Otherwise, your strategy rises no higher than mere conspiracy.
But if you are engaged in public agitation, then obviously your aim is to persuade the public of something.
What's more, I am alarmed by your assertion that you believe people should be encouraged to engage in seemingly futile organising efforts. This would appear to be a terribly destructive idea. Especially combined with the strategy of only reaching out to the people who already agree with you.
Basically, it adds up to a strategy of reaching out solely to those who already agree with you and encouraging them to engage in an organising effort which you think will fail. This cannot but be destructive of morale, both your and theirs.
If this is what you do to your friends, it would be better to be your enemy.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
>All agitation is directed at those who already agree but either are
>passive or don't know they agree. It is never directed at changing minds
>by persuasion.
>
>It is the growth of the active movement (as well as events out in the
>world) that begin to change people's minds, not the arguments of the
>movement. Therefore the movement NEVER aims at "changing minds" with its
>arguments but ALWAYS continues to aim at people who already agree but
>aren't part of the movement yet.
>
>That is the only theoretical principle necessary to become an organizer.
>EVerything else is to be learned on the job as it were.
>
>But it is contemptible to blame the american people for passivity unless
>you are actively engaged yourself in some local organizing effort, no
>matter how futile it seems.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk