. Chapter 9 . Enlightened Self-Interest . . It took months after those first days in Manhattan in 1975 for me to sort everything out, all the while miserable because of my revulsion at living in New York. I have no idea how anyone can stand the place. Maybe had my marriage remained intact -the divorce was not final until that year- there could have been good times to remember like exploring out-of-the-way attractions and meeting people as only wedded couples can do, but that was not to be. Essentially 1975 in Manhattan was a nightmare -with only a few exceptions that come to mind. In August I left the city and set out for Arizona once again. . However, by that time the enormity of what I had learned that January had become clearer. Allow me to explain what it all meant and still means, although, because there is so much to talk about, not everything can be said at once. And other matters demand more immediate attention. . Not that I have not already tried to explain everything to others long before now. In fact, I have done so repeatedly over the years. Unfortunately few people "get it," they don't see the relevance, or at best only understand things through a fog, not seeing why this is important, only comprehending odds and ends that have little meaning to them. So, let me try again. . What is different now is that there is no longer any possibility that Toffler's lies can still be accepted as if they had any relationship to reality. His fraud has been exposed. Everyone now knows that he has been lying each and every year since 1977. The game is over and he has lost. . . It may not seem obvious to some people, especially if they live in a small world defined by what is directly in front of their noses -their family, profession, maybe one's church, and newspaper headlines- but there is far more to the story than Alvin Toffler's life, and far more than the criminal history of the Communist Party. . What would it have taken to have maintained all of the lies in all of the years since 1977? Many people have been lied to, and this is true whether or not your only concern is the lying that effects your private world. Of course, for those who lack imagination, for whom curiosity is a meaningless concept, these considerations don't say anything. But for people who are able to comprehend the implications the story should register as very large, indeed. . Call it the snowball effect. Or the "cover-up effect." It all starts with something small, some crunched-up snow no larger than a baseball that creates a huge boulder-size colossus of snow that flattens everything in its path as it rolls downhill gaining mass and momentum, or a relatively minor episode that, because it was not admitted early on, results in a mess of gigantic proportions. The 'crime' isn't nearly as important as the cover-up. These metaphors communicate the concept well enough. . Unfortunately most people are unable to grasp this fundamental idea. Since Alvin Toffler's original crime of 1977, lying to his friends and other people in his circle wasn't all that momentous, therefore, who cares? Sorry, but that way of thinking is really stupid.
. This being the case, there surely are people who will discern what is really at stake and wonder how others, presented with the story years ago, could possibly have been so oblivious to the implications. . A principle is involved that should not go unaddressed. This was a lesson taught to me by the publisher who I worked for in Arizona after leaving New York. If you want to sell something, he told me, you need to answer the basic question any potential customer will ask, "what's in it for me?" . As you will be able to see as you read the following material, ahead for all of us is a major scandal of a magnitude even greater than Watergate. But that episode can tell us something of what to expect . The Watergate scandal not only brought down a corrupt administration and ended the political careers of Richard Nixon and about twenty high profile political figures, it "made" the careers of many others including people like John Dean, who abandoned the Nixon administration in disgust and took a new course in his life. Chuck Colson was reborn -literally and figuratively- as a moral reformer with a renewed reputation among Christians. . The careers of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were assured for the next 40 years, the reputation of the Washington Post went into orbit for at least a decade, and the paper's editor, Ben Bradlee, and its publisher, Katharine Graham, became national celebrities. . A number of other celebrities emerged from the scandal, among them: Sam Ervin, Elliot Richardson, Archibald Cox, and William Ruckelshaus. . Also a newly minted celebrity was Leon Jaworski, the Texas attorney, who saw his law practice become world famous. Barry Goldwater, already an established name in politics, saw his reputation refurbished because of the principled stands he took as the scandal unfolded. . There were lesser known beneficiaries of Watergate, like Texas A&M history professor Luke Nichter, and journalism professor Thomas J. Johnson of the University of Texas, each of whom provided specialized expertise during the investigation. We can also add -at a later date- Monica Crowley, who became Nixon's biographer. Then there were all of those book contracts. The list of authors who made serious money from writing about Watergate include: Stanley Kutler Fred Emery Douglas G. Brinkley Robert Dallek Anthony Summers Donald M. Bartlett Peter Schrag Theodore H. White Rick Perlstein Keith W. Olson Lamar Waldron Thomas Mallon Linda Jenness Frank Mankiewicz Howard Fields Jerry