In this environment conservatives shuffle their feet nervously, ‘um and ah’ and generally act floundered and flustered while trendy liberals (these days big-L as well as small) dash off with one public relations victory after another. Is it any wonder that young people of recent decades, concerned as they so often are with style and appearance, have tended to flock to the forces of liberal, supposedly "progressive" thought, rather than to more conservative social philosophies? This is a problem for the more conservative parties as they contemplate the problems of wooing the younger voter. Can one imagine young people seriously opposing the republican push, and opting for the "archaic British institution" of the Monarchy, for example?

How did it get this way? A full answer to this question would take us back to the Enlightenment and the days of the French Revolution. Suffice to say that the Right-wing/left-wing dichotomy has been devised by the Left, for the benefit of the Left, and society as a whole has never perceived this. "Right-wingers" are in short, entirely a product of left wing philosophy. Hitler, Thatcher and Bjelke-Petersen were never "right-wing". They were merely people who were not left-wing. The idea that there is some coherent "right-wing" philosophy linking these individuals is an invention of the Left. There is in fact no such thing as a "right-wing" ideology. (This is not entirely the case for truly aberrant ideas like white supremacy for example. Here a political programme to subjugate and/or exterminate ‘inferior races’ constitutes an intellectually based idea of promoting the white race via enslavement or genocide. But the essential point is that the real differences which divide the races are not themsleves simply a product of thought or ideology, unlike ideas such as, for example, ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ and ‘the workers’ paradise’.)

Although we can’t get rid of these terms, we can at least constantly question their meaning. (I continue to use these terms as if they were valid, only for ease of communication.) The Left itself has invented an ideological conflict to suit its own purposes. "Isms" are of the Left not the Right. Capitalism, for example, is not an inculcated philosophy, it is just people doing what people always do - striving to make money. Consider that the Australian Labor Party has clearly defined factions of the Left, right and centre - and seemingly every combination in between. Do the more conservative parties have these sort of factions? No. The reason is the lack of ideological dogma - the politics of pure theory. The "isms" of the Right are of left-wing construction. Again, this is not to deny a Nazi ideology of racial hatred, but the thing it is founded upon - racial difference - is not a product of intellectual theorizing.

The Left generally speaking defines for the Right what it (the Right) has chosen to believe in, ideologically speaking. It does this in order to perpetuate the idea that the fundamental issues of human existence can be understood solely as a conflict of ideas. The result is that all social evils are construed as some kind of false consciousness put into our minds by conservative ideologues. Issues of war, racial and sexual differences and so on are all portrayed as some kind of false belief system we have been brainwashed into accepting. A counter-ideology is devised to combat this false consciousness. This line of thinking of course immediately validates all the consciousness raising efforts of the social activists, and in the process makes everything into a smart versus dumb issue.

This is not to deny that there is a common philosophical outlook (more or less) which links Hitler, Thatcher and Bjelke-Petersen. This could be summarised in the language of God, king and country, and traditional moral and family values. But the point is that none of these things are the product of intellectual theorizing, or some false consciousness inculcated into otherwise decent human beings by evil right-wingers. This framework of social values is just basic to our make-up as human beings and is neither good nor bad in itself. Yet it is the battleground in an ideological war which the Left claims it needs to fight. There is a difference between how we think about things and how we theorise about things, and there is a difference about what role theorizing plays in the way the world works, and how human beings behave.

Social issues are now routinely portrayed as some kind of "debate". After Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech we were informed that there was a race "debate" in progress. We were then told that there was a "multiculturalism" debate going on. In both cases I ask, what exactly is there to "debate"? This is right versus wrong, smart versus dumb, intellectuality gone crazy. The multiculturalism debate is an ideology being foisted upon us. As far as the "race debate" is concerned, racial differences are a fact of life beyond rational analysis. There is nothing to "debate". Different races and groups in society are naturally going to feel alien to one another. This is in itself neither a good nor a bad thing, but for those campaigning against "racism" it is an issue which must be put under intellectual control. Intellectual effort did not create these differences, but they must be made to appear to have this character so that an adversarial ideology can be raised to counter it.

