It was Jerry Falwell’s idea. Convinced that Ossama bin Laden was an agent of God, a true angel pitiably misled by Mohammed the Golden Calf of infidelity, convinced that the attacks of September 11 had been a visage of the long-awaited judgment day, a well-deserved smashing of shameless sinners, homosexuals, abortionists, prostitutes, Jews and such godless Babylonians, convinced that bin Laden had been prevented from exacting the will of God a second time by the state most insidiously separated from the church by the secular Constitution, Falwell decided to take matters into his own hands in order to precipitate Rapture, and he enlisted D.C. to commit a divinely-inspired act of terror.

And so the crystal testicle cracked innumerable skulls open, caused immeasurable brain fluid to flow in the streets and dampen rife confetti, flattened countless concentrated bodies, and all those of the horde not enveloped by the Fall were trampled by ecstatic flight, all in the holy name of Jesus.

Jesus was too drunk at the time to be reached for comment. He was passed out in a soiled bathroom stall in a pizzeria on St. Mark’s, a dangling syringe still plunged into his arm of widespread track-mark stigmata, his body positioned as if it were about to be ass-fucked for the fifth time that night, his knees in a puddle of his own urine, his head breathing stenches of vomit beer and carbon dioxide into a toilet unflushed of its heinous mess of toilet paper, explosive diarrhea and vomit, indigestion and undigestion. Chick tracts, pornographic postcards, pickles, smashed beer bottles, and spurts of semen and lubricant lotion scattered the floor. But when he woke up the next afternoon unable to walk due to his dilapidated anus and bitching hangover, he called into a right-wing talk radio station and asserted that his official reaction to the events in Times Square was that everybody should use the tragedy as an impetus to join the lovely Hare Krishna movement.

The Pope then appeared on TV dressed in an orange robe in order to announce the Church’s position on Dick Clark’s act of terror on behalf of his master, Jesus, who, although he was a wayward delinquent with dreams of being a punk rock star, was after all the son of God, and so he demanded that all good Catholics take the prophet’s advice and go to their nearest Bhaktivada-yoga center to worship Lord Krsna and his divine grace Srila Prabhupada. Even thought they didn’t believe in Jesus and the one and only savior, they seemed to be tight with the Messiah being as he attended their vegetarian feasts on Sunday evenings and often went dancing with them in Times Square on Saturday nights. And, besides, you can’t blame them for not believing that crazy sining junkie Jesus was the messiah. The Popeconcluded his speech by shaving his head while chanting the standard Maharama in a sweet soprano voice.

Dick Clark now only retains one of his gargantuan testicles, which he rubs gleefully once the New Year, the new era, the brave new world has been initiated. This prompts and American Cockstand, which spreads masturbatory emissions that whiten the yellow sands of the Middle East. Orgasmic explosion of bombs scatters little soldiers who scatter bullets in scattered battles, fertilizing the egg of freedom, which is to say capitalism, which is to say subjugation to American values, greed and interest, which is to say that the world will be conquered by a Burning Bush, who rides into the Middle East like Napoleon rode into Spain.

In pursuit of knowledge I traveled ot the forest to seek the counsel of John the Baptist, reincarnated as a grey owl living as a hermit in a woodpecker’s den of a virgin maple tree. I sat down with him for a splendid dinner consisting of marinated cockroaches and smoked grass (I of course passed on the cockroaches due to my vegetarianism), and he told me the following in a motivational foray of hoots:

