It has become increasingly evident that there is no longer any rational debate, or even discussion, as to whether contemporary America is on the right course in addressing racial phenomena, problems or interests, from a presumption of absolute equality and an assumed interchangeability of types. At least, no one dares question such dogma in the centers of contemporary (transient) power and authority. While even two years ago, such subjects could still be broached with reason and in civil discourse, we have now apparently crossed a line where--for the moment--the mere allusion to race, or to any subject which might have racial connotations, evokes only conditioned reflex within the political establishment in Washington or among the media across the land.
One recalls experiments, which the famous Russian behavioral scientist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) conducted many years ago with dogs, demonstrating the conditioned reflex in various manifestations. The best known of these was the one where he caused a bell to ring every time a dog was about to be fed, and showed that after a period of time, the dog would salivate in anticipation of food, whether or not the food was actually forthcoming. Other experiments involved the ability to control behavior by creating negative sensations--such as electrical shocks--whenever a forbidden line was crossed. The profitable contemporary business providing "invisible fences," to control the movements of suburban pets, employs Pavlovian concepts--as do many trained animal acts with circuses or exhibitions.
Cynical power seekers, in Pavlov's own era, took careful note, and began to formulate schemes for conditioning human behavior in a functionally similar manner. Both the Communists and Nazis used Pavlovian techniques in consolidating power--as have many a third world despot. But these were not alone.
We have discussed the absurd reaction to Trent Lott's nostalgic regret that Strom Thurmond was never elected President, at the latter's 100th birthday party this past December, in an essay linked below. In the weeks since, there have been many other examples of the same mind set, one after another; each evincing a compulsive need within the political establishments in both parties; a need, not to discuss calmly or civilly, but to distance themselves, as far as possible, from any suggestion that they might share, or even tolerate, any of the racial thoughts of those who were in fact the American mainstream throughout much of our history.
Attacks on the display of the Confederate battle flag, also discussed in earlier essays (see below), phenomena gathering momentum since the late 1990s, have been studiously stepped up. A former Democratic leader in the House of Representatives actually demanded, earlier this month (January, 2003), that it no longer be displayed anywhere in America. While some on the Republican Left, including some now calling themselves "Neo-cons"-- though seldom deigning to inform us as to what in the American tradition they claim to be conserving--have even called for a purge of those who might share values, they assume that Trent Lott was reminiscing over. Indeed, new litmus tests are proposed to ferret out anyone in politics, who might harbor a sympathy for America's more segregated past--or even a toleration for any aspect of it in any of our States.
A number of assumptions are required to support this intolerant mind-set, besides the obvious acceptance of the new morality of an undifferentiated humanity. For one, there is the reversal--and implicit rejection--of the "Golden Rule," which called upon the moral person to treat others as he would wish to be treated in return. In its place, we are offered an antithetical rationalization for forcing others to do as the enthusiastic egalitarian would have them do, regardless of any strong personal feeling or differing value system. For another, the assumption that a once strictly limited Government, a Government established and precisely defined by a written compact between constituent parties, could--and should--expand its own power, unilaterally, in order to force some of those constituents to accept the premises and values of such egalitarian enthusiast, however contrary to their own honest judgments. Finally, there is the assumption that Americans, from the days of the Founding Fathers up until the apparent victory of the "Civil Rights" movement, behaved in a wholly abhorrent manner with respect to ethnic and racial differences; and that their beliefs and arguments on the subject must neither be seriously considered in any aspect on which they differ from egalitarian premises, nor afforded even the suggestion of courtesy or civil treatment.
Thus, almost no one in Washington, in the political establishment of either party, was even willing to discuss whether Thurmond had an arguable point in running for President in 1948. When the noteworthies in these establishments took up Trent Lott's whimsical expression of regret that Thurmond had not won, it was enough that the South Carolinian had bolted the Democratic Party to protest President Truman's "Civil Rights" proposals; specifically, to defend the South's traditional policy of racial segregation. Nor did anyone, in either establishment, bother to note that Thurmond's 1948 remarks bore considerable ideological consistency with previously stated views of a broad and varied spectrum of American political leaders, including such still well admired Presidents as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. This apparent revulsion towards much of our history has, of course, been some time in developing. Yet to even begin to understand its significance and consequences, one needs to understand how it was brought about, as well as the implications of its current prevalence.
