Preview copy for forthcoming anthology entitled After Shock, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of publication of Future Shock I have seen the book cover design for the project and it is quite good. There are about 20 writers lined up as contributors to the book. Not a topic I had intended to return to until the invitation came to contribute my own views of Alvin Toffler to the anthology. No idea if my article will actually get into print but here it is for your edification.... My sincere thanks to a friend who wanted to see to it that I received some recognition for the work I have done. He got in touch with the editor and got the editor interested in seeking me out. No idea if this is the break I have been looking for, but just maybe... Some people have already read my article and, so far anyway, the responses are positive. This is the bio that I provided to the editor- About the author: One of the first college teachers of Future Studies, in 1968 - 1969 at Alice Lloyd College in Kentucky. Alvin Toffler's first research assistant, early member World Future Society, editor of The Future magazine, published in Arizona. Graphic artist and game designer. Former teacher of History, Comparative Religion, Social Science, Political Science, and Philosophy: Alice Lloyd College, Phoenix College, Lower Columbia College, City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the US Navy PACE Program to provide college course instruction to military personnel on board the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. Also a lecturer at the University of Oregon, Pacifica Forum, 2008 - early 2010. A founding member of Centroids, Radical Centrist online discussion group, 2004 - 2019. _______________________________________________________ A Lifetime of Creative New Ideas, a Lifetime of Dishonesty The Story of Alvin Toffler By: Billy Rojas He was the man who did the most of anyone in his era to make the study of the future important both to the public and to professional people of many kinds. All of the field of Futures Research, in academics and business, is dated in terms of Before Toffler and Since Toffler. The publication of Future Shock in 1970 changed the world. The book was pivotal in ways that few publications ever are. We became "futures conscious" because of Future Shock. It was that consequential. However, Alvin Toffler was a conflicted man who had a terrible dark side, a dimension of his life he kept secret until his death in 2016. It was not a side I had any idea even existed until going to work for him as his research assistant in 1975. And it was a side that cost me a career and a fortune when I insisted that he "come clean" and openly admit his Communist past, a past that haunted him at the time -and would haunt him all of the years from that now-distant period until well into the 21st century. I first heard about Alvin Toffler in late 1969, shortly after founding the Future Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts. It was at a formal dinner where the guest of honor was Arthur C.Clarke, and since I was the 'resident futurist' at the school, we were seated next to each other so that we could talk at length. I do not remember much else about our conversation but recall very clearly that Clarke recommended a new book he had just read after being given an advance copy. "As soon as possible," he said, "be sure to get a copy of Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. It is amazing; it speaks to everything we have been discussing." There were meetings with myself and Toffler at various times during the following several years and then in the Spring of 1974 he asked me to meet him in Colorado to discuss the possibility of working for him in New York. In January of 1975, after resigning from Phoenix College where I had taught Future Studies, I arrived in Manhattan to begin my new job in his office near Central Park. There was just one catch. That first night after starting work Alvin said that he needed to talk with me; there was something I needed to know. To be sure, we had discussed politics during our meeting in Colorado. I told him that, while I was a Democrat at that time, in my college years I had belonged to YPSL, the Young Peoples Socialist League, in Chicago. "Was this a problem?" Toffler said that it wasn't, adding that his own political background was also Marxist, "but more to the Left than you were." And that was pretty much it. He didn't elaborate and I did not press the issue, assuming he meant something like the Left wing of the Socialist Party. I knew that the legacy of Morris Hillquit was alive and well in New York City, but who couldn't live with that? This was the East Coast version of "streets and sewers socialism" and it was about as sinister as Swedish social democracy. Not exactly a serious concern. That evening in upper Manhattan, however, was not what I expected. Alvin did most of the talking but his wife Heidi made sure that her voice was heard. The two of them had been Communists in the 1950s, the heyday of Gus Hall in the United States, and of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Al and Heidi had kept their past a secret and wanted to keep it that way, they were mortified at being found out because, in those Cold War years, their fame -and fortune- would be jeopardized if their political past became public knowledge. Their fear was rooted in passage of the new Freedom of Information Act, and rumblings from William F. Buckley that he might look into the Alvin's record. Already there were criticisms of Future Shock as based upon ideas that sounded Marxist or even Marxist-Leninist. Buckley never pursued matters, nor did anyone else who had questioned whether part of the inspiration for the book ultimately was Marxist in some sense, and things were normal enough in the office for several months: Until Toffler decided to venture into US politics. I had kept his secret -what else could I have done?