|
and
"Is America Neglecting two papers from the forthcoming book:
Supported by The Richardson Foundation Greensboro, N.C.
Editor
Publisher
Arnold Toynbee was to the writing of history what Georges Simenon has been to the detective novel: a self-assured and prolific master of his calling, held in awe by colleagues and elevated to a pedestal by readers. Immensely learned and steeped in the lore of classical cultures, Mr. Toynbee took as his province the entirety of human civilization. It was a bold (and, for some, presumptuous) undertaking. Yet the product, A Study of History in 12 volumes and three and a half million words, written over 40 years, unshakably established Mr. Toynbee as a premier historian of his age. His writing style was often opaque, to be sure: and his earnest conviction that spiritual forces dominated human affairs drew for him some criticism from many modernist historians. But he had a breadth of historical vision, and the ability to get it down on paper, that made him unique. Mr. Toynbee's most lasting contribution to history may have been that he was one who dared to interpret, rather than merely narrate, past events. He compared, analyzed, evaluated and sought patterns of civilizations' rise and fall. He was able to synthesize the human record on a grand scale, and in so doing gave our modern age a bright, high lookout point from which to examine its past - and its chances for the future.
In 1968 1 was busy writing to many political leaders and educational organizations, seeking reasons why more was not being done for our gifted children. I had written to John Gardner, then Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in Washington, whom I knew to be very interested in the gifted. The letter was answered by a Mr. Bailey whose title was Director of Correspondence and Communications. This man sent me two pieces of information he thought would assist me in my work. One of them was the Birch Study, which highlighted the reasons why early entrance age was beneficial for the gifted. The other was this Toynbee pamphlet. I was excited and very impressed with what Toynbee had to say regarding the tragic consequences of the neglect of gifted children. He writes of the loss to the children and to the nation. I have made hundreds of copies of this pamphlet, and sent it out with our packet through the years whenever requests came in to the Foundation. Once, in 1981, I received a very angry letter from a parent who was outraged by what she had read in the Toynbee pamphlet. She made comments on how bigoted Toynbee was: she saw some religious and political comments he made as false and damaging. She also said she was sorry she had donated to our Foundation. I returned her donation, and I read the pamphlet over and over, seeing only historical background instead of religious bigotry. I have never received any other such reaction from this work. Recently I was studying books by Joseph Campbell. When I read a footnote on p.20 of his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, I recalled the letter from the outraged reader of the Toynbee pamphlet, and saw her meaning in a clearer view. Here is the passage from Campbell: The hero has died as a modern man; but as eternal man--perfected, unspecified, universal man--he has been reborn. His second solemn task and deed therefore (as Toynbee declares and as all the mythologies of mankind indicate) is to return then to transfigured, and teach the lesson he has learned of life renewed.* *It must be noted against professor Toynbee, however, that he seriously misrepresents the mythological scene when he advertises Christianity as the only religion teaching this second task. ALL religions teach it, as do all mythologies and folk traditions everywhere. Professor Toynbee arrives at his misconstruction by way of a trite and incorrect interpretation of the Oriental ideas of Nirvana, Buddha, and Bodhisattva; then contrasting these ideals, as he misrepresents them, with a very sophisticated rereading of the Christian idea of the City of God. This is what leads him to the error of supposing that the salvation of the present world-situation might lie in a return to the arms of the Roman Catholic church. Now that I came across this idea written by Campbell, I am eager to include it with the Toynbee pamphlet.