The new orthodoxy involves a deliberate repudiation, not only of the importance, but even of a sense of racial or ethnic identity and consciousness. To understand the attack on basic perceptions, which has brought us to a point where almost no politician is even willing to admit that the American past on the subject of race and ethnicity was morally defensible, one must understand some very basic concepts and logical relationships. This need to review the obvious becomes necessary because of the success of the very methodology under discussion.
Human society has never been a species embracing monolith. None of the primary sub-species, or races, has ever formed a monolithic society within the historic era. For as long as we have records, they have subdivided into a rich tapestry of ethnicities, tribes and other familial groupings. Indeed, even within the population of a relatively homogeneous small community, there has always been a tendency for people to form their own mini-circles of association and identification. Almost anyone who has ever attended a high school of any size, public or private, has witnessed this tendency. Each human has a complex of possible identifications. These will include his family, tribe, community, race and species, though never limited to only these. Yet whether an individual behaves well or poorly, either in terms of his own culture or in terms of values which most people hold in common, will still reflect aspects of the character of that individual; as, indeed, will the outside influences towards which he gravitates and, so too, his perception of any particular pattern of personal identification.
Are recognition and esteem for one's family to be divorced from recognition and esteem for one's extended family, or for one's tribe or sub-race, or for one's race or species? And if so, why and to what purpose? If the immediate family--the inner extreme of the biological aspect of familial relationships--is recognized as the starting point for all social awareness; there is no way that one can rationally postulate a greater significance to species--the outer extreme of the biological aspect (yet essential to the contemporary Socialist world view)--than for one of the intermediate aspects, classifications, or identifications--such as race, tribe or extended family. The arbitrary denial of racial identification or of its importance--the impugning of the character of those who display racial consciousness--are not philosophical ideas, supported by reason, with self-evident merit; but rather reflections of an absurd effort to prevent realistic classification and understanding of human variation.
We have discussed some of the motives for that effort in "Myths & Myth Makers In American 'Higher' Education" (below). There is a merger of means and ends here. The end sought in denying the importance of the variation of human type is to create a population which denies the importance of the variation in human types. This is not about toleration of others, it is about tearing down all patterns of identification around which people can rally to resist Socialism. It is about destroying the concept of the Nation. It is about undermining the moral judgment that people who succeed, deserve to succeed.
Whereas Pavlov conducted his experiments under laboratory conditions, the Twentieth Century Leftists, who set about to change the premises of a system or culture based upon generations of observation and perception, both among the people generally and among the brightest and most respected of them, had a far more complex problem. Employing what is now sometimes described as the "racial card," to stir demand for the introduction of a Socialist egalitarian value system among those otherwise resistant, they had to develop a means to dissuade any rational discussion of their premises. Not only did they have a general perceptual problem to overcome; they were vulnerable to a counter-attack, because of the considerable involvement by Communists and Fellow Travelers in the movement seeking to accomplish this change, in an era when America was beginning to rally against the external menace of World Communism.
Moreover, there never was any real evidence that the assumptions of the "Civil Rights" movement would confer an actual net benefit on any definable group. For example, the assumption that it would benefit the American Negro was belied in 1944 by the admission of Swedish Socialist Gunnar Myrdal, in his racial study An American Dilemma, that the integration, which he proposed, would likely ruin the Southern Negro middle class! (Myrdal's book, the contributors to which read like a "who's who" of Fabian and Marxist environmentalists in the "social sciences," was cited by Earl Warren as authoritative in the Brown vs. Board of Education decisions, which directed the involuntary integration of the Southern public schools.) But, then, that would have seemed a small consequence to Myrdal. Socialism is generally an attack on the middle class--the hated "bourgeoisie!"
The basic explanation by Myrdal and other Socialist egalitarians for apparent major human differences is, and has been, an over-emphasis on the influence and effect of cultural and environmental factors. This attribution will not bear careful scrutiny. It is both misleading and deliberately deceptive--as discussed in the essay on "The Rape Of Tolerance" (linked below). It is tantamount to a pseudo-science, which has been aggressively promoted as a political vehicle for three generations. That most American Conservatives failed to appreciate what was even going on, in the creation of a bogus science to support an attack on their traditional value systems, is itself a remarkable chapter in what has taken place. That they failed to understand the connection between Socialism and the process flows, not out of stupidity, but out of susceptibility to the propagandistic techniques to which they were subjected.
