A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

[For the journal--guidelines, focus, etc.--go to www.theamericandissident.org. If you have questions, please contact me at todslone@hotmail.com. Comments are NOT moderated (i.e., CENSORED)!]
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia, not to mention Sweden, England, and Austria.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Thursday, November 11, 2021

William Pannapacker


The cartoon below was sketched in 2007, but not posted on the blog.  Privileged Pannapacker is still yelping on his platform on the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is why I post it now.


Below is our brief correspondence.


December 12, 1998

The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Directly from Diapers to the Ivory Tower”

Dear Bill Pannapacker, 

First the idiot comic strips, then Ms. Mentor, now your essay. The systemic crap that the Chronicle prints is disturbing, yet wholly comprehensible for it serves that diversionary purpose in the Chomsky sense. While ivory tower corruption florishes in all sorts of forms, lying deans, cowardly professors, cheating students, corrupt evaluation and sexual harassment procedures etc., garbage essays, yes cloaked in tweed and radiating that false "Life," as you call it, like cheap wallpaper in ghetto rooms indeed serve America well, but in what sense? 

Pierre Vadeboncoeur stated, "Il faut renverser les monuments pour voir les vers grouillent." Well, when are you going to turn over the Harvard monument and its media wing The Chronicle? 

G. Tod Slone, Ed. 

P.S.:  P.S.: "Have you had a job-seeking experience you'd like to share?" asks The Chronicle at the end of your essay. I have over and over and over tried to share my experience at Fitchburg State College (MA) and with the MTA, but of course the paper’s editors did not want that kind of thing in their lily white newspaper. 

Some of the most cowardly and in that sense corrupt professors that I knew at FSC came from Harvard's education program with their Harvard doctorates. 

P.S.: Please circulate the following flyer. Thank you. 


From: William Pannapacker <pannapac@fas.harvard.edu>
To: Tod Slone <ENMARGE@prodigy.net>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: PS


I'd like to see as many grad students and adjuncts as possible come forward with their stories. In fact, I'm preparing a collection of them for publication. If you're interested, send me a description of a 20-page essay you might like to write. Maybe it can be included. Also, I might be able to quote you in future columns or speeches. So, any comments or narratives you have are appreciated. I hope you don't count me among the lily-white Harvard types!

--Bill Pannapacker


December 12, 1998

Dear William, 

Perhaps it is because you are not yet in regalia that you have responded. I have been at this for two years now, blacklisted, unable to continue my passions of French and Spanish in academe (My doctorate is from the Universite de Nantes in sociolinguistics. I received excellent student evaluations and two ad hoc committe evaluations). I was nearly hired this past August but the dean of a southern university, after having flown me out, wined and dined me, decided not to hire me, despite the desire to hire me of the department members and chair, because I had not gotten tenure, though I suspect he called up Fitchburg State at the last minute. I won a monetary settlement from the latter... but not that much. In a state where cronyism and nepotism (legalized in 1986) is rampant, there's not much one can do except publish a review like The American Dissident. 

Anyhow, I have little faith in you, though, there is always hope. I found your essay to be quite very lily-white Harvard. Can you actually tell me it wasn't? If I hadn't, I wouldn't have responded. Let's just say, like the Ms. Mentor column (I also responded, but of course she never wrote back), your essay provoked my response. 

Of course, I'd be interested in sending you an essay, but again doubt it would go anywhere. As mentioned The Chronicle won't touch the subject. I have also written numerous poems on corruption in academe, some published here and there in the littles. I've written a play, "In The Year of the Citizen," and two novels as well as many essays on corruption in the Massachusetts educational system. None have been published. I've sent out everywhere, even to Harvard University Press. My recent novel, Junk Country: Total Chaos in the Underbelly of a National Blue-Riubbon High School , is being considered by an obscure publisher, but I doubt it will go anywhere because of the omni-important marketability factor. Of course, the conclusion could be that my writing sucks... But Bill Moyers himself stated that the system does not give much heed to dissidents (good writing or whatever). In any case, it's about my recent experience at Martha's Vineyard Regional HS as a Spanish teacher. I was fired five days after I published a letter to the editor decrying chaos at the school, a good example of the consequences of exercising free speech in America. Lawyers cost $100,000 to take a case like mine. I did write every lawyer-professor at Harvard Law (12 of them) with a specialty that might be apropos. Only two responded. One was no longer practicing, while the other wanted $250 up front before discussing my case. 

I have contacted many academics throughout the country, none but you and one or two others responded. Academics loathe criticism, probably more than any other characters. I even sent Michael Lewis a letter praising his recent book, Poisoning the Ivy, though questioning his own lack of action relative to corruption in his particular ivy tower (U. Mass.). By the way, my writing tends to be very concise, to the point, and quite lacking in obfuscatory or diversional imagery and metaphor. 

Amen. Hope to hear from you. If you are truly interested, please be more specific as to what kind of essay you would like. 

G. Tod 

P.S.: I just received a rejection for my essay, "Nepotism in Massachusetts," from CommonWealth. The editor was not all interested in the subject, yet he professes to be interested in matters that concern the citizens of the CommonWealth. He commented that my essay was full of personal animus, yet I did not mention one name in it. Just the same, the "personal animus" response seems to be quite common when you poke a nerve. 


From: William Pannapacker <pannapac@fas.harvard.edu>
To: Tod Slone <ENMARGE@prodigy.net>
Date: Saturday, December 12, 1998 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: PS


Please call me Bill. I'm not eacatly sure what "lily-white Harvard" means, though I assume it means I'm not as radical and angry as you seem to be.

I like your zeal, but, as you probably know, I can't really publish anything that attacks particular individuals. While we can attack institutional practices, I'm afraid we must remain silent on some of the specifics. Otherwise, I'll never find a publisher for the collection and, more importantly, the causes I think we both represent will never get a fair hearing and redress.

The question is what specific issue do you think is most important in the reform of higher education? What can you speak most eloquently about?



