years, so there is no reason to expectnone at any time in the near future. AsnMoss shows through case studies, isolatedngroups of urban guerrillas are ineffectivenwith regard to achieving their goals andnsometimes have the effect of achievingncontrary ends as counterrevolutionarynmeasures are taken. He also points outnthat the general acceptance of the existingnsystems in the West defeats radicalnchange. As he explains:nA successfiil insurrection is impossiblenwithout considerable popularnsupport, or at the least public neutrality.nThe strength of western societiesnin the face of political violence is preciselynthat most people regard the systemnas legitimate and that those whonfeel dififerently are in a small minority,nand normally an isolated minority. Itnis when governments fail to solvenmajor national problems that the legitimacyngap begins to widen. It is innthis sense that urban guerrillas couldnact as a political catalyst in westernnsocieties as well as in the third world.nThe possibility exists here.nMoss oudines three causes of politicalnviolence. One is “the sense of relativendeprivation.” In the not-so-distant past,nriots broke out in Newark, Detroit, andnother cities because some of the peoplenwere dissatisfied with their lots. Anotherncause is “the appeal of violence.” Mossnpoints out that bourgeois intellectualsnare often found leading revolts. Therenare various reasons why this is so, includingnthe simple fact that an educated personnhas had “the chance to form a generalnview of society and elaborate a strategynfor insurrection.” Violence becomesnchic: witness the photos of the Weathermennwith automatic rifles and bandoliers.nFinally, there is what he calls “the legitimacyngap.” As stated in the previouslynquoted passage on the subject, this thirdnfactor would seem to be the least unlikelynto have a serious effect in the U.S.nHowever, Moss observes:nThe Nazis showed how terrorism cannbe used to erode the foundations of andemocratic state. A sustained campaignnIOHHHM^HII^nChronicles of Culturenof political violence has a corrodingneffect on any society. The governmentneventually comes under attack for failingnto keep order in the streets; parliamentnis increasingly by-passed as anmere ‘talking-shop’; force displacesnreasoned debate and confrontationntakes the place of consensus.nIt is hard to be smug in the &ce of history.n/ he Spike shows that disinformationnisn’t promulgated by a few editors andnreporters here and there, but that it isnthe result oi a. systematic effort. As ClairenSterling and others have shown, there isnan international terror network. It isnanother of the hydra’s heads. Just becausenthat head doesn’t seem to be leering atnthe U.S. at the present moment is no reasonnto assume that the country is safe. Itnshould never be forgotten that America,nsince the time of Lenin, has been thennumber-one target, the primary objective.nMoss and de Borchgrave donnot overlook the obvious; in Monimbonthey simply extrapolate from currentnevents. What they envision is not anpleasant view.nMoss makes two assertions in TTx Warnfor the Cities that must be borne in mind.nFirst, that although radical students andnextremist groups (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan)nsupport political violence, “the realndanger lies in the grievances of the ethnicnminorities.’ Second, that althou^ “Americanncities are vulnerable to political sab-nIn the forthconiing issue oi Chronicles of Culture:nWhat Are Words For?n’• llic histon ()( l-iiropcan and Amtriaui literature is markednh writers wlio have seen tlic reshaping ot tlic worki in tcmisnut a peculiar social or political vision ;LS their calling ….nShelley. Ruskin, Jack London. I’pton .Sinclair, ;incl. currentK.nNorman Mailer have been afflicted w ith delusions of them-n.selves a.s messiahs who will bring the gospel to the unennlightened, cure society oiits nian e ils. and restore .somenkind of sociopolitical Ixlen among the salanic mills ot thenmodern worlduAll too often, these people . . . mist,ike theirnintellectual ,st|uirmingand caudal ihrations for the stirringsnot art …. W riters who u.se their names and reputations tonprosc’Kte tor question;ible causes really achiee notliing morenth;ui sclf-athertising. IVrccptie rc-aders :ire ;il\as suspiciousnthat such writers are less concerned about the poor, thenoppressed, and the unfbrtuniite th;m about press clippings,nexpense-account living on the college Iccture-and-readingncircuit. ;ind adulation by tlie media, tlie academics. ;uid sophonmore humanities majors. Alter all. it is ‘er possible thesendays to make a comfortable li ing hv being a professionalnconscience.”n—from “Writing Poetry & Striking Poses”nby Robert C. SteensmanOpinions & View.s—Commendables—In FocusnPerceptibles—^Waste of MoneynTlie American Proscenium—Screen—ArtnMusic—Journalism—Liberal Culturennn