The Left had this attack on the traditional, non-egalitarian, bases of Western Society, already well in place in major American Universities by the late 1920s. The Veritas Foundation, a group of Conservative Harvard alumni headed by Teddy Roosevelt's son Archibald, published two excellent books documenting the infestation: Keynes At Harvard (1960) and The Great Deceit (1964). These will give some understanding, both of the extent of the problem and the Fabian tactics being employed. The latter volume is particularly in point, as it traces the assault on the Anthropological sciences conducted from a base at Columbia University by the doctrinaire immigrant German Socialist Franz Boas, during the decades after his arrival in 1899.
Boas is significant, because he trained many of the most extreme environmentalists (i.e., those who would attribute all significant human differences to an environmental causation), including the skilled Leftwing propagandist, Ashley Montagu, discussed in detail in "Myths & Myth Makers In American 'Higher' Education," linked below. The Veritas study discusses Boas background in Germany, child to a pair of militant German Socialists, with an aunt married to a close associate of Karl Marx, himself; his association, both at Columbia and in various documented Communist fronts, with such notorious American Leftists as John Dewey, the father of "Progressive Education," the Socialist historian Charles A. Beard, economist E. R. A. Seligman, and earlier with the Socialist sociologist Franklin H. Giddings. The Great Deceit, Veritas, 1964, p. 172, explains what followed:
Boas, with decades of socialist experience behind him, having learned the socialist credo at his mother's knee, used all the accumulated skill garnered from the German socialist movement to manipulate anthropology away from its physical aspects into the cultural environment theory. His socialist cohorts at Columbia and other universities ... extended this cultural socialistic concept into other disciplines, such as history, economics, sociology, political science, philosophy, and almost every other department having to do with social studies.
The Boas project was buttressed by reference books written by the Beard School in history, the Ross School in sociology, the Seligman school in economics, the Morris Cohen school in jurisprudence, and the John Dewey group in the philosophy of education.
The socialist coterie, operating with the prestige and respectability of their academic titles, began to promote one another's works, through book reviews, educational manuals and required reading lists. And so forth.
This Socialist onslaught was hardly unopposed. But as America moved into the 1930s, the advent of the Great Depression and the "New Deal" served to boost the Left dramatically. In the early 1930s, Socialists of every variety descended upon Washington, seeking jobs in Government from which to influence policy; determined to rally the susceptible against traditional American values. One of their projects was a "public works" program, allegedly to fight unemployment, which included a subsidy to left-leaning writers, who had little appeal to a more conservative private market. This financed the production of biased reference works, which could be used for effect in school libraries--a significant boost to the supply of contrived Socialist/egalitarian propaganda in an already accelerating Leftist offensive. It was at this point, in the 1930s, that they began to play the "Nazi card."
We devoted a long part of the essay "The Lies of Socialism" (link below) to refuting the "Big Lie" that National Socialism was a movement of the Right. By every rational analysis, it was--even as the name implies--a radical Socialist movement. However, a combination of the Nazis' own propaganda and that of their Socialist rivals--including that of the Communists (save for two years from 1939 until Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, when they were allies)--served to convince most of the academic world that Hitler and his party were on the Right. Thus fighting Nazism and its Fascist allies in Italy and other nations, became the international rallying cry of the Left in the 1930s, with considerable general benefit to their recruitment of the naive and susceptible. In this, they laid particular emphasis on the popular caricature, useful to both the Nazi and non-Nazi Left for different reasons, that Nazi theory primarily concerned questions of race.
As observed in the essay, last referred to, "race" was to the Nazi what "class" was to the Soviet. The Nazi "Master Race," stripped of the clever techniques of propaganda, was basically defined in terms of those Germans who accepted Hitler's theories--much as the Proletariat in Stalin's Russia came to be defined in terms of those who supported Stalin, including members of a Communist elite, which enjoyed all the privileges formerly associated with an aristocracy. In short, Nazi "race" theories, coupled with the policies of a centrally planned Socialist society which Hitler put in place, revealed a Cultural Environmentalist bias, very similar to that of those then rallying against "Fascism" in other Western Nations.
