Yesterday NPR featured Gretchen Carlson. She said nothing except that she had fear. But what was she afraid of? What happened?
According to the EEOC, "Sexual Harrasment" could be as little as somebody asking her for a date, saying a "dirty" word, or making a disparaging comment about women in general several times.
Wikipedia says more. Gretchen Carlson alleged that she was fired for refusing sexual advances from Roger Ailes. And for that, she got a $20 million settlement.
People can be fired for just about anything. Most people live in fear of that all the time. How do we know that she wasn't going to be fired anyway, but Ailes thought if she could do this, she'd be worth keeping. That seems most likely to be the case--if she was a super duper money maker for FOX, Ailes wouldn't dare to upset her.
If Roger Ailes wants to hire, promote, or retain staffers who provide him sex, what's wrong with that? He probably needed it, wasn't getting it any other way, and I see no problem with letting him buy it--if he can pay enough to get someone to do it voluntarily--and likely that was happening some of the time--so there must have been some willing to do it for the high incomes that TV personalities make, just not Carlson.
IMO, laws prohibiting sex for hire are oppression. And they permit people who have been going along with the program for awhile (like O'Reilly's sidekick who stayed with his show more than a decade) to turn around later and litigate for millions.
And laws like the ones against Sexual Harrasment are an even worse form of oppression. Now on top of every other possible reason for being fired, we could be fired for asking for dates or saying dirty words, and face criminal charges too.
Sexual Harassment became a crime in 1970 under our former czar J Edgar Hoover--a closeted gay prude psychopath who ran the country for decades and couldn't care less if heterosexuals were able to get dates. Defined so broadly, it could be selectively applied to anyone Hoover wanted to destroy. Say, perhaps, if they were going to make leftist movies or weren't following the demanded Imperialist/Zionist script on TV.
Meanwhile, companies fearing big lawsuits may well institute zero tolerance bans on asking for dates and saying dirty words. Such bans might also be selectively enforced, giving the top boss the liberties to push the envelope, whereas others quiver in fear at the thought they might accidentally slip up, even though the law itself pretends not to be directed at occasional remarks.
The effect of media circuses is going to produce a wave of such zero tolerance bans, in fact the media and endless arbiters of good behavior--mostly female--are specifically calling for that.
And then where are lonely guys supposed to go? Bars? Church? Neither provides a particularly good opportunity to get to know other people. Bars are oriented to selling drinks, so they crank up the music so loud you can't even talk to anyone else. Church does the same thing by giving few opportunities to put a word in except through participation in endless additional activities...which themselves are structured to make it difficult...so you have to keep going and going to get the rare moment to say something.
Work is really the optimal place in many ways to find compatible others, as people spend more time there than anywhere else except alone at home in front of a TV. And this is especially true for workaholics who spend nearly all their waking hours at work.
It's no wonder heterosexuality is broken in the USA and western countries generally, except among the extremely religious (and from what I hear, it's not necessarily any easier there...except when the leaders decide to put people together...which only serves the needs of those running the place and not the average seat warmer).
It's no wonder that lonely horny guys bring piles of shotguns up to high floors to shoot the lucky few who have managed to get dates. This may be especially true if they are trying to change their life by forswearing masturbation and pornography, as cutting those things out may create unresolved sexual tension and sleeplessness.
In the end, this serves the needs of scandal exploiting media too, by creating more interest in their product.
Now this is not to say that Roger Ailes is any kind of hero. For almost two decades he was responsible for promoting war and the economic destruction of the middle class, helping in the destruction of millions of lives and livelihoods. It's for that he deserved the greatest condemnation as an evil force. This so-called Sexual Harassment thing is a big nothing.
On the other hand, Harvey Weinstein is a hero. He struggled against Eisner and others at Disney to get Fahrenheit 9/11 produced, and it is a great antiwar movie, and one of the most popular documentaries of all time. And that was only one of dozens of great and thought provoking movies he produced. He also made stars of many fine actors and directors and helped employ thousands of people.
Producing movies is a tough business, and one can imagine endless struggles over every detail. One can imagine big egos everywhere, but in the end, the producer has the last word. So there are going to be endless people who think it didn't go down the right way--a lot of hurt feelings if not ruffled feathers.
