Decriminalizing Blackness for Dummies

November 17, 2015

Dummies_bookBy Mark E. Smith | Fubar and Grill

Nowadays it isn’t unusual to see women cops. But it was before 1973. That’s when the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) decided to withhold federal funding from police departments which did not end the height requirements that had kept most women out. Discrimination against women within law enforcement didn’t stop, but their numbers increased.

More recently HUD announced that it will implement a new grant standard next year that favors communities which decriminalize homelessness over those that do not. It remains to be seen how many places decide to rescind their laws criminalizing homelessness, but given the love of money in this country I’d suspect it will be quite a few.

So that brings us to how to decriminalize Blackness. And the answer is the same. Withhold federal grant money from communities that disproportionately arrest and imprison Blacks or where Blacks are disproportionately killed by police. For them to get part of their funding back, they’d have to demonstrate actual progress in decriminalizing Blackness, and their entire funding would be restored as soon as the numbers of Blacks arrested, imprisoned, or killed approaches the proportion of the population in that area that is Black.

Or to put it more plainly for dummies, if you don’t want people to criminalize Blackness, stop paying them to do it.


A Nation of Toddlers

May 25, 2015

A Nation of Toddlers.


April 4, 2014

I Had A Dream

January 21, 2014

By Mark E. Smith

January 21, 2014 | Fubar and Grill

I dreamed that the November 2014 elections were different from any elections I’d experienced in my 73 years as a US citizen. It wasn’t a Presidential race, so people weren’t voting for a woman in the White House (who would promptly and obediently do a 360-degree turn and outlaw abortions by executive decree as soon as she was elected), and no horde of demons from Hell, replete with horns and tails had suddenly materialized and snagged every Republican nomination in the country so that people would vote for whatever Democrats were running as lesser evils. This wasn’t even an issue election, where people came out determined to vote for or against God, gays, guns, grass, or GMOs. No, this was something else–something I’d never thought to see!

There was a new third party, the Occu-Party, but this one was attracting tens of millions of voters from every other party. It was better funded than either the Democrats or the Republicans, and it purchased billions of dollars of major media space and air time, which it filled with the most incredible election campaign ads, written by the best authors in the world, and featuring music and special effects from the greatest artists and the best studios. The candidates were also beyond my wildest previous dreams. Mumia Abu Jamal had received a full pardon and was running for Governor of Pennsylvania. Ed Snowden had also received a full and total blanket pardon, and was running for Governor of New York. Lynne Stewart had miraculously recovered completely from cancer and was running for Governor of Georgia. Julian Assange had gotten all charges against him dropped, gained US citizenship, and was running for Governor of California. Sibel Edmonds was running for Governor of Washington state. And every true radical and revolutionary in the US had gotten an Occu-Party nomination for Governor, Senator, or Congressperson in one state or another.

The Occu-Party’s platform was simple and straightforward:

  1. Abolish the Fed.
  2. End wars.
  3. Tax the rich.
  4. Restore and enhance social programs.
  5. Abolish prisons.
  6. Remove corporate money from politics and remove personhood from corporations.
  7. Crowd-source a new Constitution from scratch that everyone would be allowed to vote upon.

I saw some of the candidate ads and began to wonder if I had been wrong to take my name off the voting rolls and withdraw my consent. I even saw an episode of Democracy Now(TM) where Amy Goodman was asked how this was possible, and she said, ‘I’m not sure, but I suspect that it might be due to the genius and generosity of OTPUR and George Soros.’ That’s when I woke up, apparently because even my subconscious knew that she’d never be allowed to say anything like that. And that’s when I realized that it wasn’t a dream at all, but a nightmare. Because I knew how it would have ended:

Except for some City Council seats and a couple of Congressional representatives from small states, all the Occu-Party candidates lost. The central tabulator programs had been refined so that they lost by only one or two percentage points, giving voters hope that if they just tried a little harder in the next election, they might be able to bring about change by working within the system, or as Audre Lorde put it, they could “…use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.” In the meantime, as voters were delirious with their new hope for change, they had unwittingly consented to four more years of war and corporate tyranny, which they gladly submitted to because they had proven that the system worked and only needed a little more effort on their part.

As soon as the election was over, as the Democrats and Republicans gloated over the biggest turnout in a non-presidential race in decades, and Obama expanded his kill list, most of the pardons were revoked, the radicals re-arrested and imprisoned or assassinated, and the Occu-Party busied itself with trying to nominate a presidential candidate for 2016 from the few who remained, even as its funding dried up and vanished as unexpectedly as it had first appeared.