Voorhis and J. Anthony Lukas of the New York Times, also, much later, Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. . There have been movies about Watergate, starting with All the President's Men and going on to include Frost/Nixon and The Final Days. And there were television shows. . Journalists received awards and pay raises. Schools of journalism from coast to coast had record enrollments in that era. For many of America's best and brightest, Watergate represented a golden opportunity. . That is, if you are at all smart it should be no problem to conceive of what you could do with the coming scandal. Of course, for those who are establishment hacks, the scandal is something to avoid at all costs, at any price, including one's integrity. It is a good guess, however, that the smartest among hacks will get the message at some point and act -decisively- to cut their losses. That isn't "winning" but it is better than losing everything. . I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe the only thing to add is that no way would I forget those friends who helped out, getting there. But as things are, with only slight un-exaggeration, both of my friends can expect my gratitude in the future. . . Presume for a moment that I am successful. The question for myself is "who do I want to take along with me on the ride to the top?" I'd want to take along everyone who took at least a few risks on my behalf, not stupid risks, but something that matters. At the moment this means hardly anyone, not "no-one," but hardly anyone. OK. No need to share the (metaphorical or otherwise) pot-of-gold with anyone except a very few others. . It should go without saying that excuses won't cut it. "I would have, but..." means exactly the same thing as "I did not do what I should have done." . Too bad for those I might have wished would have been there for me but the facts are what they are. A number of people had golden opportunities to tell the truth and blew it. They should have known better but, instead, they made exactly the wrong decisions. . In terms of my desire to help those who have helped me, think of it as wanting to repay a favor by pitching in to help someone else make it to the 'top' he has in mind for himself -or she, for herself. What is said here should not be taken to mean that I'm only interested in my own agenda; there are many worthy causes that are easy enough to recognize even if they are not my causes. And it would please me to help other people achieve worthy goals of their own. Whatever is the best way to think of things. . There is a Judy Collins song that sums up my feelings about friendship. Get out your vintage CDs and listen to "Song for Judith," also called "Open the Door." That's the idea. .. . There is just one detail, of course. What is my agenda? Maybe you would like to know. Glad you asked... . Foremost, as no-one needs to guess, is making up for lost time while there still is time. This concerns personal matters. Of which there are many. To get an idea simply think of who some of my heroes are; not that there are any pretensions about equaling them in their domains, but simply as people whom I admire and, to whatever extent it may be possible, would like to go in one or another direction they traveled in their lives. A short list would necessarily include Vladimir Nabokov, Thomas Beecham, Alan Watts, H. L. Mencken, and Alphonse Mucha. . But that aside, there are a number of professional objectives that should be made explicit. Obviously they cannot be attained all at once, and some may never be achieved, but to provides others with some idea -and the understanding that I do not think small. . Here is what I have in mind: Outright ownership of a national and international media empire. It will take considerable effort and massive resources to undo all of the damages that have been done from 1978 to the present. This means everything necessary: A major television network, radio, computers, specialty magazines, a major film studio, a top quality animation studio, a think-tank staffed with the best available minds, an advertising and marketing agency of the highest professional standards, you-name-it, everything that is needed to get the job done and do it right. . . Two objectives are immediate: . (1) A newspaper to be called the Chicago Bugle, for which I have written a detailed prospectus and business plan. Clearly, no-one in the United States really knows what they are doing in the newspaper business and it is about time that someone showed them how it should be done. (2) An internet service similar to but in other ways altogether different than AOL. Some AOL features, almost all of which predate the tenure in office of its current CEO, Tim Armstrong, I cannot live without, they are that good and ridiculously unappreciated by most computer users -in part because the company has never promoted or explained these features. About which I have prepared a short -illustrated- prospectus that AOL has refused to consider. Which is to say that Mr. Armstrong is essentially clueless about what it is he is doing, ruining AOL, one part after another, even if innovations he has introduced sometimes are for the best. But it has been a process of two steps forward and three steps back since he joined the company in 2009 and, for one, I am sick of his interference in my life -my life as a computer user. So much could be so much better, building on what AOL used to be, and focusing on added value for the customer rather than turning the company into a tasteless advertising platform. Tim Armstrong epitomizes everything that is wrong with any number of modern computer