- despite my unease. Besides, a new world was opening up before me, and there seemed to be no harm, and not much foul. Toffler's membership in the Communist Party was a thing of the past, so he said, and it was time to focus on the here-and-now and upon the future. For the time being anyway, I could live with that. And there were all the things I was learning professionally. My salary was little better than that of a Teaching Assistant at a university but my job was the equivalent of study at an elite grad school, with the advantage of a cast of opinion-leader celebrities who came and went in the Toffler orbit. There were liabilities, however, and they were always on my mind. After all, if Toffler's past was exposed that would not only mean serious damage to Alvin's reputation, it would mean damage to the cause of futuristics at large, which I was very much involved in, and damage to my own reputation for not saying anything. But allow me to discuss the positive dimensions of life before returning to the issue of politics in the shadow of the Sword of Damocles. --------- It was easy enough to try and make the most of things in the environment of the reputation of Future Shock. Girls, for instance, although this part of the equation should not be exaggerated. Still, my "chances" improved significantly, and that was very welcome. If I had known what I was doing, the improvement might have been far more rewarding than it turned out, but at least I was on the right track. More prosaically, there were new friendships, and previous friendships took on new meaning. A prime example concerned someone I had met at a conference in Chicago about two years before ever talking with Toffler, namely, New Gingrich. As things transpired, in 1975 I recommended Newt to Toffler for membership in his then-new Committee on Anticipatory Democracy. They had never met before then, Alvin had no knowledge of Gingrich, whatever their "cover story" years later may say. At any rate, just after Newt had lost his second bid to be elected to the US House, Gingrich and myself, following a joint presentation at the World Future Society assembly that year, decided to look into the possibility of organizing a third political party. There actually were plans the two of us made, documented in my archives, even if, as things turned out, Newt decided to try again to win election running as a Republican one more time in his Georgia district, and "the rest is history," as they say. There was also Toffler's tutoring in writing. A separate essay would be needed to do justice to this topic but it should be sufficient to observe that my writing skills owe much to those 1: 1 lessons. For this I will forever be grateful. Future Shock per se was a feast of ideas to learn from. A variety of criticisms have been made of the book, many of them years after the fact with the benefit of hindsight, but in the 1970s everyone was still trying to make some kind of sense of computers, what their potential might be, and trying to make sense of new kinds of business management, new forms of education, new cultural movements, new outlooks in psychology, you-name-it, and if Toffler was anything but 100% prescient, he was far ahead of anyone who might have been regarded as his competition. In a sense, as far as some kind of grasp of what was in store for us in the coming years, he was a schoolmaster to America. Speaking personally, I was especially interested in several themes in the book: (1) Chapter 20, "The Strategy of Social Futurism," includes considerable material about utopias. As Toffler saw it, utopias are gold mines for new ideas, they challenge our assumptions and stretch our imaginations. Yes, a great deal of utopian literature has little real value, but that is like saying that a gold mine is all gold and no tailings, when, in fact, dirt and gravel and rocks constitute more than 99% of everything. Disposing of what is useless is simply how to do business, what counts are the highly valuable gold deposits. (2) The future, as chapter 20 also says, is like a constantly evolving form of cartography. We would do well to try and map the future, as cartographers draw maps, one for population, another for political realities, religions, environments, et. al. We need a "geography of the future" to look at so that we can see the next world holistically. (3) At some point, another insight from chapter 20, Toffler said that we need to develop a "politics of futurism." Toffler was never all that clear about his exact meaning but he didn't have to be. The concept has obvious value. If we want to see some outcomes and not others, if we want to prevent doomsday scenarios from becoming realities, if we hope to see promising innovations reach maturity in the marketplace, it takes politics. (4) Chapter 19, "Taming Technology," makes the point that "our choice of technologies... will decisively shape the cultural styles of the future." In other words, we tread on dangerous ground when we seek to arrive at technological solutions to problems based solely on what we now call "hardware." Not that Toffler's foresight about the importance of culture in the equation was understood by very many people, but it was understood by some, to some