Oh, there were a few anarchists and other election boycott advocates who had held themselves back and even warned that perhaps things were not quite as they seemed, but it was, of course, impossible to staunch the enthusiasm of a people blinded by what once again appeared to be the promise of real hope and change.

And in 2016, the Occu-Party, having accomplished the biggest get-out-the-vote drive in US election history, but no longer able to find great candidates and spend billions on campaign ads, sadly held its nose and threw its support to whichever candidates of the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and other parties appeared to be the least evil.

It had been 3-D and psychedelic, but in the end it was nothing more than another “color revolution.” Nothing had changed for the better, things had only gotten worse, but voters were swollen with hope and thought of themselves as true revolutionaries. And denial was still more than just a river in Egypt.

It Has Happened Here in America: The Police State is Real

February 9, 2013

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

police-stateThe Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States.

So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document.

Whether a person believes the official story of 9/11 which rests on unproven government assertions or believes the documented evidence provided by a large number of scientists, first responders, and structural engineers and architects, the result is the same. 9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.

We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state:

  • the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
  • the initiation of wars of aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard–based on intentional lies,
  • the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against
  • torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process,
  • the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials,
  • the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process.

As if this were not enough, the Obama regime now creates new presidential powers by crafting secret laws, refusing to disclose the legal reasoning on which the asserted power rests. In other words, laws now originate in secret executive branch memos and not in acts of Congress.  Congress?  We don’t need no stinking Congress.

Despite laws protecting whistleblowers and the media and the US Military Code which requires soldiers to report war crimes, whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Kiriakou, media such as Julian Assange, and soldiers such as Bradley Manning are persecuted and prosecuted for revealing US government crimes.

The criminals go free, and those who report the crimes are punished.

The justification for the American police state is the “war on terror,” a hoax kept alive by the FBI’s “sting operations.” Normally speaking, a sting operation is when a policewoman poses as a prostitute in order to ensnare a “John,” or a police officer poses as a drug dealer or user in order to ensnare drug users or dealers.  The FBI’s “sting operation” goes beyond these victimless crimes that fill up US prisons.

The FBI’s sting operations are different. They are just as victimless as no plot ever happens, but the FBI doesn’t pose as bomb makers for terrorists who have a plot but lack the weapon.Instead, the FBI has the plot and looks for a hapless or demented person or group, or for a Muslim enraged over the latest Washington insult to him and/or his religion. When the FBI locates its victim, its agents approach the selected perpetrator pretending to be Al-Qaeda or some such and ply the selected perpetrator with money, the promise of fame, or threats until the victim signs on to the FBI’s plot and is arrested.

Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory:Inside the FBI’s War on Terrorism, documents that the FBI has so far concocted 150 “terrorist plots” and that almost all of the other“terrorist cases” are cases unrelated to terrorism, such as immigration, with a terror charge tacked on. See video

The presstitute American media doesn’t ask why, if there is so much real terrorism requiring an American war against it,the FBI has to invent and solicit terrorist plots.

Neither does the media inquire how the Taliban,which resists the US invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the US superpower to a standstill after 11 years, came to be designated as terrorists. Nor does the US presstitute media want to know how tribesmen in remote regions of Pakistan came to be designated as “terrorists”deserving of US drone attacks on the citizens, schools and medical clinics of a country with which the US is not at war.

Instead the media protects and perpetrates the hoax that has given America the police state. The American media has become Leni Riefenstahl, as has Hollywood with the anti-Muslim propaganda film, Zero Dark Thirty. This propaganda film is a hate crime that spreads Islamophobia. Nevertheless, the film is likely to win awards and to sink Americans into both tyranny and a hundred-year war in the name of fighting the Muslim threat.

What I learned many years ago as a professor is that movies are important molders of Americans‘ attitudes. Once, after giving a thorough explanation of the Russian Revolution that led to communist rule, a student raised his hand and said: “That’s not the way it happened in the movie.”

At first I thought he was making a witty joke,but then I realized that he thought that the truth resided in the movie, not in the professor who was well versed in the subject. Ever since I have been puzzled how the US has survived for so long, considering the ignorance of its population. Americans have lived in the power of the US economy. Now that this power is waning, sooner or later Americans will have to come to terms with reality.

It is a reality that will be unfamiliar to them.

Some Americans claim that we have had police states during other war times and that once the war on terror is won, the police state will be dismantled. Others claim that government will be judicious in its use of the power and that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

These are reassurances from the deluded. The Bush/Obama police state is far more comprehensive than Lincoln’s,Wilson’s, or Roosevelt’s, and the war on terror is open-ended and is already three times longer than World War II. The Police State is acquiring“squatter’s rights.”

Moreover, the government needs the police state in order to protect itself from accountability for its crimes, lies, and squandering of taxpayers‘ money. New precedents for executive power have been created in conjunction with the Federalist Society which, independent of the war on terror, advocates the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president has powers not subject to check by Congress and the Judiciary. In other words, the president is a dictator if he prefers to be.

The Obama regime is taking advantage of this Republican theory. The regime has used the Republican desire for a strong executive outside the traditional checks and balances together with the fear factor to complete the creation of the Bush/Cheney police state.

As Lawrence M. Stratton and I documented in our book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, prior to 9/11 law as a shield of the people was already losing ground to law as a weapon in the hands of the government. If the government wanted to get you, there were few if any barriers to a defendant being framed and convicted, least of all a brainwashed jury fearful of crime.

I cannot say whether the US justice system has ever served justice better than it has served the ambition of prosecutors. Already in the 1930s and 1940s US Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland and US Attorney General Robert Jackson were warning against prosecutors who sacrifice “fair dealing to build up statistics of success.” Certainly it is difficult to find in the ranks of federal prosecutors today Jackson’s “prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”

Just consider the wrongful conviction of Alabama’s Democratic governor, Don Siegelman by what apparently was a Karl Rove plot to rid the South of Democratic governors. The“Democratic” Obama regime has not investigated this false prosecution or given clemency to its innocent own. Remember how quickly Bush removed the prison sentence of Cheney’s operative who revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent? The Democrats are a cowed and cowardly political party, fearful of justice, and as much a part of the corrupt police state as the Republicans.

Today the purpose of a prosecution is to serve the prosecutor’s career and that of the party that appoints him or her. A prosecutor’s career is served by high conviction rates, which require plea bargains in which the evidence against a defendant is never tested in court or before a jury, and by high profile cases, which can launch a prosecutor into a political career, as Rudy Giuliana achieved with his frame-up of Michael Milken.

Glenn Greenwald explained how Internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz was driven to his death by the ambition of two federal prosecutors, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann, who had no aversion to destroying an innocent person with ridiculous and trumped-up charges in order to advance their careers.

It is rare for a prosecutor to suffer any consequence for bringing false charges, for consciously using and even paying for false evidence, and for lying to judge and jury.

As prosecutors are rarely held accountable, they employ illegal and unethical methods and routinely abuse their power. As judges are mainly concerned with clearing their court dockets, justice is rarely served in America, which explains why the US has not only a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country on earth, but also the largest absolute number of prisoners. The US actually has more of its citizens in prison than “authoritarian” China which has a population four times larger than the US. The US, possibly the greatest human rights abuser in history, is constantly bringing human rights charges against China. Where are the human rights charges against Washington?

In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials. The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official.Here we have the epitome of evil.

Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists. See NBC report

In “freedom and democracy” America, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the operative legal principle. If the government says you are guilty, you are. Period. No evidence required for your termination. Even Stalin pretended to have evidence.

The United States government is working its way step by step toward the determination that any and every critic of the government is guilty of providing “aid and comfort” to Washington’s “terrorist enemies,” which includes the elected Hamas government in Gaza. The only critics exempted from this rule-in-the-making are the neoconservatives who criticize the US government for being too slow to throttle both its critics and “anti-semites,”such as former US President Jimmy Carter, who criticize the Israeli government’s illegal appropriation of Palestinian lands. Most of Palestine has been stolen by Israel with Washington acquiesce and aid.Therefore, nothing is left for a “two-state solution.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine is illegal; yet, Washington, on which Israel is totally dependent, does nothing about law. Law, we don’t need no stinking law.” Washington has might. Might is right. Get used to it.

Not only for Palestinians has law ceased to exist, but also for Americans, and for Washington’s NATO puppets in the UK and Europe, pitiful remnants of once great nations now complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity. The Open Society Justice Initiative, a NGO based in New York, has issued a report that documents that 54governments are involved in Washington’s rendition and torture program.Twenty-five of the governments that help Washington to kidnap, disappear, and torture people are European.

The opening decade of the 21st century has seen the destruction of all the law that was devised to protect the innocent and the vulnerable since the rise of the now defunct moral conscience of the West. The West’s moral conscience never applied outside of itself. What happened to people in Europe’s colonies and to native inhabitants of the US and Australia is a very different story.

Nevertheless, despite its lack of coverage to the powerless, the principle of the rule of law was a promising principle. Now America under Bush and Obama, two peas of the same pod, has abandoned the principle itself.

The Obama police state will be worse than the Bush/Cheney police state. Unlike conservatives who in times past were suspicious of government power, Obamabots believe that government power is a force for good if it is in the right hands. As Obama’s supporters see him as a member of an oppressed minority, they are confident that Obama will not misuse his power. This belief is akin to the belief that, as Jews suffered so much at the hands of Hitler, Israel would be fair to the Palestinians.

Glenn Greenwald writes that “the most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice.”

This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments and murdering the dictators and their supporters.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list?


Copyright © Dr.Paul Craig Roberts,, 2013

Link to source:

A Penny for Your Thoughts ― Six Billion for Your Vote

January 22, 2013

Deborra Ann Low

$6 billion was blown on the 2012 election cycle. Along with that expense comes one overall goal ― the legitimacy of the state. And even with that whopping bill, non-voters out-numbered those who voted for the “winner” by 27 million. Whenever voters realize that it’s not a matter of reforming the state but a matter of repudiating the state, that’s when an election boycott movement can be effective.

Apathy comes when folks blame themselves for not being able to change a system that was, from its inception, established as a tyranny and purely a mockery of democracy ― a charade that has existed for nearly 230 years. But, while it’s easy not to vote, what’s not easy is organizing all the reasons for not voting and bringing them together as a viable non-violent movement in dissent of the state ― a refusal to consent to tyranny.

What must happen, I believe, is the continual dislodging of political operative lies that merely condone the government by leaning heavily on reforms that merely backslide dissidence into ineffective, apathetic, and counterrevolutionary instruments co-opted by statists who have no intention of defending democracy or liberty and justice for all.

In my opinion though, faithful voters should not be unfairly blamed for falling for the pack of lies ― that somehow voting for reforms can effectively cause even an inherently adverse system to right itself eventually even though that eventuality obviously never comes. People always want to remain hopeful ― especially those who accept minuscule victories as a sign that David is getting closer to slewing Goliath.

Instead, I believe the burden falls upon election boycott advocates to make the case for voters to begin to responsibly assess the damage that has been done to them by their continued participation in this government’s tyrannical electoral system and the inhumane and genocidal policies it attempts to legitimize in their name.

Once people become aware that their vote for a “lesser evil” in this “winner-take-all” system, is essentially a vote against themselves and a vote for the corporatist perpetrators of global genocide, then I believe it becomes impossible for anyone to continue voting without making a conscious decision to condone the evil they say they oppose. Once voters have made the undeniable moral connection between their vote and the actions the government takes in their name, they and the government they endorse with their votes, cannot escape responsibility for their actions, even if the governed masses cannot hold them accountable under voter-enabled systemic corruption. In short, it is impossible to dissent against tyranny by giving it your consent. As Audre Lord put it:

“It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”

In a fully functioning democracy, an election boycott has no meaning. In fact, it could have a serious detrimental effect, because voting is obviously the focal point of a truly democratic system.  Yet, that is the heart of the problem in the US. We have never had a democratic government ― ever. Therefore, across the board boycotting of the electoral system is not only justifiable, it may be the only effective, non-violent way to repudiate a form of government wherein absolute power is not vested in the people.

As evidenced by the multibillion dollar tab generated by the most recent election cycle farce, wherein non-voters still out-numbered the total votes cast for the winner by 12.4%, this outrageously wasteful expense, (while people are forced to suffer the consequences of austerity measures and are told to “share the sacrifice” for no reason other than the avarice of the ruling class), points to one important conclusion. The sociocentric ruling class fully recognizes that effective election boycotts have a dramatic impact on state legitimacy, even if they have no effect on election outcomes.

If the state recognizes the utmost importance of twisting our arms or buying our votes (no matter for whom or for what our ballots are cast), why should we ever underestimate the full impact of a successful election boycott?  Why consent to tyranny? Repudiate the state!


Anarchy Is Not Chaos, Peace Is Not Chaos

January 20, 2013

Originally posted on January 17, 2013 on “Fubar and Grill”

By Mark E. Smith

I knew nothing about the Spanish revolution until recently, but reading some books has been very enlightening. Here’s a portion from a chapter called “The Clandestine Revolution,” in the book Durruti in the Spanish Revolution by Abel Paz, that I’ve just finished reading–this happened when the anarchist Durruti, who never accepted any rank or acknowledged being a leader in any way, was leading a column against the government forces:


While traveling from Bujaraloz to Barcelona, Durruti witnessed the change that the revolution had made both in people and circumstances. The whirlwind of the first days of the battle had passed and the peasants and workers were now focused on changing their ways of life and creating new social relationships.The people were still armed and guarded the entrances of their villages. There was no trace of Assault or Civil Guards at these checkpoints: it was the proletarians who defended the revolutionary order.

Durruti stopped his car at a checkpoint at a town in the Lerida province. He presented himself as a militiaman leaving the front for the rearguard and requested gasoline for his vehicle. By doing this he wanted to see how the peasants’ behavior had changed in that small town of some three thousand residents. A militiaman told him that he should speak to the town Committee in the old mayor’s office. They’d give him the “OK” that he needed to fill his car with gas.

Durruti crossed the town’s main square. It was around noon. The square was empty except for some women leaving the church with a basket of goods. Durruti asked them how to get to the Committee and also if mass was being officiated in the church.

“No, no,”they responded. “There’s no priest. The priest is working in the field with the other men. Kill him? Why kill him? He isn’t dangerous. He even talks about going to live with a town girl. Besides, he’s very happy with everything that is happening.”

“But the church is right there,” said Durruti, while pointing.

“Ah, yes,the church. Why destroy it? The statues were removed and burned in the square.God no longer exists. He’s been expelled from here. And, since God doesn’t exist, the assembly decided to replace the word ‘adios’ [with God] with ‘salud’ [cheers]. The Cooperative now occupies the church and, because everything is collectivized, it supplies the town.”

Durruti came across an elderly man when he entered what was once the mayor’s office. It was the town’s former schoolteacher, who had been replaced by a young teacher from Lerida three months earlier. The old man had been inactive during those months but, when the revolution broke out, he volunteered to look after the town’s administrative needs and assure the continued operation of the Town Committee. The other members of the Committee were working in the fields. They gathered at nightfall to discuss pressing matters that had come up during the day or tasks that they needed to accomplish the next day. At the time, they had to focus on taking in the harvest. Since the town’s young people had volunteered to go fight on the front, the remaining residents had to do the work.

“But don’t think,” the retired teacher said, “that the work weighs on anyone. We work for ourselves now, for everyone.”

Durruti asked him how they had selected the members of the Committee. Durruti’s straightforward and simple air inspired the teacher’s trust, who took him as one of the many curious militiamen from the city who wanted to see what was happening in the towns.

“We held a town assembly,” he said, “and considered everyone’s abilities and also their conduct before the revolution. That’s how we appointed the Committee.”

“And what about the political parties?” Durruti said.

“Parties?There are some old Republicans like myself and some Socialists too; but no, the political parties haven’t played any role. During our assembly, we considered a person’s ability and conduct and appointed those who seemed best to us. It was no more complicated than that. The Committee represents the people and it’s to the people that it has to answer.”

Durruti asked about the parties again.

“The parties?” the teacher replied, intrigued by his insistence. “Why do we need political parties? You work to eat and eat if you work. Party politics don’t sow wheat, gather olives, or tan animal hides. No, our problems are collective and we have to solve them collectively. Politics divides and our town wants to be united, in total community.”

“By all appearances, everyone is happy here. But what about the old landowners?”Durruti inquired.

“They aren’t happy,” the teacher responded. “They don’t say so outright, because they’re afraid, but you can see it on their faces. Some have joined the community, others have chosen what we now call ‘individualism.’ They’ve kept their land but have to cultivate it themselves, because the exploitation of man by man no longer exists here, and so they won’t find any employees.”

“But what happens if they can’t cultivate their land themselves?”

“That simply shows that they have too much land and the town takes what they can’t tend to. Leaving the land uncultivated would be an attack on all of us.”

Durruti said goodbye to the teacher, and when he returned to the checkpoint, the workers on guard asked him if he’d received the gasoline that he needed. He told them yes with a smile and threw them a “Salud!” from the car as he took off for Barcelona.


As they did in Germany, the Communists in Spain paved the way for fascism by killing or co-opting the anarchists along with anyone else who opposed governmental militarism. The Communists insisted that organization was necessary in order to defeat fascism. But the unorganized anarchists had been defeating fascism, and once the Communists took over, fascism prevailed. The Communists wanted to”fight fascism” by using the very military discipline that is the essence of fascism, and fascism, particularly when it is playing fascism’s game by fascism’s rules, can never defeat fascism.