The Spectre of Revolution

A revolution has been unleashed across the globe. This revolution, a popular repudiation of the old order, is where we should direct all our energy and commitment. If we do not topple the corporate elites the ecosystem will be destroyed and massive numbers of human beings along with it. The struggle will be long. There will be times when it will seem we are going nowhere. Victory is not inevitable. But this is our best and only hope. The response of Corporate Capitalism will ultimately determine the parameters and composition of rebellion. It may be peaceful, or it may be bloody. That is entirely in 'God's hands'.

The object is to try to get there without violence. But, if violence cannot be avoided, the battle must be taken to the Enemy. Armed revolutions, despite what the history books often tell us, are tragic, ugly, frightening and sordid affairs. Therefore, violence must be decisive and completely overpowering. So, that the duration is short. And, as much unnecessary suffering, as possible, will be avoided.

Revolutions take time. The most effective revolutions, including the Russian Revolution, have been largely nonviolent. There are always violent radicals who carry out bombings and assassinations, but they hinder, especially in the early stages, more than help revolutions. Violent radicals are used by the Government to justify harsh repression. They scare the mainstream from the movement. They thwart the goal of the revolution, which is to turn the majority against an isolated and discredited ruling class. Violence is seductive to those who yearn for personal empowerment through hyper-masculinity and heart-pounding action, but it is not always the best way to advance the cause of revolution.

It does not matter how sophisticated the repressive apparatus. Once those who handle the tools of repression become demoralized, the security and surveillance state is impotent. Regimes, when they die, are like a great ocean liner sinking in minutes on the horizon. And no one, including the purported leaders of the opposition, can predict the moment of death. Revolutions have an innate, mysterious life force that defies comprehension. They are the 'Will of God'.

The power of the Revolution is that it expresses the widespread disgust with the elites, and the deep desire for justice and fairness that is essential to all successful revolutionary movements. The Revolution will change and mutate, but it will not go away. It may appear to make little headway, but this is less because of the movement's ineffectiveness and more because decayed systems of power have an amazing ability to perpetuate themselves through habit, routine and inertia. The press and organs of communication, along with the anointed experts and academics, tied by money and ideology to the elites, are useless in dissecting what is happening within these movements. They view reality through the lens of their corporate sponsors. They have no idea what is happening.

Dying regimes are chipped away slowly and imperceptibly. The assumptions and daily formalities of the old system are difficult for citizens to abandon, even when the old system is increasingly hostile to their dignity, well-being and survival. Supplanting an old faith with a new one is the silent, unseen battle of all revolutionary movements. And during the slow transition it is almost impossible to measure progress.

Those within a demoralized ruling elite, like characters in a Chekhov play, increasingly understand that the system that enriches and empowers them is corrupt and decayed. They become cynical. They do not govern effectively. They retreat into hedonism. They no longer believe their own rhetoric. They devote their energies to stealing and exploiting as much, as fast, as possible. The elites become cannibals. They consume each other. And, finally, themselves. A dying ruling class, in short, no longer acts to preserve its own longevity. It becomes fashionable, even in the rarefied circles of the elite, to ridicule and laugh at the political puppets that are the public face of Corporate Capitalism.

Ideas that have outlived their usefulness may stumble around in the world for years, but it is hard for them ever to lead and dominate life. Such ideas never gain complete possession of men, they only gain possession of incomplete people.

This loss of faith means that when it comes time to use force, the elites employ it haphazardly and inefficiently, in large part because they are unsure of the loyalty of the foot soldiers on the streets charged with carrying out repression. Without faith in the rightness of it's cause, and in its own agents, the Enemy will revert to paranoid and negative thinking and behavior. And, will, basically, self-destruct. Bringing the whole edifice of Corporate Capitalism down on their own heads.

End of story, and the beginning of a New Society!

The Search for Real Communism

Well OK, I went surfing the internet, to see if I could get the low-down on Communism... You know, to see who was the most advanced communist society... which form was the best, or, at least, which one worked. And, guess what? All of the fucking web sites are run by Republicans!

I don't even think there are any Communists (maybe there never were) - just a bunch of right-wing dick wads!

But, guess what else? 

I discovered 'Smurf Comminism'. Check this out:

The Expresso Stalinist   

Were The Smurfs Communists?   

Smurfian Communism  

(Shit, man, just Google 'smurf communism' and rock out with your cock out!)

The bottom-line: Communism is up for grabs! So, let's grab it. It's a pretty good concept, and there are mountains of literature to keep the suckers distracted. And, all that'sharing' and'caring' brings a tear to me old mother's eye... Communism is just as sweet as chocolate pudding... You know, there are evil men out there who want to take away everything you have. They want to sell your children into slavery, and fuck your sister. They want to sleep in your bed and eat your porridge...

Goddammit, doesn't that just piss you off?

It's really great stuff. Plus, the capitalists are scared shitless of it. "Oh God, it's worse than socialism!"

The Smurfs' community generally takes the form of a cooperative, sharing, and kind environment based on the principle that each Smurf has something he or she is good at, and thus contributes it to Smurf society as he or she can. In return, each Smurf appears to be given their necessities of life, from housing and clothes to food without using any money in exchange.

I think everybody can get behind that... 