Marie Friedel, 1989 Since 1955 the University of Utah has held seven National Creativity Research Conferences devoted to basic investigations in various fields of creativity. In order to transmit to potential users what has become known through this research, five annual creativity workshops have been held at the University, starting in 1963. Well known speakers have been the daily guest lecturers and attendees have come from all over the nation and from many parts of the world. This summer our first main speaker was Arnold Toynbee, the eminent historian from England. Because of the urgency and importance of his messages, his speech is being reproduced here along with his other paper on creativity that we were privileged to publish earlier. Toynbee points out in his first paper, "On the Role of Creativity in History," that creative talent is the talent which, when functioning effectively, can make history in any area of human endeavor. In his second paper he raises the question "Is America Neglecting Her Creative Talents" (and thus her future history). In it he mentions that creativity is mankind's ultimate capital asset - a matter of life and death for any society. He concludes that if America is to fulfill her manifest destiny, she must treasure and foster all the creative potential that she has within her. The Richardson Foundation, Greensboro, North Carolina, provided partial support for the publication of this pamphlet. The second Toynbee article - "Is America Neglecting Her Creative Talents?" - is reprinted with permission of the author and the Editorial Projects for Education (Corbin Gwaltney, editor). The article also appeared in Widening Horizons in Creativity (Calvin W. Taylor, editor, John Wiley and Sons, 1964), the third book. emerging from the seven National Creativity Research Conferences. Early in 1968 the University of Utah Press plans to publish, in both paperback and hardback, Creativity Across Education, a collection of selected papers from the five annual Utah Creativity Workshops, including these two Toynbee papers. Other chapter titles from the forthcoming book are presented inside the back cover of this pamphlet. Preparation of the manuscript for this book was made possible through financial support from The Richardson Foundation.
CALVIN W. TAYI.OR
What I am going to say does follow logically after the commencement address I had the honor of giving here last Friday. In the closing words of my commencement address I said that our human power of choice opens the way, through repentance and reform, to creativity. A creature which is endowed with the power to be also the creator is free at any time to save the situation by creating new techniques, new institutions, new ideas, new ideals, new attitudes of mind, and above it all new states of feeling. New techniques are morally neutral. They can be used, at will, either for good or for evil. The field in which saving new acts of creation are indispensable and urgent, and in which they may be fruitful, is the spiritual field. Here lies our common task; and here lies our common hope. I concluded by saying that creativity is my last word in my commencement address and it is a good word to end on, It is auspicious. It is therefore also a good word with which to begin a new debate which is what we are going to do, all together, here this morning. Let me continue with the subject on which I have previously written an article, "Is America neglecting her creative talents?" (Toynbee, 1964). In a. way it is an impertinence for a foreigner to discuss that question. However, it may be a help because the foreigner looks from outside and therefore gets a different view than from inside. One needs both views, the outside observer's view and one's own, in order to size up one's own position to try to chart the direction in which one wants to go. Let us start by asking the fundamental question: "What is creativity?" I would say that in life on this planet, creativity is characteristically and uniquely a human faculty, because we don't know what lies behind life or behind the universe, or how we came to be here, or how we attained our human faculties. But as far as we know, creativity is to be found in human beings alone among all species of living creatures on this planet. I think this faculty couldn't exist in human beings apart from two other characteristics which I think are also uniquely human among creatures on this planet. The first characteristic is our consciousness and our will. These are the faculties which give human beings the power of making 2 choices and making decisions. The second characteristic is education. I am using the word education in the broadest sense, the handing on of a way of life from each successive generation to its successor. All living creatures, of course, hand things on from generation to generation, but there are different ways of doing this. Most living creatures transmit on their ways of life through the physical process of procreation, They hand on built-in instincts which are stereotyped like the physical, structure of a living organism. I am thinking of our fellow social beings on this planet, the social insects -- ants, bees, termites, creatures like this. They have a most elaborate social structure, but it isn't passed on by education. Apparently it is handed on physically by the transmission of instincts and physical or organic forms. But with us human beings, instincts (if we have instincts) are a very minor way of transmission compared to what we call education. By that I mean, the training and teaching which is done spontaneously and like the transmission of our mother tongue. We don't consciously teach the child and the child doesn't consciously learn it, but rather he just picks it up by hearing people around him talking. Then there is the deliberate and systematic, form of education, such as the transmission of a literary language where we have to learn the correct language, the correct grammar, and correct vocabulary as a matter of convention; or learning the creed of a religion or the ideology of some political kind of religion. I think creativity is a recognition by insight that the current social and cultural heritage needs modifying in order to enable it to "produce a wheel" in a new situation