December 13, 1998


My experience tells me this little conversation of ours will end up in the garbage bucket, but I shall continue my efforts nonetheless... for that is what I do. 

First, as already stated, my writings do not mention particular names of people or institutions, though this really hasn't made much difference at all relative to getting published. The system will always find a reason for not wanting to publish something that is clearly against it. My dealings with the NEA's Thought & Action have taught me that. First, they rejected an essay because it was too personal. I rewrote and resubmitted it, then the NEA told me it was too impersonal... and I simply laughed. 

Although you might have the will and sincerity, I doubt you could ever really understand why I am angry and "radical," as you mentioned, without going through the mill yourself. 

In any case, I tend to answer all questions posed. Most of my correspondants rarely do that. What does lily-white Harvard mean? Well, it means somebody either born into the system's elite or somebody born in an industrial district awe-stricken by the amassed wealth and superficial mannerisms (call it culture), etc. of the elite and desiring to be part of that, as you seemed to mention in your essay. I suppose I could have chosen a better term, but, as mentioned, your essay got me ripping. The Chronicle pisses me off because of the type of essay it tends to publish (e.g., Ms. Mentor). As mentioned, The Chronicle does have a monopoly on academic news... thus, it can publish whatever it wants and can and does alter reality. In brief, the academy owns the Chronicle... it is not independent, as the media should be, though rarely is. 

Relative to your question on the important issues in higher education, they haven't really been mentioned as far as I'm aware. I suppose by giving you my thoughts, you can incorporate them into your project, dump me, then get published by Harvard University Press. Well, so be it. I'm not sure if I really care, so here goes. 

These issues haven't been mentioned because they would invariably challenge the very system of American capitalism of which higher ed is evidently an important cog. From my personal travails, I'll tell you what the issues are. As mentioned, I already have essays regarding these issues, have already attempted to get them published and have failed... which is why I created The American Dissident... to give voice to those whose voice has been suppressed. Please post my flyer on a wall somewhere. Thanks. 

There are two crucial areas that desperately need reform: 

1. evident suppression of free speech and criticism of academics by academics, colleagues by colleagues (Clearly, Ray Flynn's loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, semper fi garbage is responsible for this state of affairs... learned at an early age via emphasis on team-playing, networking, etc.. Academics should be zeroed in on truth seeking, not on how to be more loyal! Just try criticizing as an untenured professor the president of your college!) 

2. the consequent nature of most academics as sheep-like, obedient, non-questioning, etc.. 

Clearly, the emphasis on team-playing, networking and all the other latter day corporate crap has something to do with this state of affairs. Rampant nepotism and cronyism in public higher education also result in creating the type of academic beast mentioned. 

Would you like to see my essay on nepotism in Massachusetts? Or my essay on life in a blue ribbon high school? Or my essay on the aftermath of an arbitration settlement? 

True. If you want to get your collection published, keep it lily-white Harvard. 


G. Tod 

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Rob Casper, Library of Congress

No response was ever received from apparatchik Rob Casper!


From: George Slone

Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 7:37 PM

To: bwig@loc.gov

Cc: rcasper@loc.gov; pao@loc.gov

Subject: Absence of INCLUSIVITY et al


To Rob Casper, Director of the Poetry and Literature Center, Library of Congress:  

What precisely is the criteria for your subscribing to a 501c3 nonprofit journal of poetry and literature?  Beecher Wiggins, Director of Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, simply refused to respond to that question last year when I posed it.  Will you?  

The Library of Congress seems to be run like an autocratic government entity, quite shameful indeed for a democracy.  You are featured in a new P. Maudit cartoon with that regard et al.  See https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/12/jesse-katz-and-tracy-k-smith.html.  You were also featured in a cartoon sketched in 2014.  See https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/11/james-h-billington.html.  Both cartoons will appear in The American Dissident.  In a democracy like ours, the Library of Congress should be INCLUSIVE and that means INCLUSIVE of criticism lodged against the Library of Congress and its diverse apparatchiks.  Evidently, it has failed in that area.  


G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit, Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence




217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

Carla Hayden

The following essay was written in 2017 and not posted then.

Unchecked Self-Aggrandizement—A Review of an Interview

New York Times interviewer Ana Marie Cox seems to be devoid of critical-thinking capacity.  Should one be surprised?  Not really.  After all, isn’t this the age of fake news?  “Carla Hayden Thinks Libraries Are a Key to Freedom” is an interview she did on the new librarian of Congress.  So, was banning library patrons like me without warning or due process a “key to freedom”?  If so, then that freedom really meant the freedom of librarians to be unaccountable and punish criticism of librarians.  

Cox begins her interview by asking what the best preparation for a librarian of Congress might be.  Hayden responds, “to have an open mind,” then notes that “Each librarian has been almost perfect for the time that they served.”  Does Cox challenge that statement?  Not in the least!  And yet a minimum of research on her part ought to have provoked challenge!  For example, the previous librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, lived a one-percenter lifestyle (e.g., “first-class airfare, $1,000-a-night hotels in Rome and Florence, chauffeured cars and Acela trains”), thanks to the dubious James Madison Council of exclusive one-percenters he created to purportedly fund-raise for the Library of Congress.  Long-time librarian Maureen Moore noted: “He likes to associate with rich and famous people.  To my knowledge, they’ve never put money toward anything useful.”  

Now, does that sound “almost perfect”?  And what about the congressional investigation that criticized the Library of Congress for its “technological failures”?  For details on that less than “almost perfect” librarian of Congress, see “Librarian’s trips abroad, posh hotels all paid for by James Madison Council.”

An independent, critical-thinking capable mind might have also wondered how the autocratic selection of poets laureate could be perceived as “almost perfect.”  And was “almost perfect” having to persist over and again for nine months to obtain a simple response from the Library of Congress? 

Dear Dr. Slone:

My apologies for not having responded to your earlier message.  The Library has determined that it will not acquire your serial.

Thank you.