Are the Smurfs really Communists? The Smurfs all dress the same, follow a man with a beard (like Karl Marx), share the benefits of their labor - and they've even eschewed money! The Smurf society includes many of the idealized lifestyle attributes that define the core of Communism: a classless society where the inherent power disparity between property owners and laborers does not exist. Indeed, the Smurfs do live that dream lifestyle - everyone is equal, everyone shares, and everyone enjoys the benefits of the Smurf society's collective labor.

Communist theory states, "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need." What this means is that everyone should work as well as they can to their full capacity, and in turn be rewarded as much as they need. According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communism can only be achieved after first experiencing Socialism, which includes a violent uprising, the upper classes getting decimated, and a strong leader being placed into power.

Socialism is the required first step that must occur before Communism can take place. A powerful leader rules under Socialism - Papa Smurf clearly represents Marx's idea of the "strong leader" (Papa Smurf even has Marx's beard!) Some say that the word SMURF actually means "Socialist Men Under a Red Father"! Eventually, a "perfect system" is put in place under Communism whereby the proletariat (workers) rule themselves, ensuring equality for everyone. Perhaps Papa Smurf's strong leadership role means that the Smurfs are not fully Communist yet. However, evidence is strong that the Smurfs lead a Communistic or Socialist lifestyle: 

• Each Smurf wears the exact same outfit
• The Smurf leader is a wise and powerful man who wields unquestioned power and authority
• There is no system of currency or monetary remediation
• The Smurfs often eat at a communal table
• No religious Smurfs
• The "la la la la la la" Smurf chant is sung by all, no matter whom
• Their sworn enemy, Gargamel, is obsessed with turning the Smurfs into gold

There it is, there. Now you've got a 'movement' based on solid Marxist theory. Ready to take over the world.

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and cuddly?

Organizational Norms

Basically, what passes for a 'two-party system' is one party (the Republicrats) that serves the interests of the 1%, who control all the wealth and power in America. Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. Because, as every school child knows, you can't be President of the United States without billions of dollars. And, no third party is going to get past the Electoral College... The System is rigged against the people from the start. And, when the rich and powerful control the government through bribes, we can only call it a corrupt political system.

Therefore, we need to dump both the Republicans and the Democrats, and create our own political party. And, this party, since it doesn't have any money, needs to have teeth.

We need to build a fighting party... one that can out-thug the thugs, and take the battle right to the Enemy... right into his personal life... Occupy his personal space, and grab him by the nose and kick him in the ass. Because our goal is to promote Freedom, Democracy and Social Justice. And, to promote these things, against the will of the 1%, means REVOLUTION!

Revolution is not a video game, or a 'tea party', where you drink out of tiny cups while holding your pinky up and eat dainty little pastries... Revolution is a motherfucker! It comes at you from all different directions, overloads your defences, and pulls out your intestines through your ass.

Our party shall not make deals, or compromise with the enemies of the American people. We shall crush them and push them into the trash-heap of History where they belong.

In order to accomplish our goals, we need to design our party specifically to do the job. What better organizational inspiration than the movie, Fight Club?  What a splended idea: A party that fights! Not only that, but a party that fights for what's right!

"All right, if the applicant is young, tell him he's too young. Old, too old. Fat, too fat. If the applicant then waits for three days without food, shelter, or encouragement he may then enter and begin his training." ~ Tyler Durden

Standard Kung Fu shit... you have to really want something for it to have any meaning. Even Walmart does this in the job interview process. You want a fighting organization, you're going to have to be tougher than Walmart, the police and the military, all put together... In the words of George S. Patton Jr., "Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never lose a war... because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. "

The new Party represents the organized will of the American people, and is going to be for leaders, not for every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street. Leaders need to be tough - mentally, physically, and spiritually.

"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. " ~ Tyler Durden

We are fighting a spiritual war. A struggle to the finish against the forces of Darkness. We are the Light. You have to believe this, because belief is what empowers you. Without faith in your mission you will fail.

"All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not. "

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose - your invisible now, you've got no secrets to conceal...

"Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. "

We are a team. We live, eat, sleep and fight as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who write that stuff about individuality for the News Media don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating. 

We are all going to die. That's not important. What is important is that you make some attempt to live before you die. Otherwise, what is the point of life?

"Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club! Third rule of Fight Club: someone yells "stop!", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: No shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight. "

Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing. Like the first monkey shot into space. What was that poor little fucker thinking?

"Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation. You're going to publicly state that there is no underground group. Or... these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us. "

The key to success, is the willingness to be weirder than everyone else. Being weird is the 'cloak of invisibility'... When you wear it, no one can see you coming...

 There is nothing weirder that being a fanatic. 'Fanatic' is often the name given to people of action by people who are lazy. The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is the master of chaos, and has the ability to walk through raindrops without getting wet.

That is something that must be seen to be believed....

Sacred Cleansing

A single individual can have a profound effect on the course of history. But, not if he refuses to be part of unfolding events. The potential to effect change is in all of us. However, if we allow our hope for a better world to die, our potential will die with it. The momentum of history will continue to carry our nation toward its final destination: The Abyss.

The Future is a mathematical certainty. The boat is sinking. And, no matter how many patches we put on it, we are slowly but surely going under.  Unless, we can convince the majority to get involved, and take positive action.