But where are the dead bodies? Where is the blood and injury? Where are the lost homes and careers? At most, nothing he ever did created more than offense or hurt feelings. Meahwhile he was minting stars and making great movies. So it's no wonder that nobody reported anything to the police. It isn't because there's some kind of great Hollywood conspiracy. It's because all that he is accused of now was really no big deal then, or now, except that when the Media whips up a new character assassination, people are sucked in, put a different spin on everything, and begin to remember things differently. At the time people were "crying" all the way to the bank to cash their million dollar checks, just as Gretchen Carlson was and is now.
Now maybe if you were some kind of super sensitive woman you'd think twice of working for Harvey Weinstein now that the story has been unfolded. But if you are some kind of super sensitive woman you should probably consider a very different kind of career than being a movie star or TV personality. That doesn't seem to be applicable among any of the current accusers, especially the most interesting ones. They seem to be the type who could handle and/or destroy any kind of man, just as they are doing now.
Certainly in the cast selection for every movie there are more people who don't get the role than those who do. But in many of the current allegations of how people were propositioned in some way by Harvey, many people got the parts anyway. If so, perhaps what he was really looking for was someone who could turn him down with enough class. And what better test of how well someone would submit to his authority as producer could there be than someone who showed him a good time in bed?
In the case of one lady who didn't really think she was going to make it in movies anyway, after allegedly turning Harvey down she made a career for herself as professor of sexual "objectification" which is nothing more than a slur against men, and something I find very offensive. But nice work if you can get it.
Where is the concern about Harvey himself, losing his career, his reputation, his social standing, and his wife, if not freedom itself?
While war criminals and similar mass murderers and destroyers and their enablers remain at the top of our society, given endless prizes and honorariums and bonuses, anybody who can be accused of being sexually forward under certain circumstances is destroyed, at the whim of the war crime enabling media, likely for political purposes not to mention selling papers. Where is the justice in that???
And meanwhile, the actually destructive exploitation that occurs in in the workplace and elsewhere isn't counted at all--because it doesn't involve sex and wouldn't make the headlines in the endlessly exploitative and yet extremely blinkered media.
And hetersexual relationships become only for the deeply religious, who are assigned partners by their religious elders, who take the risks upon themselves only when total loyalty has been proven.
Orwellian Sexual McCarthyism
Yes doesn't mean Yes Anymore
In the new discourse of Sexual Sensitivity inspired by Second Wave Feminism, Yes doesn't mean Yes anymore. This doublespeak is clearly at play in one current allegation of harassment, if not all of them.
(*Some hold that Feminism is merely trying to establish equal rights for women. Of course, equal rights are good. Even an inclusive form of equal rights which deals with the fact that women uniquely might carry Fetal life--over which full equality necessitates the unique right of women to choose when they wish to carry--since men aren't burdened with that unique set of personal costs at all. But the simple pursuit of fully considered equal rights for all could more accurately be described as Universalism, which is the term I'm going to use hereafter, and reserve the term Feminism for the various formulations of Female Supremacy advanced by Second Wave Feminism, and some other waves, it's hard to keep track after Second Wave, depending on who was counting.)
If there is any differential of Power, Age, Size, Ugliness, etc., involved, nowadays even an explicit affirmation of consent isn't good enough. It's not clear where this slippery slope ends. Is it simply impossible for anyone to engage in any kind of sex related discussion, display, or interaction if there is any difference of any kind? Same sex sex would seem to be the only kind possible then, is that where this is going? Would having a lawyer review the acquiescence with the alleged less powerful person beforehand be good enough?
In most areas of life, and especially anything having to do with sex, it's hard, hard, hard to even get explicit consent beforehand. As Grace Hopper (a Hero of mine) once famously said, "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission."
I know a lot about this from personal experience, as Feminism became
Big right at the time I entered something like dating age. I was able to get just two date-like experiences while I was in high school. I dared not even touch my date during the first, and during the second--at a theme park--I saw others holding hands, and so I ventured ahead to hold my date's hand without asking permission, and it was fine (as it has been on many other occasions).
But it was not fine on my third date. I had really been looking forwards to this date, as it was the girl I had a crush on for the entire Freshman year. We'd spent much time next to each other at the common dinner tables. I sat there because the seat was nearly always open, and it was my group of friends also. I thought I sort of knew her, but she was hard to reach otherwise. Finally, after helping her get her stuff in her car for the first summer vacation, we had a
Hug*, which was one of my first, and it felt uniquely comforting. So then I asked if we could have a date over the summer, and she assented.