companies. . Without waiting for anything else, these two resources should be sufficient to launch a project for which there is urgent need: WWIII -a global war of ideas. . There are several political "ideas" that are completely positive in nature that are high priorities, objectives to "go after," to promote ; these include: Teaching of Comparative Religion in all public schools in America, along with teaching the Bible. However, to think for one minute that you know what this is all about unless you have actually read my detailed proposals would be absurd. But I am accustomed to dealing with religious illiterates, numbers of whom are believing Christians or Jews, so I try to be reasonable and make allowances for the uninformed This has little to do with Comparative Religion as understood by multi-culturalist Lefties and not much at all to do with believers who may think that this concerns a devotional outlook toward the Bible or promotion of some kind of denominational faith and that this really is a vehicle for prayer in school. That is not what is intended. What is, are two 'scholarly' courses that should be "educational" in the very best sense. . Reform of education at every level from kindergarten to grad school. This has just about nothing to do with George Bush's half-baked ideas or of any other president in recent history who has made noises about promoting education -all the while having only the most trite concepts of what education really is. Kindly keep in mind the fact that had I completed my dissertation I would have an EdD, everything else was taken care of, including a 4.0 GPA and passing my comprehensive exams with flying colors. A Constitutional Convention, or more usual procedures, intended to add approximately 100 Amendments to the US Constitution. A major paper on this is available at: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) The objective is to both address concerns that are pressing in the modern world for which new kinds of law are necessary, supported by Constitutional authority, and to end, once and for all, that school of interpretation known as "the living Constitution" which , of course, is nothing but cover for abusing every principle that this nation was founded upon. Promotion of Radical Centrist political philosophy as necessary for thorough reform of the American political system. The subject of Radical Centrism is discussed in the Appendix in this book. But essentially this reflects my utter contempt for the two major political parties as they now exist and the opportunity for creating a future all Americans can take pride in which Radical Centrism represents. Promotion of the sciences in education, especially sociobiology and other evolutionary sciences. It is ridiculous that multitudes take any form of creationism seriously, especially since most Church Fathers regarded the Genesis story as allegory. Besides, Wisdom of Solomon is also in the Bible, in the also authoritative Apocrypha, and includes what may be the world's first statement of the principle of evolution where chapter 19 :18 - 19 says: "For as the notes of a lute can make various tunes with different names though each retains its own pitch, so the elements combined among themselves in different ways, as can be accurately inferred from the observation of what happened. Land animals took to the water and things that swim migrated to dry land..." But it is important to have actual grounding in astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine and other sciences, as many as people can reasonably absorb. We need a new economics. Exactly what this will prove to be is unknown but it is certain that neither Adam Smith nor John Maynard Keynes is sufficient for the world we actually live in. And Marxist economics has proven itself to be irrelevant, or wrong, or at most only contributing some lesser truths to the discussion. In any case, whatever system is devised the principle on which it is based must be fair distribution of wealth. This does not mean redistribution, it means a system whereby everyone has genuine opportunity to live a decent life and to "get ahead." The argument that extant Capitalism does this is fallacious on the face of it. The system necessarily should be redesigned to maintain the best incentives but simultaneously make it exceedingly difficult for 1% of the population to accrue more than, let us say, 15% to 20% of the wealth of a nation -as opposed to the current system whereby 1% owns 50%. This must be structural and permanent. If the rich are upset because this would make it hard for them to own deluxe yachts or 100 room mansions for two people, they can go to hell. . . There also are great evils that must be fought against with full resolve, holding nothing back, fighting to win and not quitting until you do. These are: . Completely reversing each and every homosexual gain of the past decades since 1973. Reclassifying homosexuality as a mental illness. Destroying the reputations of each and every political and other leader who has had any part in promoting homosexuality. In so many words, re-establishing American culture as thoroughly heterosexual. There is considerable chapter material on this subject. . Discrediting the religion of Islam totally. I have written extensively on this subject and some of my materials can also be found at the Radical Centrist website in its archives. Briefly, Islam is a criminal religion, essentially it is a form of Fascism -although, in fairness, philosopher Bertrand Russell thought it was more like Bolshevism. In any case, Islam is a religion of intimidation, lying, subordination of women, bigotry, violence, and is