It is said that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Today, we have a situation where "problems" are dreamt up to match the "solution". The solution has already been worked out - it is the personally gratifying, self-serving ideology of political correctness. The problems aren’t important, whether it’s Aborigines, women, homosexuals, you name it. They merely exist to reinforce an ideology of social justice activism. There is a neverending search for victim groups in society to match the ideology. Certain issues are constantly in the public eye because they suit this style of thinking. Homosexuals make up only tiny part of the population and yet their "rights" and their concerns are constantly shoved in our collective face. They practically dominate the deliberations of main-stream churches, even though they are only a minuscule presence in our society [Synopsis of psychiatry / Kaplan& Sadock, 8th ed.(1998) p.682]. When Bill Clinton came to power, almost his first executive act was to push for the acceptance of homosexuals in the military. Was this really one of the more pressing affairs of state facing the U.S. in 1992? I think not. Then there is the environment. It has been observed that the last thing environmentalists actually want is a solution to environmental problems. This would deprive them of an issue to agitate about.

FEMINISM AND RATIONALIZATION

To illustrate the point I am making, consider the issue of feminism. It is apparent that the logical premise of all feminist theory is that men consciously, deliberately and systematically oppress women. After all, no socially aware person is freely going to accept the role of simple biology in matters of sexual politics - notwithstanding that two things which are different cannot possibly be equal! On the other hand, not even a feminist would be stupid enough to argue that evil men conspired together at some point in time and decided to oppress women, thus bringing about woman’s present unequal condition. This notwithstanding that every woman is some man’s wife, sister, mother or daughter. (Do men actually consciously oppress their own mothers? Have not wars been fought in the interests of protecting women and children?) But in fact all feminist activism is premised on precisely this footing. Nothing feminists have been saying over the last thirty or forty years has had any other basis. Think about what they are trying to do. They wish to change the status of women by pursuing a course of rational action. They want to set up government bodies, take political action, seek government funding, engage in social consciousness raising, and all the rest, in order to bring about "social justice" for women. My question is: did such things create women’s inequality in the first place? If not, then how can one justify working through these channels in order right a "wrong" that was never brought about through these means in the first place?

Take ‘gender neutral’ language. Feminists will insist that we use ‘chairperson’ in place of ‘chairman’. Now, where perhaps a truly significant number of women have come into the workforce over the decades, one might argue for gender neutral language. We might replace ‘salesman’ with ‘salesperson’, but the point worth noting here is that we are talking about a rather low status vocation. The popular attitude is that we should accept feminist terminology because it represents basic fairness to all. But this is not what feminism is all about. The object is to push women into higher positions of power in pursuance of totally unrealistic political aims. Feminists, and their allies, refuse to take into account that it is not in nature of women to take on a leadership role in society. Men have never engaged in rhetorical word-games as a device for consciously and deliberately keeping down women. It simply represented the true state of affairs that it was in the nature of men to hold dominant positions in society. The true justice of the traditional terminology is that ‘chairman’ is the appropriate term if 90% of ‘chairpersons’ remain men, despite the best efforts of feminists, since this represents the reality of the situation.

Fundamental contradictions follow on from trying to make the world fit within an ideological framework, one which insists that everything is political. With feminism there is the paradox that affirmative action designed to bring about equality contains within it a built-in assumption of female inferiority. At an ALP conference some years ago the decision was taken to set aside seats for women. Here was the male dominated ALP / Australian political system stooping down and saying: "You poor little women. We know you can’t make it on your own. Here let us help you. We will give you political power." Adding, in barbed tones: "Then everyone will know that women are equal!" The reaction to this among hard-headed ALP feminists who had been around for a while, perceiving the obvious contradiction in all of this, might have been to sit back, quietly applaud, and take whatever advantage the Australian political system was silly enough to bestow upon them. But no. We witnessed the sight of women, jumping up and down, shrieking with glee. We saw old time feminists, hard-bitten veterans of union politics, hugging each other, with tears of joy streaming down their faces. The only possible reaction to this from a normally well-adjusted person would have to be: "Can’t you people see what you are saying?!" If we ever get around to actually making a law which says that 50% of parliamentarians must be women, the political system will simply mutate in such a way as to return real political power to men.