Beacher Wiggins  bwig@loc.gov

Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access

Library of Congress

Then when I asked what the criteria for acquisitions were, Wiggins would not respond.  Period.  So, I wrote a lengthy Open letter to the Library of Congress, which unsurprisingly did not respond.  Was non-response to questioning and challenging citizen-plebes like me “almost perfect”?  So, why didn’t Cox question and challenge?  Ah, back to square one:  the new librarian of Congress was a black female appointed by Obama!    

Well, it’s funny that you mention that each librarian appointed seems to have turned out, in retrospect, perfect for the time, because you’re a very particular librarian. You’re the first woman and the first African-American named to the role, and some people have called you a radical librarian.

Yes, a radical librarian who will likely not respond to citizen-plebes like me just like her predecessor.  And what is the librarian stereotype?  Well, Hayden gets it right, though not of course meaning it as I see and have experienced it.  

Maybe I’m a romantic, but I do think of librarians as inherently radical. There’s something political about access to information.  And it has been throughout history.

Yes, indeed, “something political about access to information,” including the acquisition of (i.e., access to) some periodicals, but rejection of others.  Well, “access” probably means precisely that in the Orwellian world of librarian gatekeepers.  Cox asks, “Do you think libraries can help in this epidemic of fake news and lack of trust in the media?”  And Hayden responds.

Librarians have been pounding on this issue in a different way for a while—that just having computer literacy is great, but as information professionals, we’re always looking at what’s the most authoritative source for the information and teaching information literacy.

“Information professionals” is of course a euphemism for information gatekeepers.  In other words, librarians like Beacher Wiggins, for example, guard the library collection, determining what enters and what must not enter into it.  Might I be wrong in assuming that “information literacy” probably means the ability to reject that information which conflicts with pc-approved information and dogma?  It’s a frightening brave new world today, especially the world of librarians.  

Hayden notes regarding her past that “In being elected to head the A.L.A., I became the face of the association.”  Well, the American Library Association will not publish any criticism with its regard.  And its “Office for Intellectual Freedom” is another of those librarian euphemisms, for it is really an Office for Intellectual Constraint and Impotence.  Well, now Hayden is “the face of the Library of Congress.”  Any difference?  Likely not in the least!  Will Hayden deign to respond to this review of her interview and that 2014 open letter?  Well, I shall not hold my breath…

Friday, October 8, 2021

Dan McCullough and Cape Cod Times

Privileged columnists like McCullough don't give a shite that most citizens do NOT have voice in the press.  Why is one community college instructor given voice week after week after week, while others are not?  

Thursday, September 30, 2021

Submissions wanted for next issue!

The American Dissident is currently seeking new submissions for issue #42, which will likely be published in late November.  Please read the guidelines on www.theamericandissident.org prior to submitting.  Thank you!  

Below are the front cover and editorial for the previous issue #41.


Insane Nation

Amanda Gor’mania, Cancel Culture,

Identity Politics, How Dare You &

Free Speech in Its Final Death Throes

…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address 


Democracy is dying… and always has been.  Government of the corrupt elite, by the corrupt elite, for the corrupt elite is America’s reality.  We, the Proles, must conform and shut our mouths or be punished!  (Now, for Trish Somers, I must state that’s what happened to me at Sturgis Library! See Literary Letters section.  LOL!)  Anyhow, welcome to the insane nation… promoted by the MSM!

    The front cover of this issue depicts the inaugural poetess Amanda Gorman.  The flurry of 100% laudatory, established-order reviews with Gorman’s regard provoked me to sketch the poetess/goddess… in the same pose depicted on Time magazine’s front cover (see below).  The laudation came from the likes of Toi Derricotte, co-founder of Cave Canem (White poets need NOT apply!), who stated:  “She seems to have awakened the spirit of poetry the way I think it was intended to be, to be a voice of the people.”  Voice of the people or rather voice of the oligarchs and their hack politicians?!  Racist! Racist! Racist!  

     Standing behind and to the right of the Ornamental Lit Cog, I depicted Michelle Obama, who interviewed Gorman for Time magazine; Sharon Marcus, English and comparative literature professor at Columbia University, who declared, “we’re overdue for a poetic mega-idol”; and Jennifer Benka, Executive Director of the Academy of American Poets, who stated, “She mapped, in language, a way forward, giving us healing directions that we can repeat to ourselves.  It’s just been too painful.”  Oh, my.  Other “laudatorians” could have also been depicted. On the other side of the Ornament, career multimillionaire public-servant Biden is seated in his new throne.  My concern was that Biden’s groping might take the attention off of Gorman.  But it would have been too difficult to reposition the left arm, which had already been inked in.  Ainsi soit-il.  The reasoning for the front-cover depiction is laid out in “Press Panegyrics for a Poet” on page 14.  BTW, if Trump had had an inaugural poet, I certainly would have sledgehammered him or her on a front cover.   

s for the back cover, Santa Clara University’s highly subjective “degrading language” policy, as well as its poor free-speech track record, incited the  Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to accord the university the Speech Code of the Month for November, 2020.  Do the student editors of Santa Clara Review give a damn about that?  No.  Do their academic advisors give a damn?  No.  According to the review’s website, “Throughout its duration, the publication has represented Santa Clara University's commitment to the humanities—a tenet of Jesuit education.”  Well, I suspect the “humanities” has come to mean identity politics, cultural-race theory, censorship, equity not equality, and rejection of liberal values, including freedom of speech and vigorous debate. SCR’s response to the back cover is in the Literary Letters section. 

     On another note, and in a vain effort to clarify for the confused, the term dissident does NOT mean socialist or communist.  In reality, it stems from those who fought against autocratic socialist and communist regimes, including the former USSR, China, and Cuba. It implies fighting for freedom of speech and expression.  In America today, freedom to speak ones mind often results in cancellation of ones voice because socialist and communist mindsets have been gaining power at an alarming rate and today control much of the cultural, media, and academic realms, not to mention the political.  Dissident means fighting for reason, facts, and logic against the reigning ideology.  Dissidence is not ideological-partisan adherence.