anti-democratic in character. As a personal note, I am well aware of the Muslim doctrine of shirk that is authorized by the Koran and Shariah law. This doctrine sentences me to death for my sincere beliefs. This being the case, I intend to use any influence that devolves upon me to destroy Islam, to render it untenable. This does not mean anti-Arab or anti-Iranian or any other ethnic prejudices; this refers specifically to the religion of Islam . Would this mean problems? Of course it would. But it is time to tell the truth about this sick and criminal religion and solve those problems as they arise. . Strip mining of coal in Appalachia must cease. There are, of course, a number of other environmental issues but this is the most urgent; once the mountains of East Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, western Virginia, and West Virginia are destroyed there is no way to repair the damages. . There is no excuse for racism or anti-Semitism, -sometimes called Judeophobia. This manifestly does not mean that African-Americans and Jews should never be criticised. Sometimes such criticism is an ethical responsibility. And all population groups have their idiots and criminals; African-Americans and Jews are no exception. There is such a thing as antipathy, of course, attitudes shaped by real world events and the behavior of others. Sometimes antipathy is understandable. And just as antipathy is learned because of bad experiences it can be unlearned though good experiences. But bigotry is totally unjustified. . Communism must be completely discredited. This means far more than the fall of a Communist regime in another country. This refers to Cultural Marxism and its modern offshoots like dogmatic Political Correctness and gender feminism. It also means discrediting the cousins of Communism like Anarchism -with allowance for peaceful and voluntary Anarcho-Syndicalism. And it certainly includes nihilistic social values, which is the common denominator of all totalitarian systems. In another era the priority would have been discrediting Nazism but, while this form of Fascism still exists, including within the similar ideologies of black nationalists in the cities of America, it is not the same magnitude represented by the far Left and its ideas. In any case, all such social-political sickness must be rooted out. . . As you can see, these issues cannot be taken as Left-wing in outlook, or Right-wing. They are a mixture of Left and Right and neither. This is characteristic of Radical Centrism. What a Radical Centrist advocates or opposes is determined on the merits, case by case, and always, as much as this is possible, based on empirical evidence to support one's views. . Speaking personally, I did not arrive at this set of principles all at once. They are the result of years of thinking about issues, personal experience, and research. What they are not, except in a few cases incidentally, are the effects shifts in public opinion. Most of the time public opinion is basically worthless; it consists of the blind leading the blind, of uninformed people leading other uninformed people. And who needs that? . In some ways these stands on issues can be viewed as Christian in nature. There is truth in that observation but in no way does any of this reflect Christian naïveté which, to be candid, makes me ill. In any case, at least a few of these principles are more Buddhist than anything else, or more Zoroastrian, or Hindu. Some reflect my background as a student of philosophy. In any case, while I am sympathetic to pro-life views of Christians and Buddhists and others, this is not "my issue." Other issues are personally far more compelling.. . It seemed advisable to spell all of this out because people may want insight into my intentions. There should be no mistake about what these intentions actually are; indeed, I want them understood as clearly as possible. . There is a war to be fought. As Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, wars are won by teams and teamwork. At some point it will become necessary to find a team to work with, and everyone should be in agreement about what is most essential and how to understand success or failure. . In other words, a team member would be expected to agree with each of these principles. You may wish to re-read this statement: Each of these principles, without exception. . There certainly is room for debate: What are our top priorities going forward? What are the best ways to achieve clearly stated goals? Who can we work with? Who should we not work with? What information do we need that is unavailable to us at this time? And much else. . What is not debatable are the principles themselves. Here is why: . Year after year, decade after decade, I have had to listen to utter crap on the part of politicians, journalists, judges, community leaders, sometimes even clergy. The uninformed nonsense that these worthies has inundated our culture with has polluted that culture to an extent that I never would have believed was possible. It has all been sickening. . All this time I have been denied free speech rights to make my case, to debate issues on the basis of hard won knowledge, or to have any kind of meaningful forum to take my case to the public. Exceptions to this rule have all been temporary and, at that, far less than was needed to be effective. . My purpose is to champion these ideas, to promote the Good and to destroy what is Evil. And each of these issues is black vs. white in character, none admits any compromise. All are principles that are unambiguous, researched, and matters of deep conviction. I don't really care to listen to