A further paradox lies in the fact that feminists can’t seem to make up their minds about whether they want "equality" - a logical impossibility as it turns out - or do they just want to replace male domination with female domination? Domination may not be as uplifting a goal, but it is at least somewhat more comprehensible. At the end of each year the Left-leaning media delight in revealing that girls have outperformed boys in year 12 school results. No doubt, the fact that the school system is both female and feminist dominated might have something to do with this. My stock, standard response is to mutter under my breath: "Yeah, but that that’s just because girls are smarter than boys! Ho! Ho! Ho!". Provoking this kind of response seems, after all, to be the whole point of the exercise. The reaction is usually that some kind of remedial action should be taken to rectify the situation. For what reason, I ask? To restore male dominance?

If it is just a matter of equality, just what kind of equality are we talking about, given the illogicality of the proposition. There have been cases in recent years of women seeking to enter previously all-male military academies in the US. Having gained entry on terms of equality of the sexes, the women involved demanded that they be given the same training regimen as men. Of course, it soon became apparent that the women could not keep up with the men. A blow for women’s equality? Not at all. The feminists now demanded that the women be given a training programme which suited the special requirements of women. Why? So that there would be equality between the men and the women (?). So equality is a malleable concept that just comes down to a question of let’s do whatever will benefit women regardless of the real justice of the situation - and most of all regardless of any injustice you might be doing to men in the process. If someone wants to set up the ‘Dale Heslin Benevolent Society’ dedicated to advancing the interests and social standing of yours truly because he is a nice guy, I will gladly accept the benefits. But if someone suggests that all this proceeds on the evident fact that Dale Heslin is three times smarter than Einstein and a better footballer than Wayne Carey, then I am going to have a few problems with all of this on intellectual grounds.

Some time ago the ACT Attorney-General appointed two female magistrates to the local court. Given that magistrates have always been men in the past, one assumes that the pool of potential candidates this time was overwhelmingly male, and yet now, curiously enough the two next best candidates just happened to be women! The Attorney-General made an obligatory public statement to the effect that the decision was not made on grounds of gender. Now it was apparent that the good Attorney-General was lying through his teeth! I agonised over this for some time. How could an otherwise intelligent, reasonable human being tell such a blatant untruth and think he could get away with it? I for one would have immediately fired off a strongly worded letter to the editor decrying this example of blatant discrimination against men. It took some time but the penny finally dropped. In World War 2 a person would lie to save a Jewish family from the Nazis. Did it matter then that someone had lied? Does it matter now? Clearly not. This was the key. The cause of women’s equality is so sacrosanct, so manifestly just, that one can think, do, or say practically anything in pursuance of it.

I have been silenced in debate with left-wingers by the sheer audacity of their assertions. I know of one feminist who has seriously argued that women are as physically strong as men! This is good news for women. The incidence of rape should now drop to zero! One assumes that superior male physical strength is merely some false belief which we have all been brainwashed into! Proof that our society has been made crazy with this stuff came at the end of the 2000 Australian rules football season, when well respected Carlton coach David Parkin seriously suggested that women were capable of playing AFL football. If a high profile personality were to come forward and seriously suggest that the earth was flat, they would be calling for the men in the white coats, but Parkin’s surpassingly stupid comment was actually given serious consideration. One feminist letter writer commenting favourably on this idea, casually noted - as if it were simply some kind of received wisdom! - that the gap between male and female physical strength was - in her words - “closing”!?!


‘RACISM’ RHETORIC: A CULT RELIGION FOR THE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS

The continual carping about so-called ‘racism’, and the witch-hunting which goes on to ferret out supposed ‘racists’ and supposedly ‘racist’ attitudes, now amounts to virtually a secular religion for the stylish propagators of politically correct thinking. I grew up the fifties when a ‘racist’ was a person who simply hated people because of their race. Now, if you call for a reduction in Aboriginal welfare spending by 1% you are constructively a ‘racist’. These days one will be branded a ‘racist’ for spitting on the sidewalk. Needless to say, I have met many more bigots for political correctness who will hate your guts for your lack of ‘true social consciousness’ than people who hate you for the colour of your skin. In their religious zeal to combat what they call ‘racism’ our political progressives demonstrate the bizarre consequences of their twisted logic. Consider the propensity for white Europeans to champion the cause of racial minorities and the Third World. Elitist, middle class, white people make a big thing of political activism to improve the lot of coloured people. They were at the forefront of the anti-apartheid effort. My thinking always was ‘why aren’t black people there winning self-determination through their own efforts?'. So they needed the help of white people to prove that the races are equal?! The white people being on top socio-economically with every bauble of material existence are now going to be even further ahead by winning racial ‘equality’ for benighted black people who can’t do it themselves!

When the Australian Parliament passed its fatuous ‘resolution against racism’, in a desperate attempt to neutralize Pauline Hanson, a genocide of millions of people was going on in Rwanda. Why didn’t these parliamentarians pass a ‘resolution against racism’ aimed at countries like Rwanda, Indonesia, Serbia and Zimbabwe until they have solved their own race problems, and maintain a discreet silence about so-called ‘racism’ here? Equally egregious was a Time magazine article [8/6/98] which described a sketch by black comedian Richard Pryor as follows: “Classic routine: Mudbone, an old wino savant[?], talks about how stupid white people are.” The word “stupid” is not in quotation marks. If the same sentiments had been attributed to a white comedian in reference to black people, this person would have been hounded from pillar to post, vilified, and attempts made to destroy this person’s career, if not to destroy this person full-stop, as far as possible. Of course, the story would not even get past the editors because of its obviously ‘racist’ overtones. The hypocrisy is breath-taking!

When a future Prime Minister of this country makes some groveling apology to the Aborigines, the champagne corks will be popping, not in Fitzroy Crossing or Redfern, but in Toorak and Vaucluse. These issues are driven by and for a middle class cultural elite for their own personal edification. They want to be seen to be awfully socially conscious, all for the sake of their own slimy little egos. The red, yellow and black flag which frequently flaps over Canberra City isn't the Aboriginal flag. It is the flag of the cultural elite of this country. The western mind has been shackled by the dictates of PC ideology.

In a march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for so-called Aboriginal Reconciliation it was reported in the media that 100,000 people took part. The number of participants was variously estimated at between 150,000 and 600,000 (!?). There might have been twenty or thirty thousand for all we know, since there were no official head counters. Given that the population of Sydney is almost four million, I would have thought that this march was actually something of a flop. If these people came from all over Australia, as was widely claimed, then this figure becomes an even more paltry number considering that the population of the entire country is some eighteen million! There was immediately talk of a ‘mandate’ for all kinds of way out moves regarding Aborigines (treaties, monetary compensation and the like). Does that mean that if 100,000 people at an AFL Grand Final put up their hands for free beer that’s the way it’s going to be for the rest of the country? In the event, all I saw was a sea of white faces in the home of trendy liberalism in this country! One might have expected Aborigines themselves to be at the forefront of this political demonstration, but they were nowhere to be seen in any of the news reports I encountered. Naturally, white cultural elitists were the real driving force behind all this.

In the 1992 Mabo decision the High Court of Australia gave land rights to Australian Aborigines as a racial group - notwithstanding that acknowledgment of racial identity is supposed to be completely outlawed in any other context! On the surface this proposition seems reasonable enough. After all did not we Europeans simply come in and take the land away from the real owners. Like many “obvious propositions” this one starts to collapse like a pack of cards when subjected to a little rational analysis. For example, just what are we trying to achieve here? Are we trying to return the Aborigines to the exact place they occupied ‘when we evil white people stole the land away from them’? Really? These people were roaming the land, hunting kangaroos and picking fruit off trees. Is that we want to return them to in this world of computers, jumbo jets and Corporate Japan? Is that what the Aborigines themselves want? I seriously doubt it. Are we ‘giving the land back to the Aborigines’ so that they can engage in economic development and commerce, establish farms, mines, businesses? It was Europeans who brought these things to this country. The fact is that Aborigines did nothing with this land during their occupation of it. There is no reason to think they would ever have developed these things left to there own devices. You can’t have it both ways. Are we doing justice to the Aborigines via endless handwringing about their past ’dispossession’, or are we doing all we can to help engage these people with the present? The two propositions are in fundamental contradiction.

It is interesting that the Aborigines are constantly portrayed as having occupied this land for some 40,000 years. The Aborigines were not in fact the ‘first Australians’ as commonly believed. That honour belongs to a group of people called the Negritoes whom the Aborigines displaced [Tindale & Lindsay Aboriginal Australians p.13-33]. We never hear about that in these politically correct days! And we certainly do not hear calls for the Aborigines to say sorry for having dispossessed these (real) ‘first Australians’. As an example of how addled our society has become on the issue of who were the ‘first Australians’, an editorial in the Melbourne Age declared that as ‘original’ inhabitants of this continent, the Aborigines were the nation’s true ‘indigenous people’. Without bothering to consult a dictionary I knew that this was wholly incorrect. Any native born Australian is indigenous to this country. As an example of un-PC thinking however this fact can simply be ignored!