The problem is: It is not in the best interests of those who run things for the people to awaken from their slumber. In order for them to survive, and prosper, we must remain asleep.

But, what if the Sleeper awakens from his slumber?

Ah, there must be contingency plans for that... The propaganda mills grind out continuous propaganda... to keep us stupid and divided, to hide their covert moves, and their secret 'master plan'... which is nothing more than naked greed and blatant self-interest.

Where are we going? Where is the 'exit strategy'? How do we get out of this mess?

The Buddhists have one thing right: that reality is an illusion.

There is no 'fiscal cliff'. Capitalism and 'free trade' are dead. Democracy, in an ignorant and uninformed, society is worthless. Freedom is just a word, that means the rich and powerful are at liberty to exploit the poor, the weak and the helpless... In short, the whole System is bullshit!

Our enemy is not North Korea, or Iran. Our enemy is the 1% who profit from our misery. We could blow both these countries off the map and the world would still be fucked up. No matter how many times they tell us "All we have to do is get rid of these sonsofbitches over here, and everything will be OK." It's all bullshit!

Go get the Germans, and the Japs, Italians, Koreans, Vietnamese, the Russians, the Chinese, Cubans, etc., and everything will be alright... Evil-doers, villains  criminals, drug addicts, and sex perverts... What a beautiful world it will be.

Well, is it?

Nope - it just keeps going from bad to worse!

Why?

Because we are always going after the wrong enemy...

Our REAL Enemy walks among us.

And, that's the Truth!

What Difference Does It Make?

Someone posed a question to me yesterday: "If there is no God, and no 'Eternal Life', what difference does it make what happens in the Future?"

Why should any one care what happens beyond their span of existence, here on earth?

First of all, I think that most of the world's philosophers have dealt with the question, What is the meaning of Life? Only a few, even considered the existence of God in the equation. Most said, the meaning of life was to find happiness. Of course, they had various ideas on what 'happiness' was, or what it meant to 'be happy'.

To the 'Children of Abraham', being happy is to be minding someone else's business. The happiest of these are called 'self-righteous assholes', and hypocrites, by the non-religious majority. They are extremely happy when they are turning the knife in somebody's back... Or, gleefully announcing that "God will punish you," or, "You will burn in Hell."

Life can have no purpose for these people without God. Because they are NOT happy. They are waiting to be happy in  the 'world to come'.

But for the rest of us, especially those who have children and grand-children, happiness takes on a different meaning. We seek joy in the everyday things, and value peace and contentment, over 'feeling good' and having a 'good time'. The Future, to us, is where our children and their children will live. Our 'Eternity' is not somewhere in the ether - it is right here on Earth!

Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was WITHIN. (Not somewhere in the sky.) That, the Kingdom of Heaven was AT HAND. (Not in another time and place.)

But what do I know of theology? Moreover, what do I care about religion? There is more Truth in a bullshit session than there is in a sermon. Nothing is hidden. Everything is plain and simple, and right in front of your face... And, that is the way it should be. There is never any reason to 'mince words', or hide the Truth.

If people can't handle the Truth. Fuck them! Fuck every little cry-baby, who moans about their feelings getting hurt... Who died and made you important? You tell lies because you do not have the courage to face reality. (There it is, there.)

Second, your life will be judged by how much its influence extends beyond your brief time here on Earth. Write a book, paint a painting, be an influence to others - DO SOMETHING! There is no such thing as good and bad. That is another lie. Who is fit to judge? Who even can understand the thoughts and feelings that motivate others? 

The problem is: You want someone else to figure life out for you, because you are too lazy to do it yourself. And, when they do, you call them a 'tyrant'. Then, shall we not call you a 'fool'?

Leaders, come from nowhere - out of the mists of time - do their thing, and then disappear. Meanwhile, all the pencil-necks are trying to explain what happened. They would know what happened if they got off their fat asses and took part in events, rather than being content to observe them...

You want to influence others, then be RESPONSIBLE! When someone's house is on fire, you help them evacuate, and help put out the fire. You don't call the fire department and watch them burn up. When someone is bleeding to death you give them first aid, you don't call the paramedics and watch them bleed to death. You are RESPONSIBLE in every situation you find yourself in - or else you are useless!

Here we are. The once great American people reduced to a nation of cattle. Standing in the middle of the road obstructing progress. Moo motherfucker! The steamroller is coming to flatten you out! Moo! Fucking cows, contentedly chewing your cud. Is this how you want to spend eternity? Is this how you want to be remembered?

What difference does it make what happens in the Future?

Well, if it doesn't make any difference, then why do you condemn 'tyrants'? The Past is just as meaningless as the Future, isn't it?

You ask, "Why not just kill yourself?"

I answer, "I'd rather take over the world, and kill you first."

Now, there is 'poetic' justice... We see it happen over and over in History. Somebody cares enough to act. And, those who don't care enough to act always suffer the consequences. That is 'God's Will'!

And, that's the Truth!

Future Shock

Hopefully, by now, all of you have watched "The Most Important Video You Will Ever See." If not, CLICK HERE to watch it.

Is the situation hopeless?