“The problem facing our world is that we are all born in a zoo. The deranged visionary Charlie Manson said it himself: ‘Your water’s dying. Your life’s in that cup. Your trees are dying. Your wildlife’s locked up in zoos. You’re in the zoo, Man. How do you feel about it?’
A zoo of our own making, in one sense. We imagine ourselves to be watched and judged by our peers, which compels conformity of lifestyle and action. And for all those who do not construct a zoo around themselves, they are spied upon by the state to the end that they live in a real zoo, and they are blocked from defying the unreal zoo.
We live in a zoo of civilization. All of our needs we do not go into the jungle to obtain for ourselves. They are prepared for us by others and conveyed to us by a local retail establishment. We are each relegated to one specific task, be it laborious or administrative, farm-work, factory-work, or desk-work, which we repeat endlessly throughout a majority of our lives. These tasks convert natural resources into desired and needed products and distribute it to society. This is incredibly comfy. Although it would be exhilarating, for most it is far too bold and frightening to run away from this comfort. And in any case, the government has various enforcement programs and intelligence agencies that bar escapist autonomy. Just as freedom is scary to the zoo animal, anarchy is scary to the government.
And, most insidiously, we live in a capitalist zoo. For performing our tasks we are rewarded money, soulless pieces of paper, which embody everything our bodies could possibly want, and which alienate our spirit from the finer things that it would naturally want. But, so far as distribution is concerned, some tasks warrant more money than others. Generally, the most physical of labors receive the least. Different geographies warrant more money than others; a member of the working-class in the US makes many times the salary of a sweatshop laborer in Southeast Asia. Those who are born of those who have amassed wealth usually have the way paved for them to amass just as much wealth themselves. Those who are not so lucky by birth end up not so lucky by worth either. And those who amass wealth emerge as a ruling class who infiltrate the government and perpetuate this system. And, too, this system perpetuates itself in that it compels the rich and mighty to perpetuate the perpetuation. Otherwise, would it exist perpetually? Were it left up to the working-class, would they be so bold to step out of the zoo, even if the bars were torn apart for them?
I submit that there is only one type of person to do so: The radical progressive. These people, given the chance, would be autonomous from civilization, capitalism, and the conception of others, and forge in their place a sane humane society that pleases both individual and collective conscience. I suggest that they demand autonomy from the government. This resistance, of course, will be met with desperate overbearing resistance. The government will attempt to dismantle all progressive movements and groups. They will beat protestors, use dirty tactics to incapacitate or incarcerate all effective organizers. But with vision and determination, progression always prevails over history.
My suggestion to society enters on the realization that there are four types of people: progressive, apathetical, greedy and reactionary. Different societies will breed more of certain types; our society has many examples of each. The progressive we’ve already discussed. They are the ones who, due to an ability to think creatively and independently, have a vision for a better, new, revolutionary society. May they be granted a quadrant of this world where they can realize this utopian vision.
Then there are the apathetical, consumed by sloth. They don’t want to do anything but absorb themselves in a chronic torpor. And they don’t’ care what happens to the world, just as long as they are not forced to do anything. And even if the world directly interferes with their indifference, for instance when the capitalist system requires that they do some form of work in order to survive, they are too lazy to resist, and they go to work the most unchallenging way they can. Quite simply, they are subject to inertia. May they be granted a quadrant of the world where they can become vegetables.
Then there are the greedy. Unlike the apathetical, they are not lazy. They are willing to work, driven on by Adam Smith’s ghastly invisible hand, because they are consumed by lust for private property, things to own, and so in turn they lust for money. Similar to the apathetical, however, they don’t care about the world or their fellow human beings, and generally their actions are destructive to both. They only care about their own material benefit. And they are incredibly competitive, so they attain a sense of joy when they see others poor and miserable. For this, the world, humanity, and their very own soul and happiness suffer. May they be granted a quadrant of the world so that they cease to destroy the entire world and exploit all of its people. May they only be allowed to wreak havoc upon themselves. Hopefully their quadrant will be so utterly decrepit before too long that their pollution will no longer degrade the planet outside of their boundaries.
Finally, there are the reactionary. I think these are unfailingly victims of sexual repression. They are consumed by fear of change and anything that differs from their conservative sensibilities. They live miserable lives of hypocrisy and suppression of their most human desires. For instance, many of these types harbor homosexual desires, but they are invariably vehemently homophobic. They tend to be racist and nationalist due to their fear of difference, right-wing due to their fear of change, and blindly religious due to both these reasons and their overall ignorance. Ironically, these are the types who would benefit most from radical revolution, for they are not always members of the ruling class and it may, perchance, sexually liberate them, which would free the, from their repressed lifestyle. But they serve no purpose other than to be cogs in the revolution. And so may they be granted a quadrant of the world where they can live their quaint, wretched, dispassionate lives together. Most likely there will result an underground movement of unspeakably kinky sex, which they will hide and deny virulently. Hopefully their children will have sense enough to flee that pitiable quadrant at an early age.
But lo! Now we find that we have a world divided in quadrants, and one of these quadrants is a utopian society due to the outstanding progressive quality of its inhabitants. Meanwhile, the other quadrants suffer due to the failings in the human nature of their respective inhabitants.
But I hold this truth to be self-evident: Man’s nature is not immutable.
And I will also project this as a given: immigration would be freely allowed into the radical quadrant, because limitations of immigration and diversity is a racist, reactionary tendency.
Reactionarism, I must elaborate, is not solely characterized by sexual repression, but it is also characterized by fear, mainly a fear of change. Reactionarism I would suppose to be present since the very hairy beginnings of the primate race, even when people were naked, encouraged by Darwin to have sex rampantly, and free to masturbate anytime anyplace; in the utopian quadrant, this would ideally be the situation: sexual liberation. But how to purge that devious fear of change that prompts such conservative mindsets? Simple. A radical society will have undergone a revolution not just in political structure, but also in consciousness. And so we may condition all members of society from birth, and all reactionary immigrants upon their entrance, to know that evolution and revolution are natural, beautiful occurrences central and inevitable to history. Check always for instances of demagoguery, and never, never advance that atrocious idea “counter-revolution”, that concept which has extinguished so many revolutions with fear and rendered them totalitarian regimes.
How to quell the heartless greed that migrant capitalists and the more selfish newborns may bear? Simple. First, know that the desire and lust for private property is not innately human. Do apes own things? or ever seem to harbor such desires? In the aboriginal Australian, African and Native American tribes, so savagely labeled primitive and subsequently raped by imperialist capitalism, there was no concept of private ownership. Everything belonged to the tribe, and was collectively owned. And the land, the natural earth upon which they lived? Why , that belonged to no one, except perhaps the Holy Spirit, who was more than willing to share. Thus, it is capitalism, not human nature, that spawns and promotes this form of greed. But one needn’t lust solely for property to be greedy. So, is self-interest inherent in humans, however, a cynic would justifiably ask. I should think so, to different extents concerning each individual. We are a species of desires. We are not, like ants or bees, captive to pluralistic instincts, and thankfully so, for therein lies our individuality. So, you might ask, how can a communal society “work” (hopefully you don’t ask this under the impression that capitalism “works” for more than 1% of the population). I feel that if the means of production were commonly owned by the public, by the laborers, and the results of this production were shared equally, from each according to ability, to each according to need, then you will not see an outbreak of chaos and/or sloth as so many predict. Rather, there will be many people who, due to their already existing community values, will be glad to work, just as hard as they worked in the capitalist system, but for the public instead of private good. And those who are lazy or selfish? Why, they will work too, because if they are perceived as such then it will harm them socially. It will be incredibly unattractive, a social taboo, to not work if you are physically and mentally able (those who are not able, i.e. children, elderly or disabled, will of course be cared for). If they desire any form of companionship, it is in their self-interest to work. Hence, we do not purge humanity of self-interest, desire and individuality, but rather change it from a socially destructive to a socially useful reality. In short, we will do what Adam Smith failed to do. And, I might wager, labor will be much more efficient. In the capitalist system, a laborer will put forth as little effort as possible in order to avoid being fired. They don’t care about their work, because the outcome of their labor is not beneficial to themselves or their community, but rather for the profit of their hated bosses. When people work together for a common goal instead of for mere disillusioning wages, their enthusiasm increases endlessly. And, from an economic standpoint, behold: In the capitalist system, when a surplus is achieved, the company lays workers off and relegates them to poverty and socially useless unemployment. In a communal system, when a surplus is achieved, society can, instead of punishing those laborers who produced the surplus, rather reward them with more provisions or free time. Of course, if anyone is truly so lazy, greedy, or antisocial as to want out, then so be it. Let them drop out of society. If the governed do not consent, the governance at once loses all legitimacy. And so let those who do not consent cease to be governed. If they do not wish to join in production, then they shall not own the means of production nor reap the outcome of production. Let them have autonomy; so long as they don’t forcefully interfere with us, we shall not them.
Finally, we come to the apathetical, which I think will be the most easily assimilated of all 3 types. Is apathy central to human nature? Clearly, apes are not lazy. They must run about much of the day to secure subsistence. So what is the root of apathy? Alienation from the desire to participate in the formation of society. And why does this occur? Because society doesn’t interest them, is not concerned with their benefit or input, and hence either it alienates them or they alienate themselves. In a communal instead of capitalist society, the benefit of the whole and of each individual is the central concern of society. So what reason is there to be apathetical? I would also implore society to make a point of engaging all of its citizens. And, of course, and education that instills passionate pursuit of one’s interests, creativity, diversity, critical thinking and sensible debate must be an inalienable right.
But now, when so few are radical, because so many have been conditioned negatively by sexual repression, capitalism and inertia, the primary question remains: How do we make this happen?
I entreat everyone to have a vision for a better society, and to envision what part they will play in its realization.
If you share my vision, then you must take the step. How? What to do?
Interact with your community and the world community with whatever means you have. Your art, your speech, your humor, your time, your skills, your labor, your struggle—your personality.
And when we establish this vision, if someone comes along with a better idea, quote me posthumously: “Viva la revolución!”

I found John the Baptist to be most enlightening, and so I went to make this suggestion to President Bush. I found him in the White House, which had recently been converted into a stately zoo. He was eating peanuts out of the silver spoons of zookeepers Rumsfield and Cheney while a young female orangutan picked nits out of his hair. Laura Bush stood next to him with a robotic smile on her face. Animals in zoos often show no interest in reproduction. I explained to him what John the Baptist had told me, and that since they were both evangelical fans of Jesus, wouldn’t they agree? He told me not to worry, that he was gonna set all the poor people free, one country at a time. First he did Afghanistan, now he’s doing Iraq. When I asked him when he intended to set himself free, he began to choke on a peanut. A secret service agent escorted me out of the building while the Dick of Cheney slammed him in the back, and while the Dick of Clark was busy removing his aerodynamic phallus filled with enough sticky fuel to ejaculate all the way to LA from NYC, that he might appease the anthropomorphic zookeepers again by tossing the erectly pressurized shaft haphazardly into two towers.

But though with one stone one may break countless bones,

it can’t kill two birds.

Where did the second, polytheistic phallus come from?