The claim to long term occupation, spurious though it might be, could be seen as ‘damning with faint praise’. What fruits did this long term occupation of the land produce by way of social development. There was not so much as one building on this entire continent when Europeans came here. Europeans had every right to come here and create the country they did. Theoretically, some alien civilization might have every right to come and take over this world if they could utilize it for the benefit of the entire galaxy in a way that we humans could not. There is no way the Aborigines could have created the advanced society Europeans have done over two hundred years. If Europeans had not done so, an Asian people more advanced than the Aborigines would have. This land that we are told was ‘owned’ by the Aborigines, was to put it bluntly, up for grabs due to the inability of the inhabitants to do anything useful with it. This corresponds to the legal doctrine of adverse possession. A situation may occur where a landowner does nothing with a plot of land, and someone else comes onto the land and develops it. If nothing material is done to re-establish your claim to ownership, the land becomes the property of the new resident. That is the real ‘justice’ of this issue. The Aborigines never made any use of this land that Europeans needed to recognize. This is the true meaning of the much maligned and judicially overthrown doctrine of terra nullius which represented the legal basis for European colonization of the continent. It did not signify that the continent was empty of human habitation, as opponents falsely claim, but that there was no civilization or legal system worthy of recognition by the new settlers [Vic Bar News (1994) 89:38ff]. As such, the whole idea that Aboriginal ‘dispossession’ represents some manifest injustice is a myth propagated by social consciousness activists in pursuance, not of justice, but of their self-serving ideology. An ideology whose purpose is to simply give them something to moralize about. Injustices which were inflicted on Aborigines during white settlement do not negate the right Europeans had to come here and establish this great country. Most Aboriginal deaths which followed white settlement were the result of introduced diseases. Where individual white men shot Aborigines and poisoned their water-holes, this was a moral issue for those individuals, not white people in general. When Human Rights Commissioner Ronald Wilson charged Australian society with ‘genocide’ for its past treatment of Aborigines, my reaction was simply to turn off and tune out. I did not have to listen to this abject nonsense. Apart from anything else, this rhetorical overkill debased the memory of racial groups such as Jews, Armenians, Rwandans, Cambodians and the like who have been slaughtered in real instances of genocide. Australia governments and church organizations never sought to systematically wipe out the Aborigines. First the churches, then a succession of Australian governments going back to at least the Menzies era - that period of arch-conservatism! - did much to promote Aboriginal welfare, even if paternalistically. That the Nazis should have been so ‘paternalistic’ towards the Jews!

Talk of official apologies, and the granting of special rights, to Aborigines, makes little sense without a wholesale rejection of the whole basis of European settlement. One proposition logically follows the other. If one accepts European settlement as valid, there is not much point in trying to undo the past, nor singling out a particular racial group for special treatment, be they the so-called ‘original’ inhabitants or otherwise. To be perfectly consistent, those who seek to negate the moral basis of European settlement should themselves just pack their bags and go back to where their forebears came from. This would of course demonstrate just how seriously evil they regard continued European occupation of this land. If we agreed that your grandfather stole my grandfather’s gold watch fifty years ago would it not be appropriate for you to return it to me as part of my patrimony? Of course, most Australians don’t think this way at all about so-called Aboriginal ‘dispossession’, though many purport to. No-one in this country is living their life as if they are part of an ongoing system of oppression. Ordinary Australians do not look out at their backyard at swimming pools, tennis courts and barbecues believing they are living on stolen land, even if they will trot out such predictable rhetoric for the sake of some opinion poll, where they feel this is something they are expected to say. Of course, in truth, neither does the smarmy left-wing establishment which continually pushes Aboriginal social consciousness down our throats. Public opinion in this country is much less favourable to aggressive Aboriginal social activism than the cultural elite would have us believe. In a Morgan Poll of December 1997, a clear majority of Australians rejected an extension of Aboriginal land rights [Bulletin 2/12/97]. Aborigines are not socially deprived because of ongoing injustices perpetrated by white people. This is a rationalized way of portraying things, as it holds out the prospect of alleviating Aboriginal social deprivation through political action. A class of people simply want to think this way and believe it is true, using the Aborigines as a pretext for their social theorizing. Aborigines are deprived because they were an extremely primitive people who ran headlong into western civilization, and that remains the case to this day.