which hadn't existed and hadn't been foreseen at the time when the current phase of the social heritage had taken shape. Secondly, I think creativity means an impulse to use the freedom of choice that any human being possesses for rejecting, partially or totally, the established order of the day, for proposing changes in the old order to meet the new situations, and for urging contemporary areas to adopt these changes that the innovator is advocating. If the innovator fails to change his contemporaries, he may be ever so creative but his potential creativity will not have taken effect because he has to move the fellow members of his community to go with him. So there is always an encounter, of a rather hazardous kind, between a creative personality and the establishment, using the "establishment" in the semi- caricature use of the word that became current in 3 my country after the war. The establishment, historically in Britain, means the established religion, the Episcopalian Protestant Church, the official state church. We have come to use "the establishment" in a more general sense, as a kind of joke meaning all people in power who collectively in their kind of conscious or unconscious conspiracy try to keep things as they are - and who are - therefore mighty hard to deal with. The establishment is, first of all, in power; and secondly, it is in power because it upholds the established order, and the majority always takes the established order for granted; and thirdly, it has a vested interest in the established order because the establishment's power depends on the preservation of the existing order. "So the first step in any creative personality or creative minority's career is almost inevitably to challenge the establishment by partially or even totally repudiating the established order. For instance, the creative personality begins, I think, by sensing weaknesses or flaws in the establishment, becoming disenchanted with it either on or because of these points, and even going as far as "dropping out" to use your colloquial current-day phrase in this country - dropping out sometimes traumatically from the, establishment and from the established way of life.* I'm going to illustrate this with some of the human beings who have had the greatest share in influencing the minds, feelings, and actions of hundreds and hundreds of millions of human beings for centuries and centuries after their deaths. I will begin with Jesus. We are so accustomed to the language of the New Testament that often it slides over our minds and we fail to realize what a revolutionary book it is - revolutionary morally, but also revolutionary politically, too. Here was a man who was claimed by his followers as the Messiah of the Jewish people and be believed in non-violence. The Messiah was traditionally expected to be a soldier or warrior who by force of arm would put the Jews, in place of the Romans, as the leading power in the world. Using the colloquial term without irreverence, but with sincerity, I would say that Jesus dropped out, first of all, of the religious consensus of the representatives of the Jewish religion of his day; and secondly, out Editor's Comments: After one or more hazardous encounters with the establishment the creative person may drop out, at least temporarily, to "lick his wounds," after which he may return with enough strength for another encounter which he will initiate either from within or from outside the establishment. In his A Study of History, Dr. Toynbee calls this process "Withdrawal and Return."
4
of his family. As you probably know, the tenets of the Jewish religion were and are established like the tenets of the Moslem religion by a kind of informal consensus of the doctors of the law of the authorities. You read in the gospels that "the people were astonished at his teachings: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Anyone who has been in the government service knows that before you can do any action you have to consult almost a hundred or even it seems like a thousand other people to make sure that you are correct. What the multitudes were astonished at was that instead of consulting all the leading' rabbis of his time older than himself before he promulgated his doctrine, Jesus just announced it. This I think is the root cause of his clash with the Pharisees who represented the established way of interpreting the law by consensus. Then there is that short passage in Matthew that might be written about some young person in this country at this moment:
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt. 12:46-50)
In other words, his family were trying to draw him back from his revolutionary way in which he was preaching the word of God, but he was repudiating the family authority.
Secondly, we come to the human being who, in my opinion, is by far the greatest westerner who has so far been involved in our western world. I am talking of St. Francis of Assisi. He is head and shoulders above any other of the many great men whom our western world has produced. St. Francis dropped out, first of all, of the affluent way of life, of the new western middle-class that had begun to make money in business, a middle class which started in the 12th Century in northern and central Italy and has now spread all over the Western world - the characteristic class of our western world today,. But in St. Francis's time it was a new class. St. Francis's father was in the textile business and made his money in marketing Italian textiles in France. This is why St. Francis was called Francis. His father made his money in France and because he was grateful to
5
the French, he called his son Francis. St. Francis repudiated his father's way of life and business and embraced poverty. Because of this, his father disinherited him.
Let me come to a third man, St. Benedict, the founder of western monasticism. All of the other monastic orders of the western world stemmed from St. Benedict. He dropped out, first of all, from the traditional system of higher education. Living in the sixth century, he still had a fairly solid education which had been built up in the course of ages from the Greek and Roman world. He dropped out of that half-way through and also dropped out of his family and became a hermit.
Then we come to The Buddha. There are more people who are Buddhists, or Buddhists combined with something else, than there are Jews, Christians, and Moslems combined. The Buddha dropped out with a vengeance. First of all, he dropped out of the inheritance of a throne. We have seen in recent times from some of the surviving monarchies in Europe, members of the royal families who have deliberately repudiated their very burdensome heritage of being royal. Buddha dropped out of family life - he deserted his wife and child one night. He dropped out of the material easiness of civilized life, became a hermit living in a forest, and, afterward, when he dropped the positive values of work, he became a homeless mendicant.
Finally, perhaps one of the greatest of our own contemporaries, is Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma means "great soul" and that is what he was. He dropped out first of all from the Hindu caste system, as The Buddha had done. This is a pretty hard thing to do because the caste system is, an establishment, indeed. Then he dropped out of a career as a member of the westernized non-western intelligentsia of the world. Mr. Gandhi was educated as a lawyer and he had his education in the "inns of court" in London and he studied common law. That is how he started, but that wasn't how he ended. If he had gone on with that, he would have made a great, deal of money, because be was really a good man. He would have been a successful practitioner of the common law.
Then Gandhi dropped out of the traditional way (as used by the Americans in your revolution) of taking up arms, to liberate one's self from the foreign rule. Gandhi's specific strategy of nonviolent non-cooperation with the British regime in India was a new creation in the field of politics. It proved to be an effective way of bringing
6
about a major political change without bloodshed and above all, without arousing hatred on either side. The fact that Gandhi did this just before 1945, the beginning of the atomic age, is immensely important because, in the atomic age, the Gandhian way is the only way of making important political changes - and we always are having to make important changes in public affairs - without destroying the whole human race by atomic war.
Let me come to my next point. I said that the creative personality begins by an act of revolt or repudiation, but if this potentially creative personality doesn't go beyond this negative first stage his potential creativity won't bear fruit. So while I think that a potentially creative movement is inevitably negative in its first stage, members of the establishment ought to suspend judgment and meanwhile ought to be patient and tolerant.
Let us come back again to the New Testament to the Acts of the Apostles. Remember how the apostles were hauled up before the Sanhedrin, the chief ecclesiastical council of the Jewish people in Palestine. They were debating what they should do to the apostles whether they should quash them. One of the two leading, distinguished doctors of the law, Gamaliel, as reported in the Acts of the Apostles said to his fellow members of the Sanhedrin Council, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God," (Acts 5: 38-39) The chief representatives of the religious establishment of the day, his fellow members of the Sanhedrin Council, listened to him, fortunately.
This brings up another point. The success of a creative person or minority does partly depend on the attitude of the establishment. It is all important that some important members of the establishment should have the charity, open-mindedness, imagination, tolerance, patience, and love to recognize that there may be something in this disturbing force that has broken into their hard-set world. Let me come back to the case of St. Francis. In the city-state of Assisi in St. Francis's time, the bishop was not just an ecclesiastical officer. He had many functions which are now part of the duties of the civil authorities. When St. Francis's. father wanted to disinherit him, he had to bring the case before the bishop. Let us imagine that the richest and most powerful business man in this city were to try to disinherit his son in the presence of the President of the University,
7
or of one of the ecclesiastical dignitaries, and, instead of taking the father's view of the matter, this dignitary, this authority, takes the rebel son's view. This is an act of great courage, as you can imagine, and yet the bishop took St. Francis's view.
When St. Francis replied to his father by taking off his very rich and expensive clothes and throwing them in his father's face and standing naked, the bishop gave a shudder under his cloak and gave him a cloak to cover his nakedness. Later, after having gathered together a band of disciples, St. Francis went to the Pope, an act on the positive side, to ask the Pope for permission to found a new society dedicated to poverty. Pope Innocent III had rather the same problem that the present Pope Paul has: "How far shall I open the safety valve to this new stir in the Catholic Church?" He decided to open it. And fortunately, too, in one of the Cardinals of the day - in Cardinal Ugolino, who later became Pope Gregory IX - St. Francis found an understanding patron in the higher circles of the Vatican. This is very important, this reconciliation between the establishment and the new creative leader.
Similarly dramatic was the reconciliation of The Buddha and his father. His father was king and The Buddha was his heir to the throne. You can imagine the shock when The Buddha not only, ran away, but repudiated his throne, wealth, power, his family and all the case of life. This eventual climax came when The Buddha returned to the capital city of the state in which he was the heir apparent as a mendicant monk carrying a begging bowl. His father, King Suddhodana, came out into the streets and prayed him not to do this in their own capital city. The Buddha replied by asking his father to carry the begging bowl for him. At that moment his father underwent a kind of sudden change of heart and was reconciled to what his son had done. Of course, it was in conflict with and upset all his plans for the future of his state. That was a remarkable act.
I won't venture to compare the British reaction to Gandhi with what the Buddha's father did, or with what Pope Innocent III or Cardinal Ugolino did vis-a vis St. Francis. As a matter of fact, the British did put Gandhi in prison from time to time. We did realize, and retrospectively we have realized more than ever, that he was in fact even more a benefactor to us than he was to his own Indian fellow countrymen. He give us a golden bridge by which we could abdicate from the very unnatural position of ruling a huge foreign country of people by force of arms, and abdicate without bloodshed,
8
without dishonor, without hatred on either side. So we in Britain are deeply grateful to Gandhi today. We leave responded in this sense to Gandhi's entirely new and very successful strategy of making it impossible for the British to go on ruling India any longer.
So this positive attitude of members of the establishment toward a potential creative individual or minority, in its initial negative stage, is rare, I think, because it requires not only tolerance and discernment but also great moral courage on the part of the members of the establishment who take this line. More often the establishment doesn't show this forbearance.
The potentially creative personality or minority group becomes actually creative if and when it makes its mission to redeem the established order which it has repudiated, redeem it by transfiguring it, using the word transfiguration as it is used in the gospels. All of the five potentially creative personalities whom I have cited did do just that. If and when a potentially creative personality does work out a new way of life and does win converts and followers, the establishment's usual reaction is to take alarm and to make martyrs. In doing this the establishment is likely to defeat its own purposes. The crucifixion of Jesus gave Christianity the spiritual power to convert the whole of the Greek and Roman world in the end. Less tragically, the British government defeated its own purposes when it put Gandhi and his followers in prison, because it only encouraged the Indians to flock to support the Gandhian movement to put an end to British rule.
Then I come to the home question: Does the United States today contain within its population a potential creative minority? Yes, of course. As far as we know there is a spark of potential creativity in every human being. The centuries of personalities with their unusually large endowment of creativity are likely, I suppose, to be more or less the same in every fraction of the human race, at all times and at all places. The question is whether or not this most likely potential creative minority, which I believe is ubiquitous and perennial, will become an actual one. The answer to this question depends on certain conditions. It depends, first, on whether or not the potential creative minority itself passes on from a negative first phase to a positive second phase; then it further depends on whether or not the establishment succeeds in frustrating and repressing the creative minority, which at either stage is a dissenting minority, and therefore looks to the establishment like a kind of rogue elephant or ugly duck-
9
ling. However, if the creative minority does move on into positive action, it will tend to look formidable to the establishment, instead of merely appearing negligible and ridiculous.
Does America need a creative minority today? Well, every community always needs one it all times. I would say that, looking at America is a foreigner - but only a half-foreigner coming from one of the other English speaking countries America does need a creative minority today, particularly because of a recent change, first, in the relation of the United States to the rest of the world, and, second, in the American people's own way of life at home. Let us deal with each of these two points.
Till the close of the nineteenth century, Americans were preoccupied with the enterprise of opening up and mastering a virgin continent and with making the vast, potential natural resources of this continent bear fruit. Then Americans were dealing mainly with non-human nature, not with their fellow human beings. The Indians were so unequal in power and in civilization to the newcomers from Europe that the American pioneers treated the Indians, unhappily, as part of the natural resources - as part of the local, fauna - rather than as fellow human beings. In the twentieth century, first the American business corporations and then the United States government with its armed forces have moved out beyond the borders of the United States over the rest of the face of the globe. In this new chapter of American history, the Americans are having to deal, mainly, no longer with non-human nature - things like the oil fields that are now being cut off from you in the Arab countries - but mainly with their fellow human beings, and these can't be treated with impunity as natives who are just part of the fauna. So there has been a sudden change in the character of the problems with which Americans have to cope. This change of circumstances requires, I should think, a change of feeling, a change of attitudes of mind, a change of ways of behaving, and this change certainly requires creative action.