But both the Fabian and Marxist Lefts, in America and other Western Nations, seized upon the image of a ranting demagogue, marshaling conformist mobs, to scare ethnic minorities into varying degrees of support for Socialist projects, including an attack on any study or suggestion of racial or ethnic difference in human potential. Since Hitler had scape-goated German Jews, reducing them from a respected and highly successful part of the German mainstream to shunned pariahs long before the actual wartime slaughter, the Left found that they could use fear of a similar fate with devastating effect on American Jews, both in Academia and in the media. But while this success in introducing a sense of victimization was most immediate with the latter, the "Nazi card" was also very effective with people from many other backgrounds.
For an obvious example: Once America got into war with Germany, it became very awkward, indeed, for a Professor with a German background, not to seek a way to make an anti-Nazi statement. And well before the 1940s, the Left had succeeded in defining an "anti-Nazi statement," not in terms of a rejection of the militant socialism actually involved, but in the form of a denunciation of the popular caricature of Nazi "race theory." And as more and more atrocities came to light--particularly those directed against European Jewry--it became more and more difficult for anyone, of any background, to resist getting on the bandwagon against putative "racism."
Consider another example: The faculty at a prestige University, which had formerly limited Jewish attendance by a quota system. This had been a painful situation to Jews, turned away from schools of their choice, not by reason of intellectual failure, but largely on the basis of being perceived as a group with a higher than average rate of achievement, flowing in part from being overly aggressive. Prior to the Nazi era, almost everyone not a socialist theorist, familiar with the results of psychological aptitude testing, would have recognized that a study of native, i.e. innate aptitudes, would have been beneficial to those Jews seeking admission; a demonstration of high potential, rather than the stereotype--an obvious argument for relaxing or abolishing the quotas. But in the post Nazi era, there was a contrived denial of all meaningful human difference. So while the quotas were abolished; the real merit for their abolition was ignored, as the bandwagon of general denial rushed onward.
It is not true that all opposition to the Leftist push for an undifferentiated humanity, based upon the deliberate embrace of racial and ethnic ignorance, had been swept away by the 1950s. Congress did reaffirm the principle of the National Origins preference system, in revising our immigration laws in 1952; but by then the academic atmosphere at most major colleges and universities was overwhelmingly slanted towards an environmentalist interpretation for all significant, observable, human difference. The Campus was not only protesting the idea that America would seek to preserve her existing ethnic patterns via provisions in an immigration law. It was proclaiming a new orthodoxy that went beyond even what the Boas school had advocated in 1930. Race, now, was to be treated only as a matter of skin color; while the Socialist mantra, that significant human differentiation, whether of race, class or level of individual achievement, reflected an environmental determinant, became the shibboleth for academic acceptance.
There were major efforts to reopen the debate over the school integration question after 1954. The most respected American news magazine of the era, David Lawrence's weekly U.S. News & World Report, frequently published articles that challenged the race theories and assumptions of the environmentalists. But the academic Left circled the wagons, and stood pat; and a number of scholars, who had imagined there was still such a thing as "Academic Freedom," lost positions for daring to publish research that did not conform to the official line. We discussed a revealing incident in an essay on "Leftist Word Games & The First Amendment Guarantee Of Religious Freedom," linked below, where the ACLU demonstrated their hypocrisy by assuming a leadership position in a secretive ad hoc group, comprising dozens of well known Leftwing and ethnic based organizations calling themselves the "Consultative Conference on Desegregation"; which gathered in 1959, apparently solely to promote the environmentalist position, and to suppress or neutralize anyone who would question its premises.
In the early 1960s, America was suddenly awash in "Polish jokes." Few of these were original. Most involved a reworking of old put-downs that had been used with reference to other ethnicities, communities and races, for as long as anyone could remember. Was this new attack on Polish American culture mere coincidence? Or did it perhaps have something to do with a report, issued shortly before this sudden outbreak of adverse ethnic humor, which showed that Polish-American neighborhoods in Great Lake cities were more resistant to racial integration than other neighborhoods? Had someone decided on a little Pavlovian experiment with these communities? The Liberals in the entertainment industry do not confide in this writer. But it was a very curious development.
By the late 1960s, the American Campus had virtually closed to anyone who would dare to question the environmentalist hypothesis. As Dr. William Shockley, a Nobel Prized physicist, stated to both the culpable and the cowardly at the National Academy Of Sciences in 1968, "The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical, wishful-thinking illusion." But when Shockley tried to demonstrate the virtual abandonment of scientific method and outright fabrication of fact, being offered under the guise of science to support the environmentalist premises, he was actually shouted down on several campuses. The thugs in academic garb were not about to debate a position, which they, as he, knew was merely the oft-repeated lie of the skilled propagandist. The Left treated Schockley with the same intolerance which anyone, who would have defended a German Jew at a German University, would have received after 1935.
Thus, over a 30 year span, those claiming to be fighting National Socialism had come to fully adopt Nazi tactics. Yet there was no irony here! Both the German Nazis and the American Left had always been far closer than "kissing cousins," ideologically. Both manifestations of a totalitarian collectivist mind set, each consistently demanded conformity to new, centrally established, social norms; each treated any dissent as an intolerable evil; each saw in a powerful central Government, the solution to every social and economic problem; and each used a willingness to lie and to scapegoat the innocent, to rally the mob against the traditions of their own people.
The Left's achievement in creating this Pavlovian response to any mention of a racial factor, has had an absolutely chilling effect on any serious discussion of ways to ameliorate the meltdown in the quality of public education, strengthen the family structure, reduce inter-group tensions, or provide better security for the persons and property of urban Americans. In the previously mentioned essay on "The Rape Of Tolerance," we dealt with some of the socially and psychologically damaging aspects to Negro students, from a refusal of educational authorities to even consider racially related differences in aptitudes and learning patterns, in the determination of school curricula and orientation. Whether such refusal is based upon dogma or fear, little matters. It closes doors that should have been left open, while pretending to be opening doors that may have little value.
There are specific racial problems in America, where the same mind-set blinds those, who should be addressing them, from anything either constructive or enlightening. In a sense, the pretense of absolute equality and interchangeability among the races, is the one factor which most surely tends to guarantee that America's urban Negro population really does not obtain either understanding or fair treatment. Again, the whole focus has been to accommodate socialist theory, not the real needs of real people in areas where Government actually does have a function. To more clearly demonstrate the point, let us look more closely at what is and always has been the foremost responsibility of local Government--i.e. the preservation of the public safety, the maintenance of law and order.
The plight of large numbers of Negroes, as victims of crime and violence in urban America today, is serious, endemic and in large measure the fault of the very people, who have set themselves up as spokesmen for "Civil Rights," equality and "racial justice." The reality is in front of all of us; the facts widely known. Yet a biased, sensation seeking, media neglects the most significant factors, while turning local agitators, stirring often imaginary grievances, into celebrities. It has become a virtual cliché in almost ever large or medium sized city in the United States: The Police will shoot someone rioting, fleeing or resisting arrest. Self-styled "civil rights" leaders, the local want-to-be Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons, will stir up a great hue and cry; demanding a complete investigation of the police in general, punishment and dismissal for the officers involved. The issue is turned into a racial confrontation; a litmus test for how well the community respects the principles of "racial justice." And yet what really is involved?
Criminals generally victimize those close at hand. Victims of Negro crime are primarily other Negroes. Victims of White crime are primarily other Whites. In tribal areas of Africa, there is very little crime. The high Negro crime rate in the United States is far more reflective of a mistaken response upon the part of local Government, than on any innate racial factor. In this one might say that it represents, in fact, the environmentally controlled phenomenon, which the Left has claimed for education, but never demonstrated. Those Police, being accused of brutality, are in the neighborhoods in question in order to protect the law-abiding from the criminals. When the agitators take the side of the latter against the Police, they are actively engaged in inhibiting the level of law enforcement--the level of protection, available to the law abiding of that neighborhood.
We do not suggest that Police should have carte blanche to use whatever level of force they wish for every level of infraction--not in one neighborhood, not in another. But the pattern that we refer to--and with which almost every reader will be familiar--does not just question Police judgment where there is clear evidence of abuse. Let any Negro youth, running from the Police after committing an offense, or attacking a Policeman, get killed or seriously injured, and the response of the local "civil rights" leader is virtually instant and totally predictable. Yet what is not reported, is that the net effect of that response is to limit the Police presence in the neighborhood; to make those still present far more cautious, so as not to have careers destroyed by ranting demagogues, with no more interest in what really happened, or the real merits of the case, than their ilk have ever had anywhere else, in the pursuit of personal power.
