every form of corruption, with a sense of retained grandeur to be sure, but without a clue as to why or whence it had come, or what had been required to build and sustain it. Worse yet, there were few who really cared where it was headed.
In Rome's case, the destruction of the social infrastructure took several centuries. It was the result of diffused direction, coupled with the demographic catastrophe that occurs when for whatever reason, the natural leadership of a people fail to reproduce their own numbers. The decline in moral values probably followed rather than led the social deterioration. A similar process was taking place in Great Britain, also at a slow pace, before the advent of Fabian domination of the political processes. It has, of course, accelerated with the march of Socialism. In America's case, the loss of moral values--of the importance of our sense of heritage and family, of gratitude and moral responsibility--seems to have led, and then accelerated with, the processes of social deterioration. Thus we are self-destructing at a pace, which would have made Roman heads swim.
It is error to assume that only one movement is at work in this situation. While virtually all of the factors, seeking in one way or another to undermine traditional society, would come under the general umbrella of the Left, of Socialism, it has taken many different forms; never the monolithic movement that has characterized some of its subsets, such as Bolshevism and National Socialism. Even within the Communist world, Bolshevism was but one facet, and it too divided between the supporters of Stalin and Trotsky. Yet with all the rivalry and actual hatred among these hate motivated forces, they have not infrequently coalesced in ad hoc projects, in "popular fronts" and "common causes." Some of the most effective attacks on traditional institutions and values have come from those whose primary focus had little directly to do with control of the economy--and many originated with those not even publicly perceived as being on the far Left.
Indeed, the most effective lines of attack were the more subtle. The late Norman Cousins, Editor of the Saturday Review and for a long while the most articulate advocate of World Government in America, used to deliver formula speeches to College assemblies and regional teacher conventions, in which he would first paint an effectively terrifying picture of the horror of nuclear war; and then, with the coeds suitably frightened, would introduce his message: A call for a change in focus from the qualities which make nations unique--ie. the values for which good men have been willing to die--to those which most people have in common--the goal to make a peace enforced via World Government seem acceptable.
The obvious fallacy in the Cousins' approach was that it was an inherently dishonest attempt to mislead the susceptible into surrender by subterfuge. Cousins advocated what Americans rejected in 1776, when they looked past traits in common, to fight for unique qualities worth dying for. George Washington remains America's answer to Norman Cousins.
In the same post World War II era, the cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, whose extensive Leftwing involvements were less known in the 1950s than the salacious book that she had authored years before on what she contended was a free love culture in Samoa, wrote an article in one of the popular news magazines, proposing a form of draft for young women. Her stated reason for this seemingly bizarre proposal, was that it was the girls at home who drew the boys back to their roots after military service. And that was something she considered undesirable. While many readers, at the time, dismissed her thesis as the ranting of a sexually frustrated old woman, there was method in her madness. She was in fact part of a broadening attack on the social structure of America. A member of a doctrinaire Socialist school of "cultural anthropology"--really only a subdivision of leftwing Sociology, sometimes referred to as the "Boas School" after a notorious intellectual charlatan, Franz Boas--she was but one small cog in a deliberate attempt to remake virtually the entire warp and weft of traditional America.
In that era, as in the decades since, every conceivable pillar for social continuity came under attack. Faith, family, race, tradition, ties to local community, State loyalty, self-respect in that vast array of areas where the individual had always been expected to take care of his own needs; our senses of gratitude for past kindness, finally even our appreciation for the importance of traditional sex roles; have all become the targets of sundry movements with specific agendas wholly inconsistent with the previous institutions of the people. In almost every case, the onslaught has been insistent, persistent and unrelenting.
Some of those attacks are the subjects of other essays. We will discuss both these and others in more detail in the balance of this. To the naive, many of these forays seem merely the activities of those seeking reform in this or that area of concern. But when one looks deeper, he will see that many of the reformers worked in tandem, had very similar patterns of association. However any chose to describe themselves, all subscribed to a basic concept of man and Society that can best be described as Collectivist Egalitarian, essentially Socialistic--all part of a secular humanist cult, offering an endless iteration of shibboleths and slogans to demean values which earlier generations defended with reason.
This general Leftwing assault upon the foundations of America's heritage has succeeded, in large measure, because it has been aided and abetted at almost every turn by the cupidity of "Liberal" politicians, only too happy to help to reorganize people's patterns of identification for supposed political advantage. Yet what has really made that success possible, has been the seeming inability of Conservative spokesmen to rationally respond. Whether intimidated by what appeared a rising tide--it was always contrived--or actually unable to see the manifest fallacies in their foes' complex of arguments--the response of the supposed Conservative leadership has been a fifty year retreat from truth and reality. We have been pushed into a fantasy land, in which no Society can even hope to achieve anything worthwhile.