(*This was not preauthorized, except perhaps by mutual moves towards it.)
But as we got to our first destination and were walking up the hill, and I reached out to hold her hand. I had thought by that time that the worst that could happen was that she would say
No, but probably wouldn't.
I got more than I bargained for. I got a three minute scold. I felt really cut down, but struggled to carry on as if nothing had happened. The date seemed to end nicely at her mother's house, with her mother eagerly showing me some of the household artwork. And I promised to call back. But I just couldn't.
Before the summer was over she sent a nice letter about her trip to England. And so we found ourselves talking together several times at the beginning of the next year. And yet there was still hardly a chance for me to get a word in edgewise, and as a mere 18 year old I had not become a very good listener. And not very good at figuring out what I wanted to say either. And so I finally gave up trying to talk about me, my feelings, and my wishes, which seemed not to be of importance anyway. And then I gave up on the idea of ever going anywhere with this young lady also.
About then, a new girl arrived on the my scene, and she was not like that at all. We met on a Friday and in a whirlwind of togetherness we were in bed together doing sexual stuff--my first ever--by Saturday night. I had all the sexual experience I had in College and for years after in the year that followed, then it all ended, and I graduated as a very lonely guy.
For several following decades I couldn't figure out what kind of moves were the right ones. Generally I took a very conservative approach. I went out on individual dates with women that seemed to go fine, but with no attempt on my part to touch in any way. After all, I presumed by then, touching isn't really authorized on the first date. The best thing is to ask permission. But it made me feel gutless, and each experience had a certain hollow quality.
Around that time, I saw a British sitcom with two guys. One seemed to take initiatives--touching hands, hugging, kissing--without asking permission. And this guy seemed like the winner. The other spinelessly wouldn't do anything without asking my permission. And he became the loser who didn't get anything. My older sister watched the movie along with me and she never said a bad word about it. After it was over, I asked my sister if asking permission isn't the right way to do these things? And she said no, that's silly, it would nearly always get in the way.
By then I was in my late 20's. I started taking more initiative, and started having longer and deeper relationships as well.
But just as with my 3rd date, it didn't always go well. After nearly a decade I got another bad scolding from a lady I had been with many times dancing--and she sent me home. I called back and give numerous apologies and promises. That relationship--which was my one and only "dancing" relationship and very important to me as a guy who loves to dance--then continued for awhile and we had some very good times traveling and dancing for several months (but...no touching...and we did touchless dancing).
Then, on a second date with another lady I was crazy about, I tried merely to touch her hand in the theater, as I had done for years with an earlier girlfriend. She ran out of the theater screaming and dismissed my attempts to apologize. I attended her only until her brother could pick her up.
That was one of my last attempts for at least another 10 years. By this time, I didn't even try to push the envelope any more. No touching, until it's clearly OK. It took a particularly assertive woman--who just grabbed my hand--and it wasn't even a date merely a chance encounter--to get me going again.
In my current antiquity, I think I would always just take the chance. If they scold, whatever, it's OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way to call back again. Though many times I have called back after the scolding too.
But I wonder how it's going to be for young culturally aware youth in the future, after the current regime gives way to an even more Orwellian one.
Rape isn't necessarily Rape
A similar doublespeak has arisen around other sexual allegations such as Rape.
In the case of Julian Assange, for example, the alleged Rape simply allegedly involved him not following the correct sexually protective protocol.
The allegation is this: Julian offered to use a condom he had obtained. The Swedish woman told him she did not want him to use any condom. Julian went ahead and did as she had asked...no condom.
But Swedish law requires the condom ALWAYS to be used in such encounters, even if the woman says No.
Now you might think an allegation like this would be laughed out of court. And, in fact, the charges were dismissed by the first court. But reinstated on repeal, where higher powers might have considerable influence.
To anyone actually reading beyond the highly charged (but increasingly meaningless) term of Rape, this looks to be sting operation which was designed to catch Assange and send him to the USA, just as he has always claimed.