extent, and, accordingly, we can now say that Silicon Valley needs drastic reforms, not to be torn down to start over from zero. (5) The concept of a Super-Industrial Society can be found scattered throughout Future Shock. But already in 1975 Toffler was in the process of "demoting" his own concept. Regardless, I very much liked the idea even though he said that it needed to be replaced by something else which others called a "post-industrial" society, or an information economy, or still other coinages. But the original concept as I understood it, in addition to "super-industrial" being catchy, still has much to recommend it, such as the implication that not only do we need to transcend industrial era systems, we need to reinvent them for greater efficiency, greater productivity, and greater utility. You can say that Toffler had gotten ahead of himself only to back away from his idea to work with the ideas of others. For a very readable overview of Toffler's accomplishments in the writing of Future Shock see the February 10, 2011 article by David Grant at the website, Columbus Futurists, under the title, "Revisiting Future Shock." My five favorites only are a beginning. The book is crammed with well-worth-thinking-about ideas even if some percentage can easily be dismissed as off the mark, too hippy-dippy, too gee whiz, too uncritical. Grant's article seeks to provide an overview of everything good in the book -along with some pointed and useful criticisms. Among criticisms, some of them arrived at by several writers independently of each other, several stand out, for example: *Toffler takes the view that the future is relatively easy to predict, as if the problem is much more like Newtonian physics than General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. *Toffler seems to think that the need for constant life adjustments as society changes at greater and greater rates, is nearly inconsequential when, in fact, it is a huge issue that must be resolved for any kind of viable social forecasting to be possible. *Toffler makes no distinctions between classes of motivations. Is altruism no better and no worse than individualism? Is egoistic drive for power simply a neutral alternative to an ethos based on co-operation and sharing? Where is Toffler's morality? It can also be observed that Toffler's public politics in the Future Shock era was something of a mystery. It wasn't all that clear what it really was -beyond the obvious: He was an enthusiast for direct democracy. Or was he? The trouble was that he often talked out of both sides of his mouth. He was for a federal form of government except when he favored central planing. He was for citizen's participation in decision making except when he said that we need more and better experts to do the job. Toffler was a product of the times. As I was, as Newt Gingrich was, and as was just about everyone else. How could any of us escape the spell of the later 1960s? For a time it seemed as if the New Age would roll over everything in the country. Out of that ferment came heightened interest in new political organizations and parties. It should be remembered that the era saw the rise and eventual fall of about 25 new political parties or large scale political organizations. Among them were: Patriot Party, 1966, rural radicals from Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest Freedom Socialist party, 1966, Trotskyists, Socialist Alternative, 1966, also loyal to Trotsky, Black Panthers of 1966, Youth International Party (Yippies) of 1967, Democratic Socialists, 1967, under the Peace and Freedom Party banner, American Party of 1968, loyal to George Wallace. Plus a wide assortment of "movements" or sometimes decentralized organizations, including Women's Liberation, Neo-Conservatism, Students for a Democratic Society, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference affiliated with Martin Luther King, Jr., the Student Non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee, and still more. A little after Future Shock was published along came the Libertarian Party in 1971. Shortly after that came a 'senior liberation' organization called the Gray Panthers. By 1975 there also were new organizations for Communists, Neo-Nazis, Environmentalists, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. And there was the New Zealand "Values Party" which, earlier that year, had garnered over 5% of the votes in national elections there, all of that total from out of nowhere. This was important because the Values platform was partly futurist in outlook. And it was politically independent. Just maybe something like that could be successful in the United States. Toffler's CAD, Committee on Anticipatory Democracy, while it borrowed various ideas from Future Shock, was also influenced by the Values Party. The New Zealand party, not at all incidentally, morphed into the first Green Party of any importance. It wasn't strictly an "eco party" at the outset, but that is what it became. What Toffler had said in his 1970 book about "sub cults" becoming a major part of American culture and politics was coming true with a vengeance. Which is not even to discuss the explosion of "new religions" in those years, or re-makes of old religions as was the Hare Krishna movement, plus America's new versions of Tibetan Buddhism. Also in the mix was Yazda Mazna, a Zoroastrian mission to America in the years the Shah was still in power. This was also the time when the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo attracted significant numbers of Americans. And there were offshoots from