James Madison, our fourth President and the "Father of the Constitution," clearly warned against the dangers of factions in the Federalist Papers. But in his wisest moments, he could never have foreseen anything like the factionalization of America in the latter days of the Twentieth Century.
This factionalization, while drawing upon different verbal rationalizations, group by interest group, has in each of its manifestations reflected an application of the standard Leftist technique of exploiting the grievances (real or imagined) that most people feel at one time or another. The keys to this exploitation lie in two unprovable assumptions: First that all people are basically equal, in fact as well as in relationship; and second, the subtle corollary of that assumption, that there is collective responsibility to solve the problems of the individual. Let us see how these concepts--really no more than notions--are applied, singly or together, to alienate a people from their heritage:
In our essay on The Lies Of Socialism, a link below, we refer in slightly different words, to the standard Socialist effort to demonize success and rally failure by blaming that failure on others' success. Long before the Twentieth Century, the Left had succeeded in converting social classes, other than those at the top, from groups with a common heritage into economic interest groups, seeking material gain on the basis of existence alone. With the Twentieth Century, they became more skilled in adjusting the same techniques to other targets, using the human weaknesses of suspicion, envy and resentment, to overcome more positive emotions. Basically, this involved applications, which may be described as "dividing and recombining"; shattering the old motivating identifications--the self-images that nurtured cohesion and continuity, that sustained family and community values independent of the collective and opposed to a new Statist culture--to build the new identifications of dependency, of factions looking to the whole--or more pragmatically, to the politicians directing the collective--to advance their interests and fulfill a new set of priorities.
Consider the variety and breadth of this attack.
1. The Left, here as in Nazi Germany, has persistently endeavored to undermine State citizenship, as opposed to or even parallel with Federal citizenship, and to submerge purely regional, social or ethnic communities, looking to solve their own problems within their States, into universal aggregates looking to Washington--as earlier Germans had looked to Berlin. This is seen not only in the intrusion of Washington into virtually every area once the province of the State, community or individual, including education, health, indigency, crime and patterns of association and employment. (While none of these intrusions is authorized by the Federal Constitution, and each is in an area that can hardly benefit from the substitution of a remote standard for the local values of those afflicted, this is the same course used to destroy social continuity in Germany.) But here, there has been a further attack on the actual "body politic" in the individual States and communities, which we will discuss shortly.
2. There has been a sustained multi-generation attack on the cultural heritage and traditional cohesion of recognizable communities within the American South, both racial, State and regional intra-State. This has included fanning racial discord; encouraging Negro racial identification with a victimization paranoia similar to that which Hitler instilled in the German mobs across State lines, and alienating them in many ways from ties to a common culture with their White neighbors. Within the White populations, they have divided urban and rural, rich and poor, and encouraged jealousies between old families and later arrivals.
3. The above efforts have been aided by the substitution of a geographic terminology for the nomenclature of blood lines and heritage: Appalachian for a wide variety of peoples, found in the mountains of the original States, and those immediately to the West. African American in place of the racial term Negro. Native American as a catch basin term for all of the numerous and tremendously varied Indian tribes, despite the fact that the very concept of American was entirely a White settler term for the people who largely dispossessed the Indians in most of North America. These terms help shift the psychological identification of many from pride in the struggle of their forebears, into an easy acceptance of a new status as "clients" of an every greater, more involved Central Government.
4. The most extreme manifestation has come in the division of the family into competing interest groups, based upon sex, age or other circumstances. The political alienation of men and women is the most absurd example, because it is in the coming together of man and woman, in the family, on which the entire social order must ultimately depend if it is to have continuity. But the idea of special advocacy groups--and Federal programs--with separate agendas for the old and young, coupled with a mockery of marriage and procreation, reflected in the effort to equate deviant room-mates with reproducing married couples, and something now referred to as a "woman's right to choose" with the sanctity of motherhood in marriage; reflects an undermining of traditional family structure probably without parallel even in the most depraved eras of Man's journey.
Thus the attack runs the gamut from a destruction of the cultural products of past achievement, to a destruction of the social building blocks for future gain.
Another facet of the same process is found in the Leftist attack on any sense of ethnic continuity. In the early days of the last Century, those of older American stock were derisively labelled WASPs--a term which referred to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant--by those who sought to demean and disparage the significance of the original American stock, and to divide the Protestant American, politically and socially, from the Catholic or Jewish American; while inculcating in the latter a sense of minority interest, separate from the general American. This minority interest was made to seem alienated from what would otherwise have been seen as a common heritage by the same technique, and by encouragement of a spirit of resentment among those embracing such minority identity, directed against any show of pride by those in the older mainstream.
This hostile approach, coupled with a general Socialist assault on success and status--of blaming achievers for the failures of others--so evident in many of the older and more prestigious colleges; in time, led to a loss of enthusiasm for the uniquely American heritage, soon followed by the inculcation of a sense of guilt and even the fear of castigation or retribution, among those from families which had not just a moral right but the moral duty to uphold and celebrate a heritage that has benefitted every one of us. (And, indeed, a sense of personal honor--and gratitude--ought to prevent those who, like this writer, are descended from immigrants who came after American freedom had already been won and our institutions established, from making disparaging remarks about any part of what was won, or the families that achieved it. It is no small thing, that we were permitted to come later, and still enjoy the same benefits.)
The assault on Southern Negro identification with traditional Southern culture has been equally destructive. The Southern cultural roots of most American Negroes are obvious in their speech patterns, accents and ceremonial usages, in their culinary traditions, and what not. The most powerful argument that the great Negro Educator Booker T. Washington used to appeal to the White leadership in urging support for his efforts to uplift his people through self-improvement, was the fundamental loyalty of the Negro to the Old South:
Casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them [he told a deeply moved crowd at an Atlanta Exposition in 1895] ... to education of head, hand, and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste places in your fields, and run your factories. While doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. As we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick-bed of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach....
This may seem incongruous today because of the success of the Left in alienating the Negro from a positive identification with his own heritage. But the earlier situation was not greatly different from the loyalty of former European serfs to the monarchical heirs of those who had once maintained feudal estates. Certainly the happier people, White or Negro, European or American, are those at peace with their family history, who seek to build a more confident future on the positive aspects, including the remembered struggles, of an honored past. The professional victim is always at a disadvantage; if for no other reason than the fact that shame for the past is poor foundation for a better future.
The pride that goeth before a fall is the pride of arrogance; of the pretentious with their heads tilted at an upward angle, which leaves them unable to adequately appreciate the reality found in observing others. But pride in the struggles of one's forebears is a very different emotion. That sort of pride is really first cousin to gratitude; gratitude for past efforts that made whatever is good in the present possible; efforts that made possible an upward reach, however slow the course or many the obstacles. What the Left has accomplished by its assault on previous patterns of Negro identification, has been to subvert the social progress of millions of people into a status of permanent dependence on Government.
Those who can not appreciate the terrible significance of the many efforts to trash pride in ancestral experience, struggle and achievement, fail to appreciate the profundity of the Fifth Commandment to Honor thy Father and thy Mother. The injunction has always been coupled with the two way vision, discussed above. We look back to those who came before that we may be inspired to serve those who will come after; to be worthy in turn of the honor of our heirs. What is truly involved, here, is the difference between builders and scoffers; between those who take responsibility and those who take advantage; between love and hate; between constructive purpose and the self-defeating anger of the spoiler.
There has been a more subtle assault on the concept of a Republic--the Founders' belief that a State belongs to the whole of a people, not to demagogues who may control 50% or more of those voting at any given moment. Again recurring to Madison, in the Federalist Papers, it is very clear that our system was not designed to lead to a purely democratic government. As he observed in Federalist Paper No. 10:
A pure democracy ...can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been the spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
The popular idea that anyone embracing an amorphous concept of Freedom is instantly ready for full citizenship and community acceptance in whatever community he finds himself, is not the self-evident proposition that even some Conservatives, today, seem Hellbent to acknowledge. If people matter, the differences between people matter. Who is voting is more important than the numbers voting.
Whether or not a five year naturalization process is adequate to inculcate the values and political ethos, vindicated in the Revolution, may be debated. Certainly there are problems with regard to third world immigrants, who start with an ideological orientation that differs from that common to most European peoples, which would strongly suggest that one standard does not fairly fit all. Indeed, even in the case of European immigrants, there are factors today, which would suggest the need for a longer more intensive screening than formerly. The immigrant in 1800 or 1890, after all, came to a culture, where he knew he would not be coddled; where he knew he would have to be individually responsible; where there was no ready crutch from Government. He had therefore accepted one of the most essential elements of the intended American character, before he ever got off the boat.
