The ghetto of the 21st century is solidly matriarchal, owing to the engineered critical uncertainty of paternity resulting both from gang rivalries and promiscuity by transient males. Women are fully communized. Offspring become the wards of the gang/tribe.
Matriarchy, by design, is incompatible with the family system, and thus is largely shorn of culture and the hallmarks of civilization: property and inheritance. In a matriarchy, the vision of men is shortened; no pursuit is subordinate to the future welfare of the race.
Unconcealed communism is on display in the primitivized ghetto, wherein one does not distinguish between property of persons and property of things. Encouraged at once are amativeness and acquisitiveness as selfsame expressions.
Fanatical crypto-communists in public office hold out to those with nothing to lose the prospects of quick enrichment—enrichment at the expense of the already dispossessed. The communists in public office appeal to the cupidity of those with little in an effort to exploit social inequality and legitimate marriage in a relentless and largely successful effort to stunt the natural and proper development of the human race.
In the ghettos of the 21st century, all pursuits that produce discontent and unrest, and which decimate the ranks of the virile and capable, are encouraged by Rousseauesque crypto-communists.
I mention the ghetto as the suburb has already been conquered; the suburb has already been rendered subservient and the will-to-power of the average man has been amputated. This does not preclude a reign of terror. No revolution has been without its reign of terror—its ethnic cleansing. And it will be the dispossessed from the ghetto, already heavily-armed, that will heed the call of ochlarchy, and which will serve unwittingly in return for the promise of license and power, the cause of communism against all of its enemies.
DISSIMULATION is but a faint kind of policy, or wisdom; for it asketh a strong wit, and a strong heart, to know when to tell truth, and to do it. Therefore it is the weaker sort of politics, that are the great dissemblers.
Tacitus saith, Livia sorted well with the arts of her husband, and dissimulation of her son; attributing arts or policy to Augustus, and dissimulation to Tiberius. And again, when Mucianus encourageth Vespasian, to take arms against Vitellius, he saith, We rise not against the piercing judgment of Augustus, nor the extreme caution or closeness of Tiberius. These properties, of arts or policy, and dissimulation or closeness, are indeed habits and faculties several, and to be distinguished. For if a man have that penetration of judgment, as he can discern what things are to be laid open, and what to be secreted, and what to be showed at half lights, and to whom and when (which indeed are arts of state, and arts of life, as Tacitus well calleth them), to him, a habit of dissimulation is a hinderance and a poorness. But if a man cannot obtain to that judgment, then it is left to him generally, to be close, and a dissembler. For where a man cannot choose, or vary in particulars, there it is good to take the safest, and wariest way, in general; like the going softly, by one that cannot well see. Certainly the ablest men that ever were, have had all an openness, and frankness, of dealing; and a name of certainty and veracity; but then they were like horses well managed; for they could tell passing well, when to stop or turn; and at such times, when they thought the case indeed required dissimulation, if then they used it, it came to pass that the former opinion, spread abroad, of their good faith and clearness of dealing, made them almost invisible.