    Cancel culture really means cancellation of facts, reason, and logic.  Disinformation really means any information, no matter how true and factual, that counters the ideology in power (e.g., the deep state and Neo-Marxism).  It is the new term of predilection.  Why the need for a new term in the already mega-arsenal of shoot-the-messenger terms? Perhaps to simply rejuvenate the shooting? Both concepts seek to terminate freedom of expression and to be mostly espoused today by left-wing, woke partisans.       

   “Dark and vile verbiage” is an interesting phrase, due to its highly subjective nature.  The term serves to eliminate freedom of expression.  An aberrant case at the University of Illinois at Chicago brought it to the public attention.  FIRE noted:  On an exam issued by law professor Jason Kilborn, who even self-censored: “a ‘n____’ and ‘b____’ (profane expressions for African Americans and women).”  It was a hypothetical in which a woman accused her former employer of calling her nigger and bitch.  And yes, I will write the full words until I am dead.  Call me a Nazi-white-nationalist-racist-misogynist-xenophobe-transphobe or whatever other “dark and vile verbiage.”  I don’t give a damn.  Still, I will not call a black person, a nigger.  If I were to do that, it would imply a certain childishness and lack of cogent argumentation.  Far too much ad hominem is being thrown around today by grown, purportedly educated adults, black and white.  In any case, a group of spineless Black Law Students Association members had put together a petition, accusing the professor of using “dark and vile verbiage,” which led to his suspension.  One black student had declared she had had “heart palpitations.”  Wow.  Later, however, the professor was reinstated.  Reason trumped… or almost… or sort of… 

he forces of conformity have become very strong today in America, especially as censorship (moderation) has spread as an intellectual plague.  Conform or be cancelled.  Think as the group or you will not exist.  Sadly, most poets, professors, journalists, and editors easily give in, promote, and espouse those forces to the extent that the force of truth has become very weak.  Rather not be cancelled than dare stand up and speak the truth seems to have become the general modus operandi.  Rather write the dictated “n-word,” for example, than the word it stands for, “nigger.”  For the bulk of conforming professionals and leaders, thou shalt never cross the line of dictated propriety.  And that is why I hold little respect for titles like Dr. (PhD), Laureate, Honorary, Judge, Senator, Director, and on and on.  Oops!  I forgot to include editor.

   Finally, when I accepted his poem, “January 6, 2021” (see next page), though told him I didn’t agree with it, Dan Sklar wrote: “That's one of the things I have always respected about you, open to all viewpoints.”  And I thought, if everyone had the same viewpoints, then I’d have no grist at all for creating critical writing and critical cartoons.  Indeed, confronting different viewpoints provokes thought and creativity, at least for me. Equally, I must thank Dan for his openness.  Hell, he was the only professor ever to have invited me to his classes to speak to his students…  

Saturday, August 7, 2021

Mary Ellen Egan First Amendment Watch New York University


The following cartoon was sent to the targets in 2020.  No response was ever received.  Non-response is the typical academic response to outside criticism...

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Cultural Center of Cape Cod


Cultural Center of Cape Cod... Where Hypocrisy Rules!

Robert M. NashNo response was ever received from the Cultural Center! 


From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 10:28 AM
To: bnash@cultural-center.org
Cc: ahowes@cultural-center.org; lwolk@cultural-center.org; info@cultural-center.org; apiliavsky@gmail.com
Subject: Query for a potential art exhibit
To the Cultural Center of Cape Cod:  
        Besides vaunting “inclusivity,” as in “all the arts for all of us,” why not do something truly inclusive by not excluding “some of the arts for some of us”?   Why not exhibit the “Entartete Kunst” series I’ve been working on for the past several years?  It features art unlikely to be included, for example, in the inclusivity mantra of local arts centers because of its critical component (fond) regarding local arts centers themselves, as well as other “muzzlers” of the arts, one might call gatekeeper guardians of forme.  
The watercolor below (see also attached) is included in my “Entartete Kunst” series and features the Cultural Center of Cape Cod (i.e., you, Lauren Wolk, and Angela Howes).  Now, why would you reject such art?   Indeed, by rejecting it, you increase its validity and veracity.  
Well, hopefully, at least, this little missive might actually compel you to think a moment—just a brief, brief moment—out of the local arts box.  

Thank you for your hopeful attention.

G. Tod Slone, PhD (universite de Nantes, FR) aka P. Maudit,
Founding Editor (1998)
The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630



From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: ahowes@cultural-center.org
Subject: Query
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:33:51 -0400

Hi Angela Howes, Publisher, Bass River Press (Cultural Center of Cape Cod):  
Am I perhaps unofficially excluded from all things Cultural Center of Cape Cod for having criticized the Center last year with regards its inclusion statement et al?  If not, I'd love to send a manuscript on poetry pertinent to Martha's Vineyard Island or something more critical.  Please let me know what subjects are taboo, besides the usual.   Please do respond.  Thanks!  

G. Tod Slone, PhD (universite de Nantes, FR) aka P. Maudit,
Founding Editor (1998)
The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence
217 Commerce Rd.
Barnstable, MA 02630

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:03:30 +0000
> From: ahowes@cultural-center.org
> To: todslone@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Query

Good afternoon,

The submission process is open to all residents of the Cape or 
Islands. Are you a full or part-time resident of the Cape? If so, you 
are eligible to submit to Bass River Press.

All manuscripts that follow the submission guidelines and contain the 
$20 submission fee will be considered. Bass River Press utilizes a 
blind reading process, so all manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously 
and judged on their merit alone.

There are no restrictions on subject or style, and the poetry does not 
necessarily have to be about the Cape or Islands.

Thank you for your email!


From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: ahowes@cultural-center.org
Subject: RE: Query
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:57:12 -0400

Hi Angela,
Thanks for your response.  Nothing personal here.  I do not know you.  BUT, as an artist and poet, I do overtly question and challenge.  I'd rather stand for truth, than get published.  Here's a few things for you to contemplate:  

1.  "Merit alone" really makes no sense.  What might the definition of "merit" be for a poem?  Who might the anonymous person or persons be to define the term?  Without a concrete definition, it remains vacuous.  Judging poems is entirely subjective.  But the term "merit" gives it some kind of vague, false objectivity. 