One or two generations ago, the great majority of Americans were still small-scale farmers, storekeepers, and members of the liberal professions - lawyers, doctors, teachers - as is true of all western countries. The majority has now become affluent, mainly by industry and trade carried on at an ever larger scale by an ever more high powered technology. This revolutionary change in a way of life has been achieved by the blue-collared class as well as by the white-
10
collared class. Yet most of us, when we count our generations back one two, three, or four generations, find that we come from a farming family, whether we come from a western European country or from the United States.
Now, are the American people coping successfully with these two great changes in American life? I think probably not, and if not, this is not surprising because the changes have been very sudden and very great. I think the first indication of ill success is the increasing trouble into which the United States is running in its relations with the rest of the world. I am sure you must all be acutely aware of the tremendously rapid rise of hostility toward the United States all over the non-western world and also in the Latin American part of the western world. And remember that Asia, Latin America, and Africa between them contain by far the largest part of the human race as compared to North America and western Europe.
The second indication of ill success, and probably still more disconcerting to you, is the increasing repudiation of the so-called American way of life, which is a very recently acquired middle class way of life, by the rising generation inside the United States itself. The dropouts in the rising generation of affluent American families are still in the inevitable first negative state, the stage of repudiation. As in all sections of American life, no doubt there is among them a potential creative minority, but we can't tell yet whether they will become an actual creative minority.
Lastly, we come to the obstacles of the present day attitudes of the American establishment. As I see these obstacles in the history of the United States which always impress west Europeans you imagine yourselves to be much more unconventional and nonconforming than we west Europeans are. Actually, we see you as the other way around - which may be surprising to you. I think there is a tradition of conformity in America for several reasons.
First, the American people had to win its independence by waging successful war instead of obtaining independence peacefully, as your neighbor Canada obtained it and as, India obtained it in later ages, largely because Britain had learned a lesson from the thirteen colonies and didn't forget it. In a war of independence, the opposing parties within the country fighting for its independence can't be functioning in the easy-going relation of His Majesty's government on the one hand, and His Majesty's loyal opposition on the other hand. They can only be patriots on one hand and traitors
11)
on the other. In this situation, nonconformity -- 'Toryisim in terms of the Revolutionary War - is high treason. It was black or white, right or wrong, no compromise, no middle course, and no possibility of' reconciliation. That is an unfortunate start in the political life of a country, which was largely my country's fault, to have made you start a new nation in that way.
Then, too, though the American tradition of free enterprise is incompatible with egalitarianism in economic life, there has been a tendency towards egalitarianism in intellectual life ever since, perhaps, Andrew Jackson's generation, The founding fathers were not egalitarian intellectually; they were aristocratic minded, as we know. But there was a big change in Andrew Jackson's time. Since then, I think the egghead has been on the whole unpopular. He arouses uneasiness and distrust, above all when he takes part in politics. Professers today who are expressing political opinions, which they have every right to do as citizens, are rather unpopular, as I gather, with the majority of people in this country. This is illustrated by Mr.Adlai Stevenson's experience. If he had been less intellectual, he would have had a better chance of becoming President of the United States.
Another sign of conformity is the necessity of assimilating the millions of immigrants who came in during the century ending in 1914; a premium was put on the deliberate conditioning of these immigrants. You had to condition them in order to keep your national homogeneity. The key instrument of assimilation was the public school. Here the children of the immigrants mingled with American-born children and were indoctrinated with loyalty to their new country, the United States, and with attachments to the American way of life, whatever it happened to be at that time. But in conditioning the immigrant's children, Americans inevitably also indoctrinated the immigrant's children's school fellows coming from families which had been American citizens for generations. This nationwide schooling in conformity has, I believe, militated against the American ideal of individualism, because individualism implies that it is a virtue to be independent minded and that it is not a vice to take an unpopular line.
Then, last of all, there is the phobia of communism which hits a west European in the face when he comes to this country. I think that you would agree that there is a phobia, an unnaturally strong, hysterical fear and hatred of communism today among Americans of
|