Leaving aside Assange's accusers, who were almost certainly agents or well managed assets themselves, endless sympathy is aroused for the alleged victims worldwide merely by the use of the word Rape, not to mention all the other now very generously defined Sex crimes, including Sexual Assault. Assault doesn't necessarily even involve touching, only the threat or suggesting of touching.
In principle, something as simple as a male thrusting his hips into space could be considered sexual assault. Or of course masturbation. These do not seem like crimes to me. If something is interesting, you can watch, if something is repulsive, you can turn the other way.
Women are endlessly used as useful idiots in the crushing of leftist leaders of all kinds by throwing around these loaded words.
There are some similarities in one of the most famous rape allegations of all time, involving the leftist producer Roman Polanski. Everything Polanski did had full prior consent of the alleged victim. He had the Yes which he thought meant Yes. No one disputed this, the issue at hand was that the young lady was beneath the age of consent.
The original judge allowed Polanski to plead guilty to the charge I have just described, and since he was not considered a danger to society or likely to try to have sex with a minor again, he was slated to be released at the end of a few months of treatment. However the treatment didn't go well, Polanski alleged he was being sexually abused. And then he got word that a superior judge was going to vacate his plea bargain. Rather than face the possibility of continuing sex abuse in incarceration for years, Polanski fled the country.
This episode also looks very much like a sting operation which was targeted at Polanski because of his genius at creating evocative movies like Chinatown which show the potential of corruption below the surface of things.
Even if judicial double dealing had not been involved, I find the very notion of an Age of Consent in a sexually capable person--as Polanski's subject clearly was--to be a religious concept which has no place in universal criminal law. In earlier times, and in some societies still, women are married at very young ages. Not allowing young men and women to make such decisions for themselves--is religious tyranny. We must keep the young locked up for two decades to be sure they get the full religious indoctrination.
Interestingly, with enough work, a young person can get themselves emancipated from their parents at a quite young age. One of Weinstein's chief accusers got herself emancipated from her parents at 15, and then spent years on her own hanging around with punk rockers before becoming a star in horror movies.
So if someone can do that, why can't they also agree to having sex with a genteel movie director who might be able to make them a star? I can imagine many girls would have loved to have the chance, at least prior to the endless smearing of Polanski that has occurred ever since. He has always seemed like nothing less than a perfect gentleman to me, as well as a genius and someone who escaped a Nazi death camp in Poland.
And, whose beautiful pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the gang of Charles Manson, in part of an earlier deep state operation.
Those murders were actually conspiracy going all the way back to J Edgar Hoover, who was in full control of Cointelpro at the time. Manson got his start with LSD in the infamous MK Ultra program, who goal was to develop mind control methods to create manchurian murderers. Cointelpro was the companion FBI program which had connections with MK Ultra.
Hoover wanted Sharon Tate murdered because she had witnessed the Robert Kennedy assassination in Los Angeles a few months beforehand, and she knew the story involving the hapless Sirhan Sirhan was a load of crap. Something else had actually gone down, and she was sharing the evidence with her closest friends--on the very night of the infamous murders. As well as the murders going down, various key bits of evidence Tate possessed disappeared that night.
Hoover also didn't like to see leftists like Polanski and Tate having the power to do their own thing in Hollywood, in open defiance of the regular CIA/FBI controls. So he had multiple motives to set up the murder.
Hoover himself had been deeply involved in the murders of JFK, Martin Luther King, and RFK. He had a lot to hide, but did an exceptionally good job of covering his trail. Manson didn't get his drugs from the well known purveyor Bear. He had a super special ratline that went all the way back to J Edgar Hoover, and also came with special instructions.
Seeing the BS trial run by Bugliosi, Polanksi may not have understood the full extent of what happened, but he knew the LAPD and their associates could not be trusted with anything...which was the idea that finally got made into the movie Chinatown (which is my personal favorite movie of all time).
Surprise, surprise, we were not to see a JFK assassination movie until Oliver Stone took a crack at it, decades after the Tate murders. And no RFK conspiracy movie now, or likely ever.
So, if two of the more high profile allegations of Rape of all time are just crap, and part of deep state operations, what can we expect in the even more sexually Sensitive society of today, where the deep state has simultaneously been busy creating another new Russian McCarthyism?
Not only does the drama distract from the real news, it empowers elite Feminist opinion makers to ever more thoroughly destroy middle class heterosexuality. Which might itself have function in creating a lot more mercenaries to take part in domestic and international mass murder operations to come.
