<div style="direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="q"><br><div style="direction: ltr;"><span><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/14/06,
<b class="gmail_sendername">Wojtek Sokolowski</b> <<a href="mailto:sokol@jhu.edu" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">sokol@jhu.edu</a>> wrote:</span></span></div></span><span class="q">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">So while it is obvious that things would be much different if people just
<br>said "No" to elites, the real problem is how to get there. <span style="font-weight: bold;">As I see it, it</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">is not possible right now, because the right has everything going for them -
</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">from mastering the art of marketing and opinion manipulation, to having the</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">best experts on their side, to having the comunications technology on their
</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">disposal to providing the goodies everyone wants and, most importantly, the</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">grunts themselves eagerly identifying themslves with the right.
</span> It will<br>change only if an external force or a natural disaster takes away the<br>right's capacity to manipulate public opinion, manufacture "safe"<br>identities, and deliver the goodies everyone wants. As I read history,
<br>succesful revolutions occurred only AFTER the power and control capacity of<br>the ruling elite had already been broken by external forces (wars, foreign<br>occupation, or natural disasters).</blockquote></span></div>
<div><br>And
there it is again: What you are articulating is a very specific type
of ideology, that is often articulated by the relatively well-off. It
is precisely this world-view, this defeatist ideology, that we must
educate people (like you and me) out of accepting. We must do this in
order to get started again and again. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">If</span>
thousands and thousands of educated people like you and me would just
postpone our belief that it is all useless and that we are isolated,
and all the lesser folks who are not as smart as us are manipulated,
and that there is no way to break through, if we could give up on this
"realism" <span style="font-style: italic;">then</span> we would begin to break through.</span>
It is "not possible" you say to do anything right now. If it is not
then we should just give up and accept the state of the world and
wait. We should present our throats to the knife or try to come
oppressors ourselves, and go somewhere where we can be left alone.
These are the only conclusions I can draw from what you have written.
And then in your previous email you tell me that you don't think people
should resign and that you are not a defeatist? Well give me another
name for your "realism", for your depression. If this is not defeatism
then what is it? <br><br>And what is your ultimate solution? That we should wait until some <span style="font-style: italic;">deus ex machina </span>of
a disaster saves us? Historically, such defeats have led to the
destabilization of ruling groups. But the usual result is very,
nasty. People turn against all outsiders, destroying each other and
anyone not like them. Tyranny, fascism, slaughter. This is the usual
result of such disasters down through history. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Unless</span>, before the disaster
there is organization and education and a good 33% of the people are
already well enough organized to get something good going again. <br><br>I
am sorry I feel like I have been harsh in this email. I don't mean to
be. I want to be generous, but I see no other conclusions from what
you have written. <br><br>Jerry <br></div>