man to be achieved through equating every possible wickednessnand derangement with the common-sensical desire for normalcynand order. The result of their domination of culture is thatnvice and sin are among us to a degree unknown to previousngenerations. Many of them now have second thoughts, butnthey will still crucify anyone who would say that evil andndecency cannot have an equal footing in a society that wants tonsurvive and remain free. Common sense warns us that theirnthinking is deficient and leads to a disaster which may destroynus all, the cultists included.nI . n other fields of intellectual endeavors, the cult ofndeficient thinking rages with no less impunity. Howevernmonstrous and detailed the contrary evidence, the anti-nAmerican scholars, trained and paid by American universities,nwill incessantly come up with books proving that America isnto be blamed for the Cold War. Some concede that the guilt isnon both sides. Rash is the academic who would dare to admitnthat it is Russia, and Russia alone, who initiated it, wanted itnand needed it for mostly domestic reasons, although that proofncan be found in every primer for the use of Soviet children,nand the written testimony of non-liberal scholars whosenliterature on the subject could encircle the globe.nThe anti-CIA paranoia, the paradigm of deficient thinking,nperformed and practiced by the foremost and best respectednpress organs in the country, turns on occasion into a parody ofnthe primary rules of reasoning. Some cultists of deficientnthinking, highly-rated as beacons of liberal conscience, publiclyndemand that law enforcement and intelligence agencies keepnwatching only people guilty of misdeeds and betrayals. Hownthose agencies can know without surveillance who’s guilty ofnnasty things and who’s not, the cultists do not explain. Now,neven a village fool knows that to detect hidden wrongdoingnone must sniff it out. A spy is a spy because he tells nobodynwho he is—this simple truth has been confirmed by bothnsemantics and experience, other comportment would indicatenanother profession. Intentional murderers are not ostentatious,nbecause an openness could interfere with their intentions.nHowever, the cultists do not notice that in Russia for anyncitizen to be bugged means an impending trip to a gulagnregardless of what was discovered by the procedure. While innAmerica, Ms. Bella Abzug, once justly bugged because hernardors for Stalin kept proper authorities in suspense as to whatnshe was really doing, has made a political career out of beingnbugged, rising to membership in Congress.nNow—here is a difference. The cultists of deficient thinkingnmay not notice it, and this is why their mental processes seemndefective. But common sense tells us that something in thisnsituation is hopelessly twisted and falsified. After all, we havendeveloped enough through centuries of civilization, culturenand literature to perceive that Abel might have avoided deathnif he had had foreknowledge of Cain’s designs. And that Abel’snmove to obtain such advance recognition by any means at hisndisposal would have appeared moral, proper and wise in theneyes of both God and man, for he was good and his heartnwas pure.nX o review books in America one of the following isnpresumed to suffice:n1) the good will of an editor who commissions andnpublishes reviews;n2) a degree in English and/or an academic position (bothnuseful but not necessary);n3) literary expertise.nThe first is a matter of metaphysics, as the benevolence ofnothers is an enigmatic factor of existence. The second isnmeaningless for this objective. The third one is automaticallynacquired by being published, regardless of one’s talent, knowledge,neducation and intelligence. The mere fact that one’snname is printed under a review gives one an aura of an expertnon literary matters. And as the magic of a by-line depends onnthe whim of an editor, we are back to square one and can safelynpresume that book reviewing in America is determined merelynby journalistic//atnHowever, we believe that, if someone wants to review books,nhe or she should be asked:n1) whether or not he/she realizes that passing judgmentsnon books involves both moral and intellectualnresponsibility;n2) whether or not he/she defends any values groundednin moral and civic criteria, as only the readiness tondefend values qualifies someone who writes about booksnas a critic;n3) whether or not he/she realizes that reviewing booksnmeans shaping opinion and, therefore, to exercise itnhonestly, one must perform it with a sense of publicnservice.nWe, at the Chronicles of Culture, think that a review, innorder to serve culture, has to meet intellectual, moral andncivic criteria. Failing those standards, both its social role andncultural worth, look pitiable.n—Leopold Tyrmandn* If you are not yet a member or supporter of the Rockford College Institute, and would like tonbecome one:nThe Rockford College Instituten* If you would like to learn more about it: Rockford CollegenRockford, Illinois 61101nplease contact: Telephone: 815/226-4016nnnChronicles of Culturen