The very ones who push Aboriginal social consciousness are also the greatest proponents of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is all about getting rid of boring Anglo-Saxon culture just as quickly as we can through the mass migration of foreigners, the more foreign to Anglo-Saxon culture the better. Now it was Europeans who created an advanced country which millions of people have felt motivated to migrate to. There is no way an ‘Aboriginal civilization’ would have been as attractive to mass migration as contemporary Australia is.

One might even question just who these ‘Aborigines’ are that the High Court is ‘giving the land back to’. Those pushing the Aboriginal rights line seem to be in the main white, ‘social consciousness’ types, but most of the high profile genuinely Aboriginal activists are plainly part-Aborigines. (If AFL footballer Gavin Wanganeen is an aborigine, I'm a Chinaman!!). Now it seems ridiculous to me that a social justice cause can be premised on how Europeans as a group have mistreated Aborigines as a group when the victims are generally more white than they are black. As such, one questions just what kind of injustice one is presuming to correct, since the supposed victims owe their very existence to white settlement. I think that these people least of all need to be returned to the place Aborigines were in two hundred years ago, with its abysmally low level of human existence.

While on the point of ‘who are the Aborigines?’ one constantly hears reference to a purported “Aboriginality” which white people have been supposedly systematically undermining throughout the history of this country. Use of this term actually gives the game away vis-à-vis ‘Aboriginal social consciousness’. “Aboriginality” is a European concept, reflecting Europe ideas of civilization and national identity. It has been imposed by Eurocentric advocates of social consciousness. There simply was no Aboriginal ‘nation’ here two hundred years ago. Aboriginal identity was based on tribal affiliation. White people in Australia think that the Aboriginal term for “Aborigine” is ‘Koori’. This word applies only to those Aborigines living in the south-eastern portion of Australia and not those living elsewhere. There is no word which expresses the idea of a single Aboriginal identity. The word itself was originally just a generic description for otherwise unnamed natives. The ‘Indians’ of North America would have been known by the same term if Columbus had his geography correct!

With Mabo (I call it ‘Mumbo’ - for the mumbo-jumbo it perpetuates!) the High Court was trying to bring about the kind of far-reaching social change which is really the province of elected politicians. The job of the unelected High Court judges is to render legal judgments which accord with the values of the Australian people, not engage in radical and adventuristic forays into social policy. Legal doctrines do not change the world, people do! They took the path of educating the people in ‘right’ ways of thinking, using the law as a tool in an ideological struggle which they, not the people, believe they need to fight. This ideological struggle is surrounded by the usual social consciousness rhetoric which is meaningless to ordinary people. It amounts to an ideological assault upon our society by those who use words and ideas as weapons in a struggle conducted in the realms of airy-fairy social theorizing, all for the amusement of a cultural elite. One of these judges even defended his position by crassly appealing to the explosive term “accepted community standards” as if this term was so self-evident it needed no elaboration. Just whose idea of “accepted community standards” one dares to ask! If they purport to be speaking on behalf of the public at large, or ‘popular opinion’, then they should do so from a position of being popularly elected to do so.

The social consciousness rhetoric I refer to is no better summed up than in the repeated use of the term ‘Aboriginal reconciliation’. Some time ago Australian Governor-General William Deane declared that we must achieve Aboriginal reconciliation within the next twenty-five years. This was followed up by Aboriginal affairs Minister John Herron announcing that we will achieve Aboriginal reconciliation within “the next five years”. Now I frankly did not have the faintest idea what these men were talking about. I doubt that anyone else did either. Our cultural elitists, who occupy the exalted role of a virtual secularistic priesthood, are never called to account for the language they use. Is Aboriginal reconciliation achieved when every second businessman is an Aborigine, every second parliamentarian? What?? In the tradition of the emperor’s new clothes, our society - brainwashed out of its collective skull - does not even bother to question the use of these terms.

CONTINUE