It is obvious that the one thing that this most certainly is not, is about improving the lot of the race. In that neighborhood, being stirred by marches, boycotts, ranting slogans, and all the paraphernalia of racial hatred and proclaimed victimization; there remain quiet, decent people, who simply want to live their lives in peace, to raise their families, go to work, visit with their loved ones; people, who profoundly wish that the Police would crack down on the bums and law-breakers--including those who may be actually rioting under the spur of the agitation in question. A rational movement to advance the interests of the people in that community or neighborhood, would emphasize the rights and interests of these good people--not the rights and interests of the criminal.
The present immigration policy of the United States--so much less inviting to those stocks that contributed the most toward building the dynamic free societies from which we all benefit today, than to other races and ethnicities with little or no involvement in our formative era--reflects another aspect of the denial of positive racial or ethnic consciousness. The absurd reluctance to use ethnic "profiling," even in response to an ethnic based attack upon America and Americans, is a corollary to this mind set. At the same time, the refusal to halt the tidal wave of poor Mestizos, coming over the border from Mexico, poses a direct threat to the jobs of many Negroes, whose ancestors have been here for from two to four centuries. Do frothy White "Liberals," busy attacking the Confederate Battle Flag and the reputation of Strom Thurmond, even care about those employed in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs? If so, when will they show it?
Consider, also, the deteriorating condition of the American family, the geometric explosion in the illegitimacy rate and the more general acceptance of irresponsible conduct and "lifestyles," which has closely paralleled the contrived decline in race and ethnic consciousness. Is there no connection between breaking down a people's patterns of personal identification with past history and achievement, and the deteriorating standards by which they measure their own conduct? Anyone who fully understands the context of human motivations will perceive a connection. We do not suggest that one is the sole causation for the other. But they most certainly are connected.
Another, usually unremarked political abuse, which tends to impact American Negroes more heavily than American Whites, comes under the heading of "Urban Renewal." While the proposals often start with expressions of concern over housing conditions in a poor, "run-down" neighborhood; here--unlike the agitation over the Police--such expressions seldom start with any sort of neighborhood petition or political movement. Far more likely, we see an example of what has come to be known as "Limousine Liberalism," where the neighborhood becomes a project for those outside it--people who have never bothered to really understand very much about the people they claim such concern over. Yet, at the end of the day, it is neither the people of the neighborhood, nor the meddling suburbanites, nor posh apartment dwellers in neighborhoods nearby, who see any benefit at all.
"Urban renewal," was rechristened "Land Piracy" by a well known Conservative periodical in the early '60s, and the term is apt. What generally happens is that public funds are obtained, via a misuse of eminent domain, to clear the "blighted area"; including not only the residences of the poor people being "helped," but also small businesses and manufacturing facilities, which once uprooted, simply cannot afford to relocate in a more expensive neighborhood, and must therefore go out of business. The redevelopers, now subsidized by public money, then step in, and change the entire warp and woof of the neighborhood.
Whether the development is residential, commercial or mixed; the one thing that it is not likely to be, is anything actually geared to benefit the people who were displaced by the process. Yet so long as the developer gives lip service to the concept of "racial equality," he is free to rape the legitimate interests of any racial group involved. Society's watchdogs are too busy making certain that no one expresses a racial preference, to worry about the real interests of anyone. If the developer had a Confederate flag on one of his trucks, of course, that would be different.
Ultimately, it does not really matter whether the Washington establishment of either party reflect merely a Pavlovian conditioning or a total absence of moral responsibility--a willingness to appease and humor intolerance and bigotry served up as enlightenment and love, lest the politicians in question actually have to confront militant theorists, who would put America into a mental strait-jacket. Unlike Russia, after the Revolution, where some of the middle-class actually rose up and tried to fight back; the politicians who supposedly represent us have apparently elected to take an easier course, even as those who represented the middle-class in Germany, at the time Hitler was consolidating his takeover, quietly accepted the new authority. But history does not allow an easy course to those who would humor social revolution.
Since the new dogma solves nothing, it offers no benefit. Since it masks a reality that needs to be faced, it can only breed additional problems. Until we are able to discuss issues which are now unmentionable in the seats of power, we face only a deteriorating social experience that profits no one but demagogues.