anyone who has not done the necessary research, which means just about everyone who disagrees with me -on these issues. Things are that stark. My attitude is: "I have done my homework, you have not, therefore you have nothing to say that I want to hear, you would just waste my time." . But you have strong feelings about homosexuality? That's your problem and if you choose to take the side of the political Left on this issue you have been brainwashed and we are enemies; it is as simple as that. Maybe we still can talk, even learn from each other, but in speaking about a team. .. On other issues, like economics, it might be belief in Right-wing ideas that clearly are dysfunctional that would make us, if not enemies, totally different species of political thinkers, based on what I have studied on the subject. Such things as debating supply-side theory is utterly futile and pointless as I see it, and is contrary to the goal of creating a new economics in which the good of all citizens is the objective of economic policy not glorification of covetousness, selfishness, or greed. . The bottom line is that I insist upon having the opportunity to educate the public to a completely different set of values than most people now have on a series of issues that are identified here not only as important, but crucial. I do not intend to waste any time at all debating fundamental principles. I will be looking for committed "team players," not opponents who want to act as spoilers against what I most want to accomplish. . I'm not playing games. If you are not interested in being part of a team that believes whole heartedly in these principles and goals then I am not interested in you. . For those who do believe in these ideas, my sincere interest would be in helping you achieve success because we would both win. --------------------------------------------------- Chapter 10 . Re-thinking the future . . As John Judis reported in his New Republic article of October 15, 1995, Toffler said -"implied" may be more accurate- that during those years doing factory work he and Heidi ceased to be doctrinaire Communists. This is consistent with what he told me even if, as he alluded, the process of 'disengagement' from Marxist-Leninism was step-by-step rather than anything else and, at that, he still identified with a variety of ideas from those years. What they especially retained, said Judis, "was Marx's systematic approach to history." . As Judis argued still further: "In The Third Wave, Toffler was borrowing and discarding parts of the Marxist legacy in order to create a new historical synthesis. His distinction between industrial and agricultural societies and his characterization of Second Wave production were pure Marx." . "Toffler also used," said Judis, "a loose version of the Marxist distinction between base and superstructure -between the overall sphere of production, on the one hand, and all other areas of social and political life on the other. The "de-massification" of government and the family reflected the "de-massification" of production." . Judis continued: "There is also a striking resemblance between Toffler's concept of the Third Wave and Marx's somewhat inchoate view of communism." And: " Toffler was still bewitched by Marx's model of a pure, "market-less" communism" -a belief that struck Judis as untenable. That is, Toffler really went off the rails on that one: "Consumers who put together bicycles bought at Sports Authority or build decks from materials purchased at Home Depot are not exactly bringing the market into question. They are merely making it easier for companies to produce and sell goods on a modular basis that can be adapted to different markets. When a family fills out a will at home using a computer program rather than employing a lawyer, they may be depriving lawyers of market income, but they are also enriching the market for software or CD-ROMs." . Toffler was years ahead of many others in forecasting the rise of home computers, however, and in foreseeing something very much like the Internet. Which is quite true; I had become his research assistant precisely because he was a font of new and potentially very useful ideas. My disagreements with him are on very different grounds. . There should be no mistake about this: Toffler deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent allowable by law. There is no conceivable excuse for his criminality year after year, decade after decade. He also deserves to be disgraced and humiliated. But this said, his ideas deserve to be considered -or re-evaluated- on their merits. . About the merits, however, it is essential to expose the Gramscian values that are there to be found in his various writings; there isn't any real question that Toffler was influenced by this strain of latter-day Marxism, also associated with the Frankfort School and better known as Cultural Marxism. The hopelessly mal-informed Right seems to think that everything you need to know about Marxism can be gotten from reading the Communist Manifesto and watching the classic movie, I led three lives. . Rightists are, to use idiom, so many putzes. They're stupid. They don't know a damned thing. And they are oblivious to their gross ignorance. . The trouble is that the Left is evil. It is morally bankrupt. Many of its social values are Satanic in character, conceived in Hell, yet, as Leftists see it, all of their values come from God himself. It is impossible to imagine a more perverted politics than this; the Left is a disease of heart, mind, and spirit. . . The anti-Christian agenda of Alvin Toffler . Toffler not only promoted homosexuality in The Third Wave, he