Islam, the so-called Black Muslims and also Ahmadiyya Islam, similar to the Baha'i Faith in some ways. As well, Qadiri Sufism made its appearance at this time, as did Subud, and the Meher Baba people. In reaction to this unexpected religious competition and in opposition to the rising tide of libertine morality, we also got the rise of the Religious Right. Toffler did not have it all spelled out, but he really got the idea, dead center. All of which fit my interests just about perfectly, and gave me a lifelong agenda of trying to make practical sense of it all. Still, as a good number of critics have noted, beneath the veneer of generous and tolerant acceptance of just about anything and everything, what you will also find in Future Shock are strata of pure Marxian ideas, and, in places, ideas that can fairly be categorized as Marxist-Leninist in character and inspiration. For an excellent review of Toffler's contribution to the world of ideas of the later years of the 20th century, see the John B. Judis article, "Newt's Not-So-Weird Gurus," in the October 8, 1995, edition of the New Republic. About this essay there is much, indeed, to say. Judis, like no other, pointedly identified Toffler's intellectual indebtedness to Marxism generally and to Communism specifically. Not that I had it all figured out, but before Autumn of 1975 it seemed to me that it was getting increasingly risky to work for Toffler. Ironically, my fears proved to be needless, but at the time they were all too realistic. But there was also New York and if I had doubts about the wisdom of leaving Toffler's office, the realities of the city were what they were. Basically I could not stand the crowds, the ceaseless torrents of traffic, the grime, and proximity to never ending crime, and I needed to escape. To be sure, at that time there was little or no acrimony between Toffler and myself. And he was a good person to work with; most people who knew him felt the same way. In terms of personality conflicts the real issue was his wife, Heidi. She could be abrasive. But the serious problem was that this was the period when Alvin had a crush on Shirley McClain, pretty much an open secret, and Heidi was unhappy about it. At least as I remember the situation, but I am trying to be objective, this was when Heidi began to insist that she receive co-author credits for Alvin's books. Actually, of course, a co-author does roughly half the actual writing. However, Heidi never wrote a word of Alvin's books -except for the indexes, which were her responsibility, which she more-or-less fulfilled despite all kinds of omissions along the way. I'm not the only person to note the incompleteness of the indexes. As I remember things, the co-author ploy was Heidi's stratagem for binding Alvin to herself and, in the process, controlling important leverage in case she ever needed it. This also helped her in terms of bona fides with her friends in the Women's Movement. Regardless, the most anyone can say is that Heidi was Alvin's collaborator, that was as far as things ever got. They discussed if not everything that made it into the books, a great deal, and Heidi had the virtue of making herself informed. But she was never an actual co-author. And she never published anything on her own, anywhere. She simply was not a writer. This is mentioned here because of how much Heidi made of her "co-author" status in later years, which was total hypocrisy and an example of one of the lies that Toffler told. Some of those lies can be directly attributed to his wife. Alvin always tried to be nice to other people. He was nice to me when I broke the news that it was time for me to move on, and he tried to line me up with a job in some other city. None of that effort was successful, sometimes for absurd reasons like the time I was interviewed for a teaching position at Ithaca College, and things had gone quite well. Mr. Phillips, of the foundation in his family name and a decision maker at the college, had seemed very positive. Then, back in Manhattan, came the news that Mrs. Phillips had vetoed the idea because I (supposedly) did not have a background in history, her favorite subject. All she needed to do was read my resume, there it was, a Master's degree in Intellectual History, with honors. But it did not matter, her mind was made up. Such was fate, in that case determined by an irresponsible woman who did not deserve a place in the councils of an elite college. In the end, Toffler was contacted, unbidden, by a small time publisher in Scottsdale and I returned to Arizona, a place that I very much like. They pay was miserable, maybe $8000 over the course of approximately 15 months, but there had been an opportunity to serve as editor of The Future magazine, the concept being a Time magazine format publication all about the world to come. With a national advertising budget of about $1,500 (not a typo) I did my best, but never really had a chance. The one-and-only issue featured interviews with Toffler and environmentalist Hazel Henderson, but there were minimal revenues. Some 100,000 copies were printed, sales reached at most about 20,000. The way that publisher Arthur Bernard operated, every year or so he would launch a new magazine for very little money. Most failed. But if one caught on somehow, he would start to spend real dollars to see it get to the next level. Basically he "paid" in terms of promises and experience gained. His risk was minimal, his authors received pittances. Toffler had tried to help out by granting the interview but it wasn't enough to make the magazine a sales success. It