And if there are serious questions as to what should constitute a proper naturalization process for prospective citizenship at the Federal level, there is almost no process for naturalization at the State level. While the Federal Constitution provides (Article I, Sec. 8) that Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, that does not limit State residency requirements for those born or naturalized in one State, in exercising the suffrage in another State. Nor should considerations of courtesy or comity, Full Faith and Credit among the States, or Privileges and Immunities among the citizens (Article IV), provide a substitute for a reasonable period for acclimatization to the values unique to any community or State, before one is permitted to have a say in how that community or State goes forward. Yet a combination of intrusive Federal Court decisions, during the Warren years, with the tendency for Republican and Democratic Legislators to try to outdo each other in appealing to potential new voters, have virtually reduced State citizenship to a game of Musical Chairs.
In many places, today, people who have only lived in a district for as little as 30 days are permitted to vote; in effect, permitted a possibly determinant role in how the authority of Government shall be applied in such culturally sensitive fields as public education and the protection of the public safety and morals. It is a curious footnote to what has been termed a cultural war for the soul of America, that those "Liberals" who most loudly proclaim their respect and even veneration for Cultural Diversity, when the diversity involves bringing in large numbers of those who are not only diverse, but diverse in a sense incongruous to the American tradition, show little or no tolerance or respect for the preservation of the historic diversity among the American mainstream, which the Founding Fathers accepted and sought to protect in the form and structure of our Federal Union.
The concept of an almost instant right to vote in the new resident is compounded by the application of a One Man--One Vote theory of Political virtue, first applied by the Warren Court to the apportionment of State Legislatures in the early 1960s. In a manner that effectively prevented any check on majority rule in the several States, designed to protect the unique interests and cultural values of small rural communities from collectivized decisions dictated by the large centers of population--the areas most fluid in the pattern of settlement;--and deliberately ignoring the fact that the Constitution provides that each State must be allotted two Senators, regardless of its population; the Court held in a rapid succession of cases, that allowing either house of a State Legislature to be apportioned on any basis other than population would make a vote "worth more in one district than in another, [which in the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren] would ... run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government."
Without going into the question of what fundamental ideas Earl Warren thought he had discovered, which could circumvent the clear vision of the Fathers of the Constitution, these decisions sounded a virtual death knell for effective representation for many small rural communities across America. It meant that many more isolated communities, which might have had some influence in a contested district coextensive with a rural County, would go effectively unrepresented in a much larger district, with more diverse interests, thereafter--and correspondingly, less able to protect the unique qualities of their community. With the increased urbanization at the time, having both houses selected by districts of equal population, effectively put urban interests in control of most State Governments. And since the urban interests tend to be less cohesive, more culturally and ethnically diverse, that very phenomenon tended also to undermine the continuity of the social order.
Thus in one blow--supported by no language in the Constitution--the Supreme Court undermined both Cultural Continuity and a valuable check on unfettered majority rule (one of the chief motivations for a written Constitution). Thus, also, one more tie to an honored past, to the America that was settled by various small groups, religious, political and social, each seeking to preserve what was culturally unique about themselves, was subverted in favor of the very tyranny of the whole from which they each had fled.
With the ever increasing mobility of American employment, ultra liberal immigration policies, the heavy flow of the elderly to special communities and other phenomena of the present day, the urban populations of America have become increasingly rootless. The ties of many run no deeper than those of a high school transfer student, who attends a pep rally for the football team and votes for Student Council, but scarcely knows a handful of other students by their family names, and has yet to form his first real friendship. Does anyone really believe that those, so situated, have developed either deep loyalty or deep understanding? The Warren Court, in under-cutting the influence of the communities with greater continuity in favor of rule by rootless numbers, displayed a commitment to the values of Socialism, not freedom.
One can understand that demagogues are unwilling to face a problem where they run the risk of offending voters who may identify with new arrivals. There is no excuse for the reluctance of others to face the implications of these phenomena. When the former President, for example, boasted that White Americans would be a minority in California within a few years, almost no one appeared willing to discuss the consequences of that possibility. Such silence suggests that such a change would not really matter. Would it?
Consider the impact, if you took a hypothetical town of 5,000. Call it "Madison," after the Father of the Constitution. Assume that of the population, 4700 have descended from the original Anglo-Saxon and Scots-Irish stocks, predominant at the time the Constitution was adopted; that there are 200 American Negroes and 100 second generation Americans from a wide assortment of places. Assume that the cultural amenities (school curricula, library selections, restaurant fare, music on the bar juke box, merchandise on the shelves of the local pharmacy and clothing stores, available houses of worship, etc.) all reflect that ethnic distribution. Would it materially change the character of that community if 1500 poor Mexican Indians moved in, and 1,000 of the original stock moved out? What if instead of 1500 Mexicans, the new infusion was of poor Jamaican Negroes--who like our corrupted Welfare class, have a collapsed family structure? What if 3,000 of the older stock moved out and 4,000 non-White immigrants moved in? At what point, would even the most foolish "Liberal" acknowledge that Madison had ceased to be the Madison anyone once knew; had become, indeed, something wholly different?