attacked precisely that population which has most opposed homosexuality, Evangelical Christians. He did this by grossly mischaracterizing them as religious fanatics who "are determined to seize power over the lives and minds of whole nations, continents, the planet itself" -in the words of the book itself. . To be sure, among Evangelicals you can find a subset who are antedeluvian in outlook -they often are called "fundamentalists." But how big of a threat are they to social order or the republic? The best anyone can say is that from the perspective of the late 1970s when the book was being written and the early 1980s when it mattered the most, the Christian Right was on the ascendency; it did the most of any voting bloc among GOP partisans to elect Ronald Reagan. But most of this population did not consist of so-called fundamentalists but of "Jesus loves you" Evangelicals, a different species of believer. At that, despite my criticisms of Jerry Falwell in the past, which I have no reason to retract now, -and he clearly was the most important leader of the Fundamentalist movement- his preferred mode of operation was peaceful assembly and constructive action. . Yes, Falwell organized the Moral Majority but as of 1971 he put most of his energy into creating Liberty University, now a first rate academic institution even if it has some distance to go before it can compete with schools like Baylor or Notre Dame, which was his original ambition. Before 1990 the Moral Majority was fast becoming a memory and Liberty U. was gaining respect in educational circles. In what way is this a threat? . Who also received a good deal of attention in that era was Pat Robertson. He was the moving force behind the Christian Coalition which, in fact, for approximately 20 years, was a force in American politics; Robertson himself ran for the nomination of the Republican Party in 1988, finishing second in the Iowa caucuses that year with 25% of the vote; Bob Dole won with 37 % and George H.W. Bush was third at 19%. However, Robertson's campaign stumbled after that although he was competitive enough to win the delegates from Washington state before everything fizzled. . The point is that, like fellow Southern Baptist, Falwell, Robertson has always favored organization and constructive activities as the way to get things done. And, like Falwell, he created a school, Regent University, that opened its doors in 1977. There was also CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network, which was sold to International Family Entertainment in 1990 because of a conflict between its non-profit status and the amount of money it was raking in. After that, in 1997, it was sold to News Corporation, after which it was sold again, in 2001, to Disney, after which it became ABC Family, which still carries Robertson's well known religious news and talk show, The 700 Club. . Besides this, Robertson sponsors a sort of Evangelical "Red Cross" called Operation Blessing, which operates around the world providing disaster relief. . What would be good to know is how any of this constitutes a scheme to replace the US Government with a Christian dictatorship. . Robertson is someone else -while he may not know it- whom I have also criticized in the past. There are times which arise like clockwork when he is, to be candid, a crackpot. However: (1) there also are times when he is just about the only voice that can be heard in opposition to a number of social evils in America, and (2) he merits a great deal of respect for his many constructive activities. The man is a world class entrepreneur. . Indeed, if I ever had serious resources, while I certainly disagree with many of his views, his example in developing Christian institutions is something that would be a model of what to do even if there are many other things that he has never thought of. . Exactly why does Toffler fear people like Robertson and, while he was still alive, Jerry Falwell? Can someone explain this to me? . There is plenty to criticize Evangelicals about: . Sorrow" when bad things happen like genocide of Christians in the Mid East, which accomplishes nothing, when anger and a fighting spirit would be a superior reaction, prayer as an answer to problems rather than rolling up your sleeves and getting to work to fix a mess, over-reliance on the Bible as containing solutions to all problems when, clearly, the holy book has limitations and sometimes modern science or modern psychology provides more useful alternatives, and excessive faith in non-violence as if evil is always amenable to peaceful approaches when this is obviously a demonstrable fallacy. . . However, these kinds of problems are the exact opposite of what you would expect from Toffler's critique. . By the way, someone else who has made an issue out of Evangelical presence in American politics and culture is another author who has much to say -most of the time- Kevin Philips. At least his concern is rational given the fact that he is a nose-in-the-air Episcopalian who cannot get used to the idea that the United States is no longer a crown colony of the British Empire. In his case, since this is a harmless affectation, there is nothing to worry about. His tastes run to stained glass and staid religion; he regards anything populist in spirit as déclassé. I can live with that even though I genuinely like populism, but what explains Toffler? . Here is a wild guess: He was under the spell of the hysterical intolerant dogmatic Atheist Left . He clearly was not under the spell of the close-minded, gullible, uninformed Religious Right. . . Toffler vs. other bêtes noires . Toffler has also expressed