was off to California for me and eventually Hawaii and the state of Washington. It was during those years that I began to train myself for an alternative career as a free lance graphic artist, a profession you may know by another designation, commercial art. In high school I had become an accomplished architectural draftsman and supported myself when attending night classes at Roosevelt University while working as an architectural illustrator at US Gypsum Corporation. Graphic art was a natural for me. And it helped that my college minor was Art History. It was in Washington, living near Seattle in 1977, that my break with Toffler took place. We had met once during that time, when he visited Portland. The actual severance took place long distance, via letters. There were several causes for the break, although one factor that became important to me some years after, was still a secondary issue at that time. This was Toffler's increasing promotion of homosexual causes. In 1975 this was not much of a concern; my view was still that of a liberal Democrat, basically uninformed about the entire phenomenon, simply repeating the canard that homosexuality was a civil rights cause. This started to change in New York where, for the first time I had seen homosexuals in a variety of settings, where nothing of the homosexual scene was in any way something other than repulsive. My education into this deranged form of behavior continued while working for Mr Bernard; that was when I carried out the first of my academic studies of homosexuality and became more and more disgusted. There no longer was any real question about it, homosexuality is a clinical psychopathology, a conclusion supported by an abundance of empirical studies. At any rate, this was to become a major contention between us, certainly by the mid 1980s, but in the late 1970s it was basically a resentment of mine and a source of unease with Toffler's values. Call it a serious irritant. Something else did happen to precipitate the break but exactly what it was still eludes me. It simply does not come to mind. Possibly it was connected to the debate about the ERA then in full swing, but whatever it was, my feelings about Toffler's political activities boiled to the surface. I wrote a fairly lengthy letter and told him that he needed to finally become honest about his Communist past; Arthur Koestler had done so, as had many others, he could emerge from it all as a better man and no longer have a threatening cloud hanging over his head. His reply, although the story was complicated, this is the short version, was to blacklist me from any Futures Research employment that I might ever seek from then onward. This worked like a charm for him, especially since it involved slanders and lies about me that I did not know about and, accordingly, could not defend myself against. Only years later did I learn some of the false allegations, like supposedly beating up two women in Arizona whom I never as much as met, and similar fictions, but mostly there was little I could do but soldier on. What should be mentioned is that in the process of these events I sent letters to a large number of mutual contacts in the realm of futuristics, in large part people we both knew. This letter explained the facts as I knew them about Toffler's Communist Party membership, his one time Stalinist sympathies, and what all of this implied in the context of American politics. For it was very clear by that date, late 1978, that Toffler was compromising everyone he had involved in his committee, and this meant elected officials like Al Gore as well. It also meant various celebrities in a number of professional fields, like Margaret Meade, Jonas Salk, Ted Gordon, Willis Harman of SRI, Buckminster Fuller, Isaac Asimov, and William Ruckleshaus. Those still were years of the Cold War, and anti-Communist sentiment helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. A Communist past was anything but a recommendation for membership in the upper echelons of society. And it was anathema in US politics. We should not interpret the era through perfect hindsight, knowing what we now do about Michael Gorbachev and his major reforms. In those years we feared going to war with the Soviet Union at almost any time. What did become clear from the silence, and from a couple of replies that mattered a good deal, was that lies were part of Toffler's response. One important correspondence was from the principal of Maslow-Toffler High School in Brentwood, on Long Island, which I had visited and had gotten to know some of the faculty and students. Another was from a friend in Washington, DC. Let me explain things this way: When Toffler's next book, The Third Wave, was published in 1980, the preface included comments to the effect that Alvin, during his youth as a college student, had, like many others, taken a passing interest in Marx. But that was all it was, inconsequential, and nothing came of it. So millions of readers were led to believe. His Communist past had been airbrushed out of existence. There also would be frequent references to Newt Gingrich, supposedly dating to a non-existent time when Alvin and Newt met in Chicago long before they actually did meet, and only then because of my efforts to tell Toffler about a rising political star he should know about. This was another lie. As far as the first point is concerned, just try and find out anything at all about Alvin's younger years. Everything is blank before his last year at New York University when he met Heidi. There are no references to the years before, anywhere, none at all. For that matter, there also is a blank where the years of the Korean War are concerned. What else Toffler told me that evening in January of 1975, was that he had been terminated from the US military during the Korean conflict for some kind of subversive activities. He was never forthright about what, precisely, this was all about, but the impression I had was that he was less than honorably discharged. Where you will find a Communist reference in the saga as I lived it in the 1980s and 1990s, was in relationship to myself. I happen to have detested Fidel Castro and the entire Cuban regime. But not according to the "legend" that Toffler and his friends manufactured. According to that story, I supposedly had a direct connection to Castro's people and was in their pocket. The whole idea is preposterous but my denials meant nothing and the accusations were pure platinum because they came from Toffler. All of which, as I saw it, meant that I needed to somehow find documentary proof that I was telling the truth, that Alvin Toffler actually had been a "card carrying" Communist and was deliberately concealing the fact from the public and, in all probability, from the Government of the United States. Mostly my searching was fruitless, but eventually there were two important discoveries. Something very close to hard evidence was published in 1995 in the John Judis article referred to previously, in the New Republic. But I missed that issue of the magazine and did not learn about it until years later, Other people surely did see it, though, yet none of them that I know of anyway, made the connection. Or if they did, they were shut up. Here is what Judis said in his article: *In 1948 both Alvin and Heidi worked for the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace. This fact proves nothing, a lot of people with no Communist record did so also, but a good percentage were Communists, so this raises suspicion. *About the fact that the Tofflers were union organizers in Cleveland during the late 1940s, Judis reported about his interview with Alvin: "I concluded from what he said, and from coy hints, that he either belonged to or worked very closely with the Communist Party. When I asked him if he studied at NYU with the socialist -but militantly anti-Communist- philosopher Sidney Hook, he said he thought then of Hook as a "terrible reactionary." When I asked him if he had been a Trotskyist, he said Trotskyists were the "bad guys." *Finally, so Judis said, "there is... a striking resemblance between Toffler's concept of the Third Wave and Marx's somewhat inchoate view of communism." Indeed, Judis added, in various ways clearly Toffler was still "bewitched" by Marx. All this is very, very suggestive but isn't quite a "smoking gun." That would come in an article in the December 1980 issue of Design Magazine, a British publication intended for product designers. The relevance was that this was a review of Toffler's The Third Wave, which, of course, includes discussion of new kinds of commercial products. The author of the review was Professor James Woudhuysen, sometimes known as James Woods, a member of the faculty at De Montfort University of Leicester. The title is: "Woudhuysen -Thinking about the future; Alvin Toffler: Exiled to Malibu." The article begins with these words: "Alvin Toffler used to be a Marxist..." but then goes on to say- "he and his wife were for five years Communist Party (USA) trade union organisers at a car factory and steel foundry -and, despite his long-established disenchantment with Marxism, it shows." Here was someone who clearly had real world knowledge of Toffler's Communist past. Where did he get this knowledge from? That is not clear but Woudhuysen, was a Marxist himself and was associated with a publication called Novo, which is described as "the German sister publication of Living Marxism." That is, James Woods had contacts in the world of hard Left politics; any number of people who knew Toffler "back when" could have provided the information. For that matter, possibly Woudhuysen got it from the horse's mouth. The Toffler's maintained a home in England and maybe James was a visitor. In any case, there are any number of possible sources and there was no doubt in his mind when he wrote that the Tofflers were active Communists at one time. Nor were there complaints about misrepresentation from Alvin or anyone else. The assertion went unchallenged. This is as good as it gets in terms of documentation. Case closed. Except that in 2015 when I broke this news to people on my national mailing list again the silence was deafening. These are people who are professionals of various kinds, Some have connections in the communications business. Here was irrefutable proof that I had been telling the truth all along yet nobody budged in their refusals to acknowledge that truth for what it is. Something is very wrong, indeed. As is the cowardice of those who do see the facts for what they are but persist in prolonging inexcusable injustice for the sake of protecting immoral people in positions of power. And so the whitewash continues -and I have no idea how much longer it will continue. As long as it does, however, the picture we all have of Alvin Toffler will remain false to half the facts of his life, our impression will consist of a hagiography, not a realistic photograph of a brilliant but immoral and hypocritical man who changed the world. -- -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/10bb12be692c4c2c997338f73fb53e3f%40buglephilosophy.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