Many of those in the growing non-White portion of the California population come from ethnic heritages with very powerful work ethics. No one is demeaning them. A California in which Koreans or Chinese or Vietnamese immigrants play a major role in creating business enterprise, and Mexican immigrants--willing to work for less than blue collar Anglos or Negroes--provide much of the unskilled and semi-skilled labor, might work very well economically. It might develop an estimable new culture from the changing composition of the population, and from whom is doing what in relation to what function and to whom. But what it would not be, culturally or humanwise, is the California that we have known.
When Mr. Clinton gleefully projected a non-White California, he was celebrating the loss of a particular human achievement, the extinction of one California in the birth of another. In that he projected a contempt for a traditional American culture in stark contrast to his Administration's grave concern for the various forms of other endangered species. In this he showed no true respect for either the old or new. The assumption--insulting to all of us, of whatever background--is that a Society is defined purely by those occupying space in a given area, at a particular moment. Then the music starts again, and we each move on!
There is only one answer to this across the board attack upon the underpinnings of a healthy Society: A reaffirmation of the reasonable bases for the traditional order; a reaffirmation that heritage is more important than envy; family, more important and far more rewarding, to both spirit and ambition, than any Pied Piper serenade on the Left. This is a road that must be trod by those willing to acknowledge that we are all different; that the fallacy of the human ant hill, is that we are not ants; the fallacy of the dogma of equal expectations, is that we are not equal. This cannot be changed by wishful thinking. We differ as individuals, as races, as ethnic sub-racial groups; as communities settled by particular individuals, with particular beliefs, instincts, affinities and culture; and above all as normal men and women. If there is an honest answer to problems in the relations between us, in relations relevant to any of the patterns of such identification, it lies surely in a kindly, constructive, neighborly spirit; never in the stifling pretense that we are all alike.
The answer to international conflict is Mutual Respect. That is not the same thing, as the pretense of sameness. The answer to racial conflict is Mutual Respect. That is not the same thing as Communist, Nazi or American "Liberal" racial theories, or in most cases, racial denial. The answer to poverty is not redistribution of the earned achievements of others, but hard work in a society where one is able to retain the fruits of his labor, coupled with a better respect between employer and employee. And respect means an understanding and appreciation of the different aptitudes of different people--an understanding that it is not immoral to have aptitudes that a free market values better;--a recognition that the happiest among us are those who are content to play the hand dealt, as best they may, with self-respect and good will.
The answer to the problems between communities, to conflicts of interest between the rural and urban, metropolitan and small town, inner city and suburban, academic and business, is in Mutual Respect for what is unique and important to each; respect for one another's problems and concerns, with an understanding that it is not the function of a central authority to play God with the lifestyle of any, from the greatest to the least.
The answer to problems between the sexes is in Mutual Respect; in honoring the enormous differences from which all life as well as our capacity for human happiness spring. The answer to religious conflict is in Mutual Respect; but that is not the same thing as denying to any of us the right to believe that others are in error. It is not found in denying to anyone, the right to condemn actions believed to be immoral. And those who would demand toleration and respect for private actions, which they know are offensive to others, must understand that neither toleration nor respect need be given to those who will not return them.
When a Roman citizen became, not a proud descendant of a pioneer group that had built a great, free city, but a cosmopolitan drawn to that city for its luxury and spectacles; Rome was dead. Whatever merit there may be in reaching out to show respect for the heritage of others; there is none at all in denying honor to your own. Those who embrace the present politically correct cult, from race to education, from literature to humor, from immigration to the workplace, from our mating quests to our pursuit of the Godly, offer no answer to any problem. On the contrary, they are destructive to all the values that motivate constructive and enduring purpose. We must expose them in their deceptions. We must oppose them with reason. We must make certain that they never go unanswered!
Civilizations rise and fall, not on the backs of an undifferentiated humanity, but on the ingenuity, heroism, determination and focus of specific people--dynamic and directed individuals--men and women well aware of who they are and whence they came. No civilization can allow social engineers and theorists to tamper with the dynamics that built and sustained it and not expect to pay a terrible price.
Consider the useful tools that follow!