trepidation over "eco-theocrats," not to be confused with "mainstream environmentalists." These priests of everything green except US currency, want nothing more than to "plunge society into pre-technological medievalism and asceticism." Which reminds me of John Zerzan and his Anarcho-Primitivists known hereabouts in Oregon as infantile iconoclasts -although, given Zerzan's various Anarchist babes and his Anarchist groupies, I wouldn't exactly call him an ascetic. Anyway, there is no way to disagree with Toffler's assessment -in principle. . Toffler also had unkind words to say about the "new Xenophobes" who regard Mexican immigration as out of control and something that must be brought to reasonable levels. Once again, Toffler rode his horse at full gallop off the reservation. We can now see what his libertarian approach to illegal immigration led to, as of this writing about 13 million mostly Mexicans who have no right to reside in America yet who clamor for benefits from US taxpayers. . Given my surname no-one can accuse me of being "anti-Spanish" -using this term in a broad sense. However, it was insanity to allow an open borders policy and American citizens had good reason to be alarmed. Contrary to all of the rationalizations to some other effect that were voiced in the 1990s as a flood of "undocumented" workers entered the United States unopposed, these people took jobs from law abiding citizens, they depressed wages, and consumed social services that shrank resources for everyone else. I was living in Arizona when this became a massive phenomenon and I was victimized by it. . I also remember a journalist as the Arizona Republic named Valdez (she was an American who married a well-to-do Hispanic) who wrote columns about how we should all welcome these newcomers since they represented no problem for anyone. And the kicker, pure sentimentalist tear-jerk argument from bogus premises, "what about the cute little girl from El Salvador, are you going to discriminate against her?" . Her logic was as fallacious then as Toffler's was in 1980. And for the same reason: Of course someone in a high order knowledge-based position who is paid for developing new ideas has no reason to be concerned. A Mexican with the equivalent of an 8th grade education, even of a high school education, is not about to take jobs away from the professional elite. But it is a Marxist fantasy that open borders do anything but damage society and cause economic havoc. And if someone has been blacklisted from professional work, as was my case, that puts you in the same work pool as illegal Mexican immigrants. . Imagine my surprise as the temp office where I had been working, which always needed people for construction jobs, hence an income for me, such as it was, five days a week, was replaced as a labor glut of illegal Mexicans swarmed the place and, if I was lucky, there was work for me maybe three days per week. I remain totally opposed to illegal immigration and, as a former machismo construction worker, if you demure I would be tempted to punch you on the nose. Or deliver a good swift kick to your derriere. . Toffler also was unhappy about "Japan bashers," a problem that has largely evaporated although more recently they have been largely replaced by China bashers. To the extent that this reflects anti-Asian prejudice my feelings of revulsion about such bigots could not be greater. I have Japanese friends and deep appreciation for Japanese Buddhism and -while mostly lost to me now- studied Japanese language in college. My niece has fluent command of Mandarin and teaches English to Chinese speakers at San Francisco State University. And I once taught East Asian history. But, dammit, this hardly means that unethical Japanese business practices of the past or Chinese espionage in our time was, or is, justifiable in any way, nor is product dumping or tariff walls that keep US goods out of Asian markets. Why is this so difficult for Marxists to understand? . To his credit, Toffler regards the concept of class struggle as obsolete. Instead, while there still is 'worker conflict,' he came to the conclusion that workers within different kinds of economies are the key to what is happening now. That is, the fights are not (or seldom are) between shop floor lathe operators and bosses who wear suits and ties, but between people who earn their livelihood in agriculture (everyone from seasonal laborers to owners of 10,000 acre mega-farms) vs. people who earn their incomes working in industry vs. people who are employed in knowledge occupations like college teachers, journalists, TV producers, think tank experts, and so forth. . . Regardless of problems in The Third Wave the book proved to be influential. And politicians on Capitol Hill got in on the excitement. . While some of this had its roots in the mid seventies, "Representatives Charles Rose and John Culver" got on board, with Culver being elected to the Senate from Iowa. Charlie Rose "then started the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, which was chaired in the '80s by Al Gore. After The Third Wave, Republicans began to seek Toffler's advice. Republican operative Lee Atwater invited him to the White House to address the Domestic Policy Council. Later, he was invited to meet with Ronald Reagan and George Bush." All of this and Gingrich, too. . All of which will come crashing down because Alvin Toffler has based it all on an endless parade of lies. The only question is who he will take with him at his downfall. In case it matters, I won't give a damn whose reputations are ruined when that happens. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