2.  "There are no restrictions on subject or style" is simply NOT true, so why make the statement? Examples of subject restrictions would likely include poems critical of pillars of the Cape Cod community, as well as cultural institutions, including the Cultural Center of Cape Cod from which Bass River Press was hatched.  They'd likely also include personal experience poems critical of the cultural scene on Cape Cod, which tends to abhor criticism and manifest apathy regarding democracy (e.g., issues of freedom of speech and due process).  Also, business and poetry have become far too intimately connected today and here on the Cape.  

3.  Why the $20 submission fee?  That seems quite unusual for a poetry journal.  I publish such a journal and never require a fee.  Besides, with your connections, surely you'd be able to haul in a bundle of taxpayer money from the Mid-Cape Cultural Council, which will NEVER accord my journal a dime because of its dissident stance.  

Finally, ”All the Art for All of US" is a hypocritical logo.  And "a democratic philosophy of inclusion" is downright Orwellian, especially coming from a cultural autocrat like Robert Nash, who has excluded all of my art from his Cultural Center.  How does that jive with that logo?  Most poets (99%) do not dare question and challenge people like Nash and institutions like his.  So when out of the blue a poet like me appears, the only reaction tends to be non-response.  After all, what could Nash possilby respond regarding, for example, criticism of the logo?  Questioning and challenging the Nashs clearly constitutes a hazardous risk to poetry and academic careers.  Sadly, most poets and academics prefer conformity and ladder climbing to bold truth telling.  Well, now you know who I am.  Anyhow, thanks again for the response.

G. Tod

Sunday, June 27, 2021

Kristina Joyce

 Below is a cartoon I sketched in 2010.  


Saturday, June 19, 2021

Tim Green Megan O'Reilly Rattle

The above watercolor depicts Tim Green and wife Megan O'Reilly, editor and co-editor of Rattle, a literary journal (see previous blog on Rattle). Many others could have been selected and put behind the intellectually-restricting established-order bars. Well, I’ve saved them for other satires. I do have to give Tim credit because now and then he, unlike scores of others, does open up to debate, especially debate that cannot further his career. I was disappointed, however, in his censoring of comments made by David Ochs and perhaps others, as well as his closing down of certain debate forums. Censorship in any of its subtle and sleezy rationalized forms should simply not exist in the literary arena, not in a democratic society. If you favor censorship, then become a businessman or politician or professor, not a literary editor. P. Maudit and Mather Schneider are depicted as trolls, which in Internet terminology constitute persons who disrupt the happy-face ambiance of blogs with sledgehammer criticism. In any case, those who would reject vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, normally do so out of fear—fear of being ridiculed, fear of being exposed for intellectual fraud, and fear of engaging with social “inferiors.” If I were behind an academic pulpet, I’d tell students Do not fear to engage with someone simply because of his name, occupation and/or laurels. What will make you a formidable adversary will be unwavering logic backed by fact and example, and, of course, willingness to bend when proven incorrect.
[This is not a poem!]

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Juliana Spahr and Stephanie Young

Intrinsic Intellectual Corruption and Disdain for Democracy in the Poetry Milieu… And Not Just Regarding the Prizes

To possess personal experience actually testing the waters of democracy in the academic/literary establishment milieu will render a poet very different from the mass of poet wordsmiths.  

"On Poets and Prizes," written by Mills College poet professors Juliana Spahr and Stephanie Young, published in the BLM-ideologically-bound ASAP Journal (Association for the Study of Arts of the Present), reveals through extensive research just how corrupt the poetry milieu is, though only with regards the prizes.  Oddly, the two authors avoid using the term “corrupt,” though did use the term “nepotism.”   They state that “A few years ago we began a project to understand the literary prize. We were interested in this question of whether the literary prize was impartial or not, who is favored, who left out.”  

Yet it is egregiously evident that rare poets—irrespective of skin color and ethnicity—who criticize the machine will certainly be left out.  In fact, featuring POC poets seems to have become the new ploy of magazines like Poets & Writers and organizations like the Academy of American Poets to divert attention away from the real fundamental problem—the proverbial elephant in the room—confronting the poetry establishment.  And what is that problem?  Well, read on.  

Mills College, by the way, is extremely ideological.   Simply read its webpage statement, “The Power of Community:  Mills Stands with Black Lives Matter,” to discover just how ideologically-bound it is… and NOT to freedom of expression.  Why, one must wonder, have the two poet professors accepted that status quo?   Shouldn’t poets stand for freedom of expression, more than for BLM or anything else?  Well, clearly, poets in general do not!  

Spahr and Young begin their article with a picturesque image of poets:  “Some days we think of poetry as a dead antelope and poets as the wolves, hyenas, and coyotes who come to fight over the innards, teeth bared, growling.”  But I’m not quite sure which poets the authors are referring to.  From my personal experience, poets don’t growl at all, but rather baaa like sheep, write for recognition, and often dwell in academic safe-space cocoons.  Also, many of them are parrots, echoing identity politics and critical-race theory.  Poets, in general, are cattle, as in a stable of writers, certainly not lone growling wolves howling rude truths!  That would be nefarious to careers!  

Spahr and Young provide valuable data that underscores egregious nepotism, as well as friends promoting friends, akin to the revolving door of lobbyists and politicians.  In that sense, they do counter the norm, which has been one of regarding the poetry prizes and their winners with total unquestioning and total awe-stricken admiration.  But somehow the authors seem to think the modus operandi of intrinsic corruption can be repaired, an evident pipe-dream not unlike Biden’s vacuous call for unity.  The two authors do name names and should be given kudos for doing so.  They cite a number of noteworthy examples, reflecting the academic/literary establishment’s intrinsic nature as an insiders club.  The Academy of American Poets Fellowship, for example, is awarded by a Board of Chancellors, nominated by prior Chancellors.  The MacArthur Foundation uses a selection committee of “approximately 12 people” who serve anonymously.  Lack of transparency obviously encourages intellectual corruption and absence of accountability.  And yet somehow Spahr and Young argue, “As liberal organizations, they value transparency and inclusion.”  But “inclusion” has really come to mean promoting the right skin-color and ethnicity, while excluding dissident voices.    