That depends on us. And, on how bad we want to survive. After all is said and done, the bottom line is SURVIVAL. Everything else depends on that... Living 'high on the hog' is no longer an option. As is 'sitting on the fence'. You must take sides, line up, and prepare for the 'ultimate battle'. Fence sitters will be shot by BOTH sides.

Sure, lots of people are going to die. They have to in order to make room for the new arrivals. The smart move would be to get rid of the 'useless eaters' and keep those who contribute toward the building up of society. Know what I mean?

But, the way things are shaping up, it looks like we are going to throw the baby out with the bath-water... That means the killing will probably be pretty indiscriminate - we'll kill everybody: the good, the bad, and the ugly!

That's why now is a bad time to turn in your assault rifle. Better hang on tight to that motherfucker!

What America needs is a eugenics program. (see "Eugenics, Past and Future")

Eugenics the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Check out: http://www.eugenics.net/

Of course, if you don't have any thoughts on the subject of eugenics. That doesn't mean it isn't going to happen - it means the 'experts' are going to take charge of and run the project! (Just like they did in Nazi Germany.)

The alternative is Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. Which is pretty non-selective. You just shoot all your shit off and see what happens...

The Future is coming, kiddies, and, it ain't going to be like everybody thinks...

Why? Because there are no rules... Only the Abrahamics (Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists) believe in rules that are 'set in stone'... The other 80% of the people believe in 'whatever works'.

Had you watched the 'Most Important' video, you would realize that nothing short of a miracle is going to work.

And, that's the Truth!

Murder Is Just A Word

I am an unrepentant sinner... I have broken all of the Ten Commandments, and, if there is a Hell I will most probably see you in it. If there is a God, the thing he hates most is a hypocrite .. a phony sonofabitch that says one thing and does another. We see them come rolling into Walmart every Sunday about 11 am. Right after Church. They come to 'spread the word' by shoplifting and being rude and in-your-face stupid.

By their fruits shall ye know them. They talk about the 'sanctity of life' and make it a Hell on Earth for everybody else... God forbid that somebody should be happy.

"I got mine, and fuck everybody else," they say.

Then, they have the audacity to get all self-righteous and tell you how to live.

Based on what? Some vast store of experience, or God-given wisdom?

I don't think so. Everything they do and say is the opposite of what Jesus said, and the dictates of common sense...

"Abortion is murder," they say.

Yet, they don't seem to care that 29,000 children starve everyday. Or, that the United States goes around the world killing innocent women and children with drones and bombers...

They don't care that there are already too many mouths to feed... that there are no jobs... And, that each birth means less for everybody else.

"Get rid of welfare and food stamps," they shout, "Get rid of free lunches, unemployment benefits and medicare..."

"47 percent of the people are free-loaders!"

I say, "Suck my dick!"

The mouth of a hateful, uncaring cocksucker belongs around a dick - not giving people any stupid advice. And, these motherfuckers are the first ones to ask you to give money for their shit, and sell their candy bars so they can spread their propaganda.

Abortion is NOT murder, murder is murder, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people need to be killed. The sooner the better. The more the merrier.

You cannot reason with fanatics. You can only liquidate them. You cannot create a better world and let the assholes live in it. That's why their are concentration camps and gas chambers. To get rid of all these stupid motherfuckers!

What did we really learn in Vietnam?

Charlie comes through the villages and kills all the people who cooperate with us. And, then we come back and kill all the people who cooperate with them. The moral of the story is: You can't sit on the fence. You join one side or the other and put your ass in the grass! 

God help you if you choose the wrong side.

Political Power

Years ago, Chairman Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Which translates to mean: Political power is ultimately based on force. The more guns you have the stronger you are, and the less people fuck with you. (Or object to your rule.)

Even before this, the Nazis figured out that military force was the ultimate arbiter of history... Why discuss anything when you can let your Panzers and Stukas do your talking for you?

Both Chairman Mao, and the Nazis, were not inventing anything new - they were just studying the way History works and making comments on how it could work for them...

When we look at History: Libya, Afganistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, etc., It sure looks like the theory of Force is working for the United States. If you don't like what someone is doing, you just roll in and crush them. Of course, you probably should make up some plausible reason for doing so, like, "Hey, we're bringing them 'freedom' and 'democracy'..." That's what Stalin did.

It doesn't really matter how much money you have, or how smart you are, as long as you have the means, and the desire, to brutally crush the opposition... The wealthy, and the intelligentsia will always fall in line - or else you kill them!

Don't get on your high-horse, everybody is out to eliminate the opposition. It's the way humans do business. Competition ultimately means that somebody is going to 'go down' - it's either them or us!

The problem is, that 'civilization' has a way of making people weak and decadent, and in a dog-eat-dog world this is not a good thing... The day comes when you say, "I'm not going to risk everything - let somebody else do it!" So, then you start hiring other people to be your 'muscle'. You create a 'professional' class (read mercenary) of fighters and policemen, politicians and teachers, doctors and lawyers, managers and thinkers - and you quit taking part in society, and in being responsible for its actions. You 'pay' someone else to do what you're supposed to do... so you can have more time to play video games, and to jack-off.

Speaking of masturbation, while we were jacking-off foreigners were brought into the United States to do our jobs. They were cheaper, worked harder, and didn't complain. They did as they were told. They didn't jack-off - they were too busy fucking! Now, if you look around, you will notice that Black Americans are being pushed out of the Ghetto, and more advertisements are written in Spanish. If you listen, you will hear, "Press one for English..." 

Oh, how the 'right-wing' complains... It's another form of jacking-off. After all, it was their masters (the Corporate Capitalists) who brought all this to pass... What do they need Negroes and stupid 'red necks' for? They can bring in the best the world has to offer and hire them for less than some fat, stupid and lazy American.

The Truth hurts.

A little history for you 'tea baggers': Ronald Reagan's speech, A Generation Lost to Drugs... "We will bring in able men and women, from far away lands, yearning to be free, to replace the 'lost generation' of American youth..." "Mi casa es su casa..."  "Americans don't want, or need these menial jobs..." (canned laughter)

It's the I Love Lucy Show!

We have this bloated military... that uses up -at least- sixty percent of our budget. So that we can put Mao and Hitler's theories to work in the world. And, we can't stand it when some kid gets a free breakfast at school, or a baby gets some Government milk... In other words, we are not only fat, lazy and stupid - we are also UGLY.

Hey, ugly people shouldn't breed! And, we don't. We are too busy jacking-off!

In closing, let me lay this gem on you: Political power grows out of the barrel of a penis!

Quit jacking-off, and start taking care of business!

Let's Boil Some Frogs!

"If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death."

~ Version of the story from Daniel Quinn's The Story of B

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.

The upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences. 

In other words, If drastic change takes place abruptly, we notice and react to it. If it takes place gradually, over a few generations, we are hardly aware of it, and by the time that we are ready to react, it can be too late.

That's what's happening to us. Things are getting worse and worse, so we don't really notice what's happening. Whatever happens will happen slowly, and we won't have time to jump out.

If you have not watched the video: The Most Important Video You'll Ever See, watch it NOW! (1hr 14 minutes)  CLICK HERE

What we have here is: A Race With the Devil.  (LISTEN TO THE SONG)

Suddenly, at the top of a nearby hill, a fireball ignites a bonfire next to a barren tree, and eerie cloaked figures emerge, dancing around it and chanting. Satanists! How disturbing... until cloaks start to drop and naked females begin cavorting. 

"An orgy, maybe?  Whew, let me look." (Distracted by porn again.)

But then out comes the sacrificial knife, down it plunges into trembling virgin flesh, and it’s clear that this is not your typical harmless Satanic orgy.

The question turns from “Who amongst these gentle yokels is a Satanist?” to: “Really?  Everyone’s a Satanist?” Every last one of them is out for themselves! And, there are spring-activated rattlesnakes, the worst kind, that can jump out of cupboards at you. 

Pilgrim, you don't stand a chance... Your good-ol’-boy persona will go  through several gradual shades of nervous breakdown, until your slow-burning paranoia will eventually reduce you to flying a Kamikaze plane into an aircraft carrier... ("Use the Force, Luke," to dodge the anti-aircraft guns.)

I'll say it again: The only way out of this fucking mess is to get off this planet and begin the 'Conquest of the Universe'!

That being the 'plan', next we need to create the type of human being who would be most useful in this undertaking: the New Man.

So, we begin mixing black magic and tire-squealing action as though such things belonged together. 

And, of course, they do.

PS: You can get your 'Race With the Devil' T-shirt HERE.

A Light At The End of the Tunnel

Why no dissent?

The U.S. Government lies, cheats, steals, misappropriates public funds, seizes and redistributes private funds, outsources middle-class jobs through phony trade agreements, has surrendered its authority to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. It has given away or sold our technology and public lands to well-connected private citizens and/or foreigners. It has secretly initiated numerous 'agreements' with foreign powers which are injurious to American citizens. 

It confiscates private property, and kills and maims its own citizens, kills and maims women and children around the world, and has established a brutal police state at home. 

Private citizens would receive prison terms (if not execution) for doing all this criminal shit.   

They rationalize these evil acts as necessary and call them – “national security,” or “national interests,” as if everyone in the nation had a common interest, when, in reality, the United States Government serves the interests of Corporate Capitalism - and not the interests of the American people!

Our so-called leaders commit crimes because that is their nature. They are wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing, who prey on the gullible and innocent. They run all these 'scams' on us using our own money and resources to pay for our own institutionalized indoctrination, without our knowledge, and certainly without our consent.

Why doesn't anybody seem to care?

Experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman reveal that when a person watches television, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is the seat of logical thought. Here, information is broken down into its component parts and critically analyzed. The right brain, however, treats incoming data uncritically, processing information in wholes, leading to emotional, rather than logical responses. The shift from left to right brain activity also causes the release of endorphins, the body’s own natural opiates–thus, it is possible to become physically addicted to watching television, a hypothesis borne out by numerous studies which have shown that very few people are able to kick the television habit. It’s no longer an overstatement to note that the youth today that are raised and taught through network television are intellectually dead by their early teens.

You know the Government has engaged in numerous mind control experiments? From MK Ultra to Operation Bluebird... think, it will all start to come back to you. They have done thousands of 'field experiments', distributed drugs, and have tampered with the air and water... Did you really think that, by some miracle, you might have escaped contamination?