To prevent this endless slippery slope toward armageddon, sexual and otherwise, I'd try to make all crimes described universally, also recognizing that heterosexually generally requires males to be initators*, so permits some discretion, basically action until noncompliant resistance, or the third No.
So, there can be a crime for Harassment, but not Sexual Harassment, because the latter is a loaded term which prioritizes penalizing sexual words and potentially pro sexual activities. All forms of harassment should be seen as equal, judged on the basis of objective harms or threats of harms.
Likewise with Assault. And I'd say assault must involve deliberately painful touching or the threat of same, or worse. Battery should only be when assault causes physical injury.
Rape should be that when sexual penetration is at least started, and then only when the third No is disregarded, or overwheming force, or the threat of overwheming force, is applied.
(*This, and similar rights to buy pornography, are the needed counterpoint to women having the right to choose to carry a fetus or not. Women have fetus, men have penis. I've talked to women who make more hardcore pornography than I'd ever like, and they say they are not abused through their work, that's just the claim of antisex prudes and manipulators. I'm fine with the production of pornography being regulated so as not to include harassment, assault, battery, or worse.)
Clarence Thomas
Whatever his meritoriousness at being selected by GHW Bush to be on the Supreme Court, (Bush needed a conservative black to replace the famous black liberal Justice...and preferably one with no paper trail as that had led to the disapproval of an earlier attempted appointment...so who better than Thomas with one year on the bench) being a terrible sex harrasser does not seem to be one of his faults.
Most of what was described by Anita Hill was partly Thomas clumsily trying to get a date, and then even more clumsily denouncing female homosexuality (using the metaphor of 'sex between humans and barnyard animals' to describe female on female penetration). Him raising these points may have some offensive, but hardly seem meritorious to sue for criminal or civil sanctions.
Even after having been 'harrassed' and deciding to leave Washington DC (who would want to live there in the first place) Anita was fine with having Thomas drive her to the airport, then and on a later visit.
Leaving the government anyway, she could have had her day in court had she wanted to. But she even said at her government hearing, it was not about getting at Thomas personally then or now, it was merely that she did not believe him to be Supreme Court Justice material.
Roy Moore
Alleged to have made a date with a 14 year old girl, and then on that date, pushed if not forced her hand to genitals. Also alleged to have secretly dated other teenage girls (though above the Alabama Age of Consent which is 16) which he has not denied, while himself being a 28 year old District Attorney.
It does test the social libertarian idea that there is no need for an Age of Consent.
Frankly, however, I don't consider the assault aspect of this (so long as there is no injury, etc) as important as another crime. In fact probably better NOT to make too much of the assault aspect, to turn it into a phobia for the youngster, who probably already got the lesson. And a little bit of forward pressure, among consenting adults, may be a good thing.
The real crime is Breach of Trust.
Parents should be able to trust people in a variety of public (and similar private) capacities with their children. Including law enforcement, detention (a big area of crime by many reports), other government services, education, clergy, and health care providers.
They may not need to axiomatically trust the punk rockers on the other side of the tracks regardless of what they say ("but mam, we're certified, licensed and bonded...you can trust us to make your daughter a rock star...").
But they should be able to trust that nice deputy District Attorney. In fact, they may have no other choice.
People in such capacities should not be fraternizing with minors at all. That is part of the deal to get such work. I suspect this is already universally spelled out in relevant employment contracts.
This might even not need to be a crime as such. Simply cause for suspension, transfer, termination of employment, disqualification, or not being elected to anything again, depending on risk and occurrences. And likewise for higher ups who ignore such things.
Parody
Within the Redskin, ZS distribution center of Amalgamated Superbomb, in the Chieftan Superior's office:
"Yes, I'm sorry Mr. Foobar about the death of your wife. But you know, if we spent $1,000 on a fence around the reactor core, we wouldn't be able to compete with the Vietnamese."
"But, how am I going to put food on the table now?"
"I saw that 12 year old son of yours at the last mandatory company picnic. He looks a bit spindly, but he could probably handle the 120 pound loads that your wife used to. Or at least work up to it, after just a few strains and gashes."
"I'll send him right over now. He doesn't need to be in school anymore, that's just communist propaganda."
TV blaring, "Today, just minutes before the President of Foobaria was assasinated, a wedding and funeral march of 200 people was obliterated by an accidental explosion of a depleted uranium cluster bomb with a defective trigger made by Amalgamated..."
Chieftan Superior slamming the phone.
"Pighead, how many times have I told you we don't watch that pinko Cat News. Switch it over to Dog News."
"But, I thought you might want to hear this, your highness. This looks like it's going to be good for business."
"You got me there, Shithead. But enough's enough. Change it now. Those long words give me a headache."
A few seconds later, over in the Accounting offices, where the temperature is 39 degrees with 5 percent humidity, but everyone must still follow the summertime dress code--it is after all 120 degrees outside.
"You know, Ms Faithful, that you must reach at least Level 3 if you expect to keep your job in this department. We're having a Zwarkwon study group this weekend from 8am to midnight on Saturday and Sunday. After that, you'd be sure to understand the Way of the Illuminated Fetus. At least enough to get to Level 3 and carve a Z into your own forehead. And then you'd be able to participate in our daily body part gift exchange. That's how people get ahead around here. Or at least keep from being kicked behind."
"I was going to drive my son to College. He starts his first year at 1am on Monday morning with the mass drilling. But I'm sure he can hitch a ride. He probably won't hear a bad word. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. Someone might shoot him, but that would actually save us a lot of money."
Meanwhile, back in the Chieftan Superior's office.
"P...., we don't use that word around here, tell me what actually happened?"
"Well, that's what Mrs. Foobar said, just after I slipped on an oil spot and knocked her into the reactor."
"We will have to settle this one. Do you think $15 million will be enough to keep Ms Righteous quiet about hearing that word. We don't want anyone getting the idea there might be Sexual Harrasment here!"
"She's asking for $16 million."
"OK, get her $32 million, I think we'll be able to get that from the Pension Fund. There won't be anyone living to retirement age here anyway."
******** Epilogue
Since action produces reaction, extremism tends always to backfire before long. You could say that extremism eats its own future. This is the common knowledge of provocateurs.
Feminism did not grow out of Liberalism, but by the late 1970's was becoming the key--even defining--aspect of it. As a Liberal, one dared not criticize Feminism, and Feminism redefined the terms of liberal thinking generally. Once again this shows the power that women denied they had.
The short term consequences were a a backlash against liberalism--a rise in a new deep seated cultural reactionaryism. First Reagan, then Trump.
If Trump was the outcome of 1960's Feminism, what can be expected of the Feminist Crusades which we are seeing in 2017?
I think what we are seeing is the continuing of a process which long ago created the frequently misogynist traditional societies of the middle and far east. The modern west is a far younger culture, which is why it is only happening here now.
This happens in several ways. For those who never bought into feminism, such as Christian Conservatives and other cultural reactionaries, it is rendered harmless. The Teflon Effect.
Meanwhile, those men who had formerly declared themselves Feminist are destroyed are destroyed by it. Those like Harvey Weinstein, who produced films on sexual harassment and donated funds for a feminist academic center. I don't think this was phony, I think he is an actual Liberal, for what it's worth, and his accusers not so liberal. Back in the day the current acusers claimed to have zero power against his being all powerful...but how is it now a few words by a few people can bring down an illustrious career that took decades to establish? And without judge or jury?
Then, amidst the backlash against liberalism, it ultimately becomes more and more useful to segregate men and women, as was the common practice before the 1960's. This is the natural protective response of institutions.
With greater separation, greater inequality returns. This is the end of Liberalism, and it can be seen all over.
What is usually not recognized by Feminists is the basic fact that women ultimately have greater, not lesser, power in civil societies (those not dominated by violence). If women choose to use that power selfishly, the natural response of society is to constrain institutionally by harsher and harsher means.
Some might actually rejoice in this process for the endpoint I am imagining--a highly female controlling society like "fundamentalist" Islam. I am not one of them. I value both freedom and equality, and justice. Freedom gives toleration but also demands tolerance.
There is a far deeper truth in the saying "Blessed are the meek" than is usually understood. Those who are powerful and wise retain that power by being meek. To step ahead is to fall over. One must always remain on the center of the line of progress.
It is at this deepest level that Feminism is just like Zionism, as both are about stepping ahead, and taking more than is given, for a mere mask--an Identity. Behind the masks, we are all the same.