The two authors state that “Prizes are often the only way that poets will ever receive any meaningful compensation for their writing.”  Yet many poets are academics, who are well-salaried and job-secured.  They do not need additional money from their poetry.  Poets, in general, are certainly not living in poverty, desperate for prize money.   That is an absurd thought.  The two authors note that some poets like Adrienne Rich reaped nearly a million dollars in prize monies (examine the cartoon I sketched on Rich in 2010:  www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/239569862679528067/1316347216818343863).  They evoke Robert Pinsky, who has been a judge in nearly 40 prizes.  In essence, criticize Pinsky, as I certainly have done (examine my 2010 cartoon on him:  www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/239569862679528067/2682697761995933479), and forget about winning a Pinsky-judged prize.  The two authors mention Louise Glück, as yet “another poet with both a strong prize record and close-knit connections to other prizewinning poets.”  They state that “Pinsky, Phillips, and Glück all awarded prizes to a small, overlapping group of poets, many of whom in turn awarded them a prize (or vice versa).”  As for Glück, read my editorial and examine my cartoon (wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2020/11/louise-gluck.html).  And again, I cite my own work because, as a poet, I am a firm believer that poets ought to personally test the waters of democracy in the poetry milieu.  

“We present them as examples of how the system works, not as frauds,” somehow state Spahr and Young.  And yet clearly they (“them”) are frauds!  I think of Pinsky delivering a speech at Fitchburg State University, where I was a tenure-track professor, and his absolute refusal to respond to the issues of corruption at the college, of which I informed him prior to the speech.  Pinsky is simply a corrupt academic of the machine.  How to perceive him and any other poet laureate of the US Congress as anything but that? 

The two authors praise Foetry.com (now dead) and its librarian founder Alan D. Cordle for outing corruption, in particular, regarding Jorie Graham, who directed prizes to her current and former students.  But Cordle is/was by no means a knight in shining armor.  Read the transcript from foetry.com of a forum held to discredit The American Dissident and its editor (i.e., me), initiated by David James Callan, Iowa Writers’ Workshop graduate, Maytag Fellow, two-time Academy of American Poets prize winner, two-time Bowdoin Poetry prize-winner, Forbes Rickart Jr. Poetry prize winner, Associate Member of the Academy of American Poets, and foet member of now defunct Foetry.com.  As editor, I’d rejected Callan's submission to The American Dissident because Callan had not taken the time to read the guidelines, especially regarding self-congratulating credentials normally forwarded to other poetry journals.  Reading the transcript, one will discover that the foet cohort believed it had succeeded in fully trashing The American Dissident and me.  The cohort felt sad for Callan, concluding I had bullied him. 

In any case, Spahr and Young aberrantly conclude:  “So what is to be done? We are not purists who want to do away with prizes entirely, especially not at the moment they are finally being distributed to a more racially diverse group of writers.”  How original!  Diversity 101… which in reality is nothing more than Diversion 101.  As noted in my cartoon satire of the three Poets & Writers magazine honchos, why should skin color be more important than rare truth-telling individuals apt to stand up and criticize the in-lockstep poet herd?   It appears that race has indeed become far more important than truth and the courage to speak it.  Is that really progress?  

“But nor do we wish to agitate for a further reformed prize,” state the authors, “If there is anything our research has shown us, it is that even as they do their best to course correct towards transparency, equity, and inclusion, prizes will still be prizes.”  Equity and inclusion, perhaps, but only in the Orwellian sense!  Well, I wrote both poet professors Spahr and Young.  Needless to day, they never responded.

From: George Slone

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:36 AM

To: syoung@mills.edu <syoung@mills.edu>; jspahr@mills.edu <jspahr@mills.edu>

Subject: Your ASAP article

To Juliana Spahr (Professor of English, Dean of Graduate Studies) and Stephanie Young 

(Adjunct Professor of English, Director of Creative Writing, Director of Graduate Programs, Literature and Languages), Mills College: 
A subscriber of mine just sent your ASAP Journal article to me.  I will likely be dissecting it later today.  In any case, you might wish to examine The American Dissident website and blog site, which essentially specialize in hardcore criticism of poets, artists, academics, journalists, and the academic/literary establishment in general.   

Check out my cartoon on one of the “10 Poets Who Will Change the World” (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2020/11/chen-chen.html), which I just posted this week, though sketched in 2018.  In fact, why not share it and the website with your students?  Likely, they have not been exposed to such raw criticism.  Indeed, what other poetry journal presents such criticism?  What other journal would actually criticize BLM?  What other journal would not only encourage criticism against its editor (me) and publish the harshest received in each and every issue?   

Note that for quite a while now (perhaps two decades), I have been criticizing poets for not wondering who the faceless judges behind the poet anointments and prizes.  BTW, once upon a time, I too was a professor… but free-speech advocacy KO’d me… though only in academe… and I do NOT regret an iota NOT having achieved tenure and emeritus status.  Rather truth than those career adornments!  Career and truth simply do NOT mesh…  

As noted in that email, The American Dissident website lists and examines numerous instances of intellectually corrupt cogs of the academic/literary establishment, which is precisely why organizations like NewPages.com, Poets & Writers, NPR, Massachusetts Poetry Festival, The Brecht Forum (NYC), Art & Letters (The Chronicle of Higher Education), Poets House, and the Poetry Foundation have chosen not to include the journal in their listings, as if it simply did not exist.  By intellectually corrupt, I mean ad hominem, circular reasoning, insiders club, lamb silence, and full rejection of valid criticism.  What is remarkable is the utter inability of poets (artists, editors, librarians, and journalists) to deal with such criticism.   The big taboo in poetry is, of course, thou shalt not criticize the poets and their organizations, publications, events, anointments, etc.. The usual (i.e., acceptable) criticism tends not to be criticism at all, but rather publicity under the guise of criticism, as illustrated by the Washington Post columns of its poetry editor Elizabeth Lund and the New York Times columns of David Orr (for my Lund and Orr cartoons, see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2014/07/david-orr.html, wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/05/can-poetry-both-challenge-and-uplift.html, wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/03/gregory-orr-and-elizabeth-lund.html, and wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/11/elizabeth-lund.html).  