A nation of soulless zombies, is what we have become... empty inside, longing for something to fill the deadly vacuum...

Well, boys and girls, here we are: The answer to what ails America!

And, that's the Truth!

What About 'Communitarianism'?

Sometime over the last ten years, someone somewhere must have decreed that the intellectual buzzword of the 21st century was to be "communitarianism." Only a few years ago, communitarianism was an obscure school of philosophy discussed in faculty seminars; today, its ideas are splashed across People magazine and on network TV. "Community" and "civil society," the two mantras of the movement, are part of everyday political discourse.

Curiously, in a climate of polarized political discourse, everyone is a communitarian. The movement's cheerleaders can be found across the political spectrum, from Hillary Clinton to Barbra Streisand to Pat Buchanan. On the left, large liberal foundations like Ford and Carnegie, the bellwethers of political correctness, throw millions of dollars into projects relating to these ideas. (The result, predictably, is that the magic words "community" and "civil society" are sprinkled liberally now in all proposals for research grants, as in "The East Asian Balance of Power--The Neglected Role of Civil Society.") On the right, Policy Review, the journal of the resolutely conservative Heritage Foundation, announced last year that it was reorienting itself to focus on civil society.

What is communitarianism? Where did it come from? How come everyone seems to agree it is good? It's actually all quite simple. 

Aristotle. He is probably started it all. In his treatise on government, The Politics, he famously wrote that "man is by nature a political animal," meaning that human beings can best fulfill themselves as part of social and political groups, not as isolated individuals sitting at home watching TV (well, the fourth century B.C. equivalent). Usually regarded as the original conservative philosopher, Aristotle is popular now with "troubled liberals" who worry that modern societies, organized around an individualistic, rights-based creed, leave human beings feeling "hollow at the core."

Of these troubled types, Harvard University political philosopher Michael Sandel is perhaps mostly closely identified with communitarianism. Along with serious scholars like Michael Walzer and unserious publicists like Amitai Etzioni, Sandel criticizes "minimalist liberalism"--the tradition made most famous by John Stuart Mill--for too easily celebrating individualism and materialism at the expense of social and moral issues. In his new book, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Sandel tries to revive an alternative American path, the Republican tradition, which, he says, focused on character-building and citizenship. While their critique of liberalism's reluctance to introduce morality into politics is trenchant, left-wing communitarians like Sandel themselves are reluctant to advocate strong remedies--say prayer in public schools or laws against divorce--and rely instead on vague statements about the value of community life and neighborhoods.

Conservatives have few such inhibitions. Former Reagan official and intellectual firebrand William Bennett agrees with everything that troubled liberals say is wrong with modern society. His answer, however, is not to talk about nice neighborhoods, but instead, to talk about Virtue. Actually, he writes about it, and since his Books of Virtues, collections of morally instructive tales from all over the world, are relentless best sellers, one has to assume someone is reading them.

The advantage that Bennett and others, like neo-conservative writer Ben Wattenberg and Christian Coalition spokesman Ralph Reed, have is that while liberals spend a great deal of time analyzing the problem--liberalism's value-free politics--they are wary of actually filling the vacuum with any kind of absolutist morality. They are, after all, liberals. By contrast, conservative communitarians have solutions. Both groups talk up abstract virtues like honor, commitment, and thrift, but conservatives then propose specific policies that put into law their moral and religious preferences in order to deal with all sorts of issues: unwed mothers, absent fathers, unruly schoolchildren, gay lovers, and so on. It's a game liberals can't win.

Bowling. One of the most important debates among academics and policy wonks over the last two years has been, is it better is bowl together or alone? In "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," a now-legendary article written in 1995, Harvard's Robert Putnam pointed out that league bowling in America has been declining for decades, while individual bowling is on the rise. This, he contends, is a symbol of the decline of community spirit and the rise of atomistic individualism.

Part of the reason that Putnam's article resonated so strongly outside elite circles--People magazine profiled him in a bowling alley--is that in using the example of bowling, that staple of 1950s, Putnam touched on a powerful chord of nostalgia for the America of that golden decade. A new book by Alan Ehrenhalt, The Lost City, is subtitled Discovering the Forgotten Virtues of Community in the Chicago of the 1950s.

Ehrenhalt's book may be the best of the new literature on community, because rather than waxing poetic about community in the abstract, he describes actual communities. The result is a vivid picture showing that the strong bonds that developed in those fabled neighborhoods of yore were kindled by conditions that we might find discomforting today--fear of authority, lack of choice, and poverty. People stayed in neighborhoods, for example, because they could not afford to move, and because other neighborhoods would not accept them easily. They attended church services and neighborhood social events because small banks, schools, and other community institutions were run by a local elite that enforced a certain kind of conformity. Porches and stoops, those symbols of a vibrant social life, stopped being used as gathering places for a rather practical reason--air conditioning. Ehrenhalt himself advocates a return to the choice-free, obedient life of the 1950s, but while seductive in the abstract, it sounds more and more confining on close examination. Imagine having to go to parties with your local bank manager so that you could get a mortgage.

