"The masses do not rebel in response to hardship or exploitation, because they do not understand the causes of that hardship and exploitation, except in the most crude and anthropomorphized forms (e.g. "President X singlehandedly saved the economy while President Y singlehandedly ruined it.") . They rebel only if their own position in society seems threatened. Thus, they will eagerly submit to those who seem strong and powerful, but will revolt with vengeance when those who appear weak and inferior are placed in positions equal or superior to theirs. That is why they preferred Barabas over Jesus, why they will forgive Kenneth Lay who stole their pensions, but will demand a harsh punishment to the drug addict who broke into their car, and why they will elect a fascist rather than a wimpy-looking liberal."
Thank you Niccolo. And is this the kind of world you want to live in? And is this the way to change that world ...by putting up your own bloody left-wing strong man? How does subcommandate Marcos figure in your analysis?
Woj, this is not only misanthropic, it is seriously misleading.
I do not accept the Barabas/Jesus analogy. After all, Jesus had God on his side whereas Barabas only had the mob. Why should the mob save someone who had God to look after him? I agree with Nietzche that the death of Christ and Socrates were the most artfully constructed suicides in history.
"Welease Wojer!"
Joanna