When poets respond to real criticism, which is rare, ad hominem tends to be their weapon of predilection, certainly not reasoned counterargument.  Zachary Bos, founder of the Boston Poetry Union, for example, simply dismissed me in 2011 as a “malcontent crank” (see theamericandissident.org/orgs/boston_poetry_union.html).  In essence, for him, anybody questioning and challenging authority—literary, academic or whichever—, was a "malcontent crank.”  More recently, I was called a “racist and homophobe” because I dared criticize a poet, who was gay and Chinese-American, though my criticism had nothing to do with that at all, but rather vis-a-vis the inane statement the poet had made (see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2020/11/chen-chen.html).  

For several decades, I have written many essays regarding how intellectually corrupt and cowardly the poetry milieu tends to be.  My voice has largely been canceled, and I have largely been ostracized into oblivion.  Yet never do I make threats, nor do I have a criminal background of violence.  I have engaged in many instances of testing the waters of democracy vis-a-vis the academic/literary establishment.  And those waters have proven to be remarkably murky.  Below are some interesting instances, which are listed and examined with others on The American Dissident website.  

—In 2001, I was the only poet out of 150 invited poets to challenge the poetry organizer, Gaston Bellemare, at his government-funded Festival International de la Poésie de Trois-Rivières (Québec), for his prohibition of debate during the 10-day festival.  I was never invited back, and not one of the invited poets dared support my demand for free expression, which of course is not free when punished.  The local newspaper, Le Nouvelliste, refused to cover the story.  For details, though in French, examine theamericandissident.org/quebec/quebec.html.  

—On July 6, 2007, the Academy of American Poets permanently banned me from participating in its online forums.  Not one chancellor was willing to protest against the ban.  The Journal of Information Ethics published an article I wrote on the banning, “Censored by the Publicly Funded Academy of American Poets.”  For the actual censored transcript and rather piteous responses from several chancellors, see theamericandissident.org/orgs/academy_american_poets.html.  Below is an email I’d sent to Carl Phillips, mentioned by both Spahr and Young in their article.  Phillips never responded.  And yes, I was a bit pissed off.

Date:  Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:27:58 -0800 (PST)

From:  "George Slone" <todslone@yahoo.com> 

Subject:  Academy censorship... and YOU

To:  CPhillips@WUSTL.EDU

Dear Poet Prof. Chancellor Carl Phillips:
I doubt you'll ever respond, (Prof. Snyder has yet to respond), but I like to cover my bases, so to speak. and just found your email this evening.  The Academy of American Poets censored (banned) me from participating in its online forums last July.  My assumption is that you, as high and mighty established-order Chancellor, approve of this censorship.  For the details, including the banned transcript, see www.theamericandissident.org/AcademyAmericanPoets.htm.   In July, I contacted each staff member of the Academy and have yet to receive a response, let alone an apology. 
BTW, you might like to subscribe to The American Dissident.  Your students would likely find it refreshing because of its strong stance against the academic/literary established order, which of course includes you and your poet chancellor friends.  BUT it would take a very strong person to accept such critique.  To date, I've only found two such poet professors, one of whom invited me to speak before one of his English classes ( Endicott College ).  BTW, I have a doctorate and, when employed teach as a professor.  BUT when employed, unlike the bulk of professors in America , I am actively, unabashedly, and courageously vocal, so often find myself unemployed.  


—In 2004, Concord Poetry Center director Joan Houlihan wrote an aberrant reply regarding a suggestion I made.  It still echoes in my mind today:  “The idea of your teaching a workshop or delivering a lecture on the art of literary protest or poetry protest, or simply protest (Concord is where it all started!) occurred to me even before you mentioned it, so, yes, it’s something I will consider as we progress (this is only our first event).  However, I must say I don’t favor having you teach at the center if you protest the reading.”  Needless to say, I chose to protest the Center’s opening and choice of Pulitzer Prize poet Franz Wright as speaker.  For details (and cartoons), see theamericandissident.org/orgs/concord_poetry_center.html.  

—In 2004, I applied for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, which rejected the request and refused to provide any useful feedback at all, simply stating, “The artistic merit of the publication is low; the design and readability of the publication is [sic] poor.”  For cartoons, an essay, etc. regarding the rejection, examine theamericandissident.org/orgs/national_endowment_for_the_arts.html.  

—In 2012, Sturgis Library, my neighborhood library, refused a free subscription offer to The American Dissident.  Due to an open letter I wrote to the directors of the Clams Library System of Cape Cod, regarding their collection development statement, in particular, “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view,” the director of Sturgis Library, Lucy Loomis, permanently banned me without warning or due process.  For more on that despicable authoritarian decree, see theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_library.html.  No threats were ever made.  And the director never stated that there were any threats.  


NB:  This essay was sent to Spahr, Young, and ASAP Journal.  No response was ever received.

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Pam Frampton, Saltwire Network

The following counter op-ed was NOT published in The Telegram (Newfoundland, CN).  In fact, that newspaper did not respond to it.  Pam Frampton, Outside Opinions Editor for SaltWire Network (corporate owner of The Telegram), kindly responded though not at all to the points made in it...


The Real Problem with “Hate”

The “hate” narrative serves an important and troubling purpose:  CENSORSHIP and SELF-CENSORSHIP.  What Pam Frampton fails to evoke in her op-ed, "Is there a cure for hate?," is the highly subjective nature of the very term “hate.”  Canadian, American, and European governments don’t seem to comprehend that fundamental problem.  For some people, truth and facts can actually constitute “hate.”  Criticism of government immigration policy can be considered racist “hate.”  Criticism of the Qur’an can be considered racist “hate,” even if factually critiqued.  Criticism of the op-ed itself could be considered “hate.” 