Hard-core left-wingers are horrified by this rise in nostalgia about the 1950s, a decade that was seen, not so long ago, as a grim period of pre-enlightenment, racist, sexist, capitalist boredom. The Nation's Katha Pollitt takes Putnam's very example, the shift from league bowling to ad hoc bowling, and suggests that "[that] story could be told as one of happy progress from a drink-sodden night of spouse-avoidance with the same old faces from work to temperate and spontaneous fun with one's intimate friends and family." Hmm. "Temperate and spontaneous fun" sounds like something one might have to do in a work camp. And the occasional "drink-sodden night of spouse-avoidance"--for both sexes--is probably key to enduring marriages.

Civil Society. Civil Society has nothing to do with Emily Post. It's a term used to describe that part of society that exists between the family and the state--voluntary organizations, choral groups, Rotary clubs, etc.

Alexis de Tocqueville noticed in the 1830s that America was brimming with them, and argued that they were good for democracy. This celebrated hypothesis has by now become a theological certitude in the minds of most American intellectuals. It recently received powerful empirical support from Robert Putnam, whose 1993 book, Making Democracy Work, documented that northern Italy is civil-society rich and southern Italy, civil-society poor. Certainly the north has been better governed than the south for centuries, but that is not to say that is has been a better democracy. After all, Italy has not been a democracy for that long. There was that fellow, Mussolini, and before him, the emperor. Perhaps civil society is good for efficient government rather than democratic government. Memo to Lee Kuan Yew ...

Of course, civil society could also be the Mafia, the Michigan militia, Hamas, the Nation of Islam and other such groups involved in communal projects. But when most civil-society boosters talk about the concept, they use it to mean--arbitrarily--those groups that they like. So the left points inevitably to nonprofit do-good organizations, and the right talks about church groups.

Consider the difference between the conservative writer Francis Fukuyama and left winger Benjamin Barber, who, in their recent books, praise civil society extravagantly. In Fukuyama's Trust, he argues that private companies are an important part of civil society and that nonfamily business activity is a key indicator of a politically and economically healthy society. But for Barber, the author of Jihad vs. McWorld: How the Planet is Both Falling Apart and Coming Together--and What This Means for Democracy--a book President Clinton has read and praised--business, far from being part of civil society, leads the assault on civil society. "Who will get business off the backs of civil society?" Barber asks. Now it isn't clear why firms don't fulfill most of the functions of civil society. Indeed the term "civil society" originated with writers like Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, and David Hume in England and Scotland in the 18th century as a way to describe private business activity. On the other hand, you don't hear many conservatives proclaiming the virtues of Greenpeace.

Communitarianism was supposed to be a third way, neither liberal nor conservative, that charted a new course for philosophy and politics. But, it has become a collection of meaningless terms, used as new bottles into which the old wine of liberalism and conservatism is poured. Community means one thing if you are a conservative and another if you are a liberal--the same with civil society, and even bowling. 

But, here is the rub: What if you mix up your own beverage and put it in those new bottles? What if you pour liberal and conservative 'wine' down the drain, and refuse to drink that nasty, worthless stuff anymore?

Then, you've got a whole new ball-game!

Capturing the Future

You get up in front of an audience, and, the next thing you know, you forget everything you were going to say... It's worse than blogging. At least, when you blog you can stop and make a cup of coffee...

So, I fly by the 'seat of my pants'. You got the Past, Present and Future. Those who live in the past are called 'Conservatives', those who live in the present are called 'Liberals', and those who live in the Future are called 'Futurists'.

A futurist is a person who studies the future in order to help people understand, anticipate, prepare for and gain advantage from coming changes.  It is not the goal of a futurist to predict what will happen in the future.  The futurist uses foresight to describe what could happen in the future and, in some cases, what should happen in the future.

Most people use some sort of foresight all the time - something as simple as listening to the weather forecast to prepare for the next day. A futurist uses formal methods to develop descriptions of possible futures.  The output of a futures study may include the driving forces, assumptions, evidence or indicators of the futures.  A futurist is more likely to say how or why a future could appear rather than to say what the future will be.

One of the founding principles of the field of futures studies is the idea of personal and organizational choice.  Although the future is unknown, a person can identify possibilities, select the most favorable outcomes and attempt to influence events to create a desired future.

By considering systems and human agency, futurists help identify choices that affect the future, for ourselves and future generations.

Many futurists focus on one topic such as a technology or an industry.  Other futurists study broad social changes or global problems.  All futurists take a very wide view of the world in both scope and time.  Futurists tend to take a much broader perspective, consider longer time horizons, and include many more factors in a study than analysts such as economists, technology specialists, social critics or political commentators.

A futurist’s analytical process falls into five general areas:

• Framing - understanding the current state of affairs
• Visioning - opening the range of possibilities
• Describing - explaining or reporting on possible futures
• Scanning - looking for indications of the future
• Planning - creating/implementing a future direction

Where do you begin?

A futurist usually does not set out to describe “The Future.”  Generally a futurist is called upon to help make a decision, solve a particular problem, adapt to a coming change, or identify paths toward innovation.

The foundation of a good futures project is the solid understanding of the present conditions and historical influences.  A futurist describes a situation using  a deliberate and structured method.  This process includes the surface conditions of, for example, an industry, but the futurist also studies the goals and purposes behind the industry.  

The framework of a futures study usually can include many different kinds of information:

• Data-driven evidence like trend analysis and historical analysis
• Descriptions of driving forces like a systems model
• Mapping of influence networks, leaders or followers
• Perspectives and visions of leaders and decision makers in the field
• Current accepted expectations of the future of the field

Understanding the current conditions and the accepted assumptions about the field are key to opening the future.

How does a futurist come up with new ideas about a future that does not exist yet?  

Discovering what could happen in the future can be one of the most exciting parts of a futures study.  

Futurists use a wide range of techniques to imagine what could be possible.  

One way to find out about future possibilities is to ask people.  Futurists use a number of techniques to ask people about their ideas and dreams of the future.  The methods range from structured surveys of experts, to workshops, to informal interviews.


Another way to explore the future is to look deep within oneself. By directed visualization, a person can become immersed in a future and “see” details that may have otherwise been overlooked.


Visioning is used to discover new opportunities, open and expand the range of possibilities, survey a full range potential futures and explore the future, but it also leads to a goal.


From the discoveries about the future, the final step is to select from all the possibilities what is the most plausible and what is most desirable.  The purpose of many visioning exercises can be to get a detailed description of what the most appealing future would look like.  From the vision, we can begin to understand how to move toward that future.

Scanning is what futurists call “watching what is going on.” 

There are two types of scanning. The first is to study the broad trends shaping our world. Futurists use the acronym STEEP - for Society, Technology, Economic, Environmental, Political -  to categorize information. The combination of STEEP trends paint a picture of the direction and the expectations of the future. Futurists use a very broad view of the world to help understand the interactions between events.

The second type of scanning looks for anomalies or unusual events that may provide an indication of change or a solid piece of evidence for an emerging trend, called weak signals.  

Both types of scanning require futurists to be “information sponges."  Many futurists and organizations use structured methods of sorting and categorizing data to help sort useful information from noise.

Most get information from a wide variety of sources including newspapers, books, periodicals, scientific and trade journals, forecasts, interviews with subject matter experts, electronic media, arts and cultural trends, to name only a few.  While most futurists scan broadly for background information, it is most effective when used in combination with a defined, focused framework.

Everyone likes a good story

For futurists, describing the future falls into two types of activities: forecasting and writing scenarios. The two are very different and it is important to understand why.

Forecasting  describes how events may unfold.  Everyone is familiar with a weather forecast. A futures forecast can take the form of a technology road map, a projection of a trend or a warning of an impending event. Although many futurists prefer to stay away from forecasting, we all do it to some extent. However, rather than predicting a single future, futurists consider multiple possible futures. A generally accepted forecast is called a probable or baseline future.

Another common description of the future for a futurist is a set of scenarios.  A scenario is a description of how a future would turn out if a certain set of events or conditions happen.  Scenarios are usually presented in a set of different possible futures where each scenario is based on different conditions.  Back to the weather analogy:  with no forecast I can still plan for multiple scenarios.  For example, if it is sunny tomorrow, I will take a walk in the park.  The second scenario:  if it rains tomorrow, I will read a book.  Scenarios are a way of describing a future so you can consider the consequences before an event happens. It may never happen - probably will never happen - but foresight will enable you to make better decisions.

So what?

Planning is the process of taking all the insights from visioning, scanning, scenarios and forecasts plugging them into your framework and saying, “So what?”

How you apply the knowledge you gain from your futures work depends on why you were exploring in the first place.  Some of the possibilities:

• to prepare for change
• to make better decisions today
• to be ready for whatever does happen
• to avoid surprises
• to assess the long term implications of choices
• to imagine new opportunities and innovations

Perhaps the most important planning activity is to be able to plot a course to get from the present to the future you desire. If you come to a preferred vision of the future you can work back to the present by “backcasting” to identify steps that must take place to get there.  Once you have an idea of what needs to happen, you can begin to plan how to make each step along the way take you in the right direction.

All of the methods, techniques, and processes of a futurist are intended to improve our understanding of what needs to be done today.  Many times a final product of a futures project is not important.  The key outcome is that during the process of exploring the future, participants are deeply engaged and become aware of how to see the future for themselves.
The objective is frequently not to come up with a single answer, but to change the way that you think about what could happen and how to choose what should happen.

With a little practice, you'll be living in the Future in no time....

Fascism is the Product of Futurism

Here it comes, little buddy...

This is going to be a long blog, and probably a tough one to read. But, my readers need to begin to wrap their minds around the idea that: There is more than one way to skin a cat.

People ask, "What are you?"

I reply, "I am a Communitarian Futurist!"

Not many people know this - and, they don't teach it in schools - but, Futurism is the father of Fascism... 

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

"The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill."(p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

"The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “considered private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory. The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

I'll give you a break, for now, before I explain what Communitarianism is, and how it differes from Communism... I wanted you to get a glimpse of the major product of Futurism, which is so often maligned by just about everybody: namely, Fascism. 

Hey, it scared the fuck out of the whole world - enough for everybody to wage a 'world war' against it! So, they (the Fascists) must have had something going for them.

My task is to grab ideas from everywhere and forge them into an ideology that can solve the problems that we face. And, that is not an easy task, which is made obvious by the fact that all these pinheads in our Government, and their offices, and staffs, and big budgets, can't accomplish a goddamned thing.

And, that's the Truth!