Evoking facts, regarding George Floyd, for example, who Frampton mentions, could be considered racist “hate.”  Even placing “St.” in front of Floyd’s name could be considered racist “hate.”  Merely questioning and challenging the Floyd narrative could be considered racist “hate.”  Was kneeling on a resisting-arrest suspect’s neck in line with training protocols, for example?  Did Floyd die from the heavy amount of drugs in his system and consequent heart failure, as noted in the autopsy, or from asphyxiation due to strangulation?  Why should Floyd be anointed a hero, while many others who die or are murdered are not?  Why should his family receive $25 million in taxpayer funds for Floyd’s death?  Now, am I a racist filled with “hate” for simply evoking those questions?

Does not the accusation of “hate” serve to keep citizens from openly speaking or writing truth, as they perceive it?  Frampton poses the question:  “Can it [hate] be identified and addressed before it spreads further?”  Well, governments in Canada and Europe have done that via hate-speech legislation, which serves to encourage citizens to self-muzzle and not speak truth that might counter the narrative.  Declaring a person to be a hater constitutes kill the messenger in an effort to avoid his or her message—in essence, to eliminate the necessity of cogent counter-argumentation.  That in itself ought to be a reason why we need to stop knee-jerk proclaiming that which we do not like as “hate.”  Such assertions are intellectually lazy and facile.  People need to learn to think, as opposed to echo-bellow racism, racism or sexism, sexism or simply “hate”!    

  Frampton notes that Izzeldin Abuelaish, medical doctor and professor of global health at the University of Toronto, instigated her op-ed and concludes with his statement that “The global community must recognize hatred as a public health issue in order to move from the management of hatred to the active prevention of its root causes through promotion, education and awareness. We must measure it and if unable to prevent it, mitigate it.”  

What Abuelaish states, however, is in itself frightening:  how not to think of communist re-education camps and forced groupthink, not to mention today’s Marxist cultural-race theory metastasizing in institutions of education, both higher and lower, which essentially teaches racist-hate against whites?  The fundamental problem is the highly subjective nature of the term “hate,” as well as the fact that such terms serve to replace critical thinking.  What might constitute “hate” for you might be facts and reality for me… and vice versa…  

Saturday, June 5, 2021

Lee Gutkind, Arizona State University

Below are several emails I sent to Gutkind, who did not respond.  Academics, when criticized, rarely respond.  "How dare you!" had said the child climatologist, Greta.  That too is the motto of professors when criticized...

From: George Slone

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:43 AM

To: information@creativenonfiction.org <information@creativenonfiction.org>

Subject: Lee Gutkind satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon


To the Godfather Editor, Lee Gutkind:  

You have been satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon.  Sadly, the professors I’ve criticized (OMG) at Arizona State U, including the Poetaster Laureate, have chosen SILENCE, certainly NOT debate.  I'd ask you to distribute the cartoon to your colleagues and students, as well as request your university librarian to subscribe so the latter might examine such criticism in The American Dissident, but we both know the probability of that to be near ZIPPO...



Subj: Criticism of and for you... 

Date: 8/14/03 1:11:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Enmarge

To: LeeGutkind@LeeGutkind.com

Dear Lee Gutkind, Ed., Creative Nonfiction:
Creative non-fiction has always sounded like another educationist gimmick.  You seem to add another element to the gimmick, that of, cult of personality.  CNF gives educationists reason to hold yet more colloquiums, congresses and workshops.  It gives them (you) reason to write more books, hire new professors, beef-up moribund departments, and pay expense lecturers.  What thinkest thou, oh self-anointed guru?
What I'd be interested in is for you tell me either directly or indirectly what would not be included under this new gimmick Creative non-fiction.  Would an essay mocking creative non-fiction be excluded?  CNF is really nothing more than an educationist invention for something had already been invented.  Thoreau, Emerson and Orwell, for example, had all written creative non-fiction pieces long before the educationists thought up the term.  By the way, I have just written a killer essay, highly critical of poetry and poets, one that makes Gioia's piece look utterly lame and tame.  Where to send it?  Probably no where, for most literary journals have relegated truth and hardcore critique to the far fond of the bus.  

You need to think when applying self-congratulatory terms to your espece, including "respected" magazine, "respected" poet, and "high quality" nonfiction prose.  These terms become meaningless because your espece tends to use them right and left to describe essentially academic phenomena, though not always.  You need to teach your students this.  You need also to teach them to question and challenge all things with regards writing, including the prizes, the grants, the fame-game celebrity writers, cult of personality, and the instructors themselves.  RE the Pulitzer, who are the judges, what are their criteria?  Do you teach those things?  Do any academics teach them?  

G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
(Professor of French, Spanish and English when employed.  Now unemployed because I dare speak rude truth to power... and professor colleagues always hate that more than anything else.  Why?  Because they don't dare.  Because it implicates them as sheepish cowards.) 


Subj: More fraud from the ivory tower... 

Date: 8/17/03 10:57:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Enmarge

To: LeeGutkind@LeeGutkind.com

Silence is always the best weapon for those in power, no matter how minor, so I am not at all surprised by your silence.  I've since read the Walcott-Gutkind controversy over creative non-fiction… and find it nothing but a lot of blablabla.  Like Walcott, you appear to enjoy indulging in self-congratulations.  I know this is rampant in higher education, along with backslapping.  In reality, I think you're just another literary fraud desperately seeking the limelight, the floor in Vanity Fair.  Do you ever dare criticize the academic hand that feeds you, the functionary deans and First-Amendment indifferent kowtow colleagues?  Well, my friend, I have and do.  Your creative non-fiction is really nothing more than another diversionary smokescreen for the elite in an effort to drown out hardcore criticism. 
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident