Practice What You Preach

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Let's face the truth:
You won't get far posting on this forum.

You're not a revolutionary. You're not divine. You're not fighting against capitalism. You are posting on a forum. Probably, that's about it. Maybe you go to bed, after a trip to McDonalds, playing video games, laughing, and talking trash against capitalists on the internet.

You can shout "hasta la victoria siempre", quoting great revolutionaries, but, in the end, that's not going to change anything. You're just going to look stupid.

Most people on this forum advocate revolution (or so they say). Still, how many here have actually decided to actually start a revolution? To radically change things?

Have any of you actually done anything of importance?

How can you demand revolution "from them"? How can you demand "that they" start a revolution? How can you demand that others are to risk their lifes, for a cause you are not willing to sacrifice yours?


You say you advocate revolution. It's all about revolution. A distant dream. A fantasy. Because that is all it is, and that is all it is going to be, as long as you won't pick up your gun and actively fight for your own ideas.


Some of you might think that "they" (why do so many people describe the workers as "they", anyways?), that "they" would be opposed to a revolution, so you cannot do it. It's "morally wrong", because you cannot force "them". Well guess what, if you're not from the upper class, you are just like "they". You're not something special, something seperated from the masses. You are part of the masses.

So if you want the masses to fight, the only honest and rational thing to do is to set an example.



You do not need to have the whole people behind you. That is practically impossible. It is perfectly possible that a few men will start a revolution. Although the majority might be sympatethic, it is almost always a minority that change the status quo.


Inti, from the Guerilla in Bolivia, who fought with Guevara, said something along the lines that "as long as there is a single honest person left in this world, guerilla warfare will exist".

You can wait for a million-man army to rise up against the "£vil crapitali$t$", to fight against "U$ imperiali$m", but that is not going to happen. Someone has to take the first step.


If you want to sit and wait doing nothing, "and when the time comes" (which is not going to come before someone actually ripse up) still continue to remain inactive.. The farthest you will get is to post on a forum. Okay, so maybe you'll go to a few peaceful "demonstrations".. Perhaps not even that. Anyways, how is that going to change anything? It's not.

When things get critical, revolutionaries seperate themselves from the cowards.

If you so hardly insist on fighting, so hardly insist on revolution, you should practice what you preach. You cannot demand from others what you insist on not doing yourself.

[AnFaRes]

have you ever done anything man?


your talking about the gun in the hand...
what´s about a pacifist way...? (gandhi showed it to us in a breathtaking way--> why dont we use this way to make our marxist goals real? guevara also blievd in gandhi in his young years...)


throughout history there had always been this debates we are making...
action must be planed man...organised..

ok you can take your gun and you can go to the next supermarket and kill some capitalists to show the world the guerilla is on...but thats not right....this all had to be organised...


and its a fact that this will take time..

so stop demoralising us and start working....

[More Fire for the People]

You sir are very correct.
The problem however lies in organization.
One socialist in one a rural town or twenty in New York cannot do much.

[RedLenin]

Originally posted by NWOG+Apr 23 2005, 08:19 PM--> (NWOG @ Apr 23 2005, 08:19 PM)How can you demand that others are to risk their lifes, for a cause you are not willing to sacrifice yours?

[/b]
I am not afraid of death. I will sacrafice myself a thousands times for the oppressed people of the world.


Originally posted by "NWOG"+--> ( "NWOG")You do not need to have the whole people behind you. That is practically impossible. It is perfectly possible that a few men will start a revolution. Although the majority might be sympatethic, it is almost always a minority that change the status quo.[/b]

This is true if you wish to change bosses. I want to change society.


"NWOG"@
So if you want the masses to fight, the only honest and rational thing to do is to set an example

A while ago there was something similar to this called "propaganda by the deed". We saw how well that worked out didnt we.




"NWOG"
If you so hardly insist on fighting, so hardly insist on revolution, you should practice what you preach. You cannot demand from others what you insist on not doing yourself.

True, but terrorism and individual acts of violence is not going to bring us any closer to revolution. The people themselves must make the revolution. We should focus our efforts on education and organizing.

[NovelGentry]

Have any of you actually done anything of importance?

Many of us are still very young. I know some older members played active roles in various radical political organizations. But remember, before Lenin had his revolution he was out convincing people of it's necessity and also cooking up the means and know how to do it.


How can you demand revolution "from them"? How can you demand "that they" start a revolution? How can you demand that others are to risk their lifes, for a cause you are not willing to sacrifice yours?


I don't demand anything. I strongly believe it is the responsibility of every working class person to oppose the system in whatever way they feel they can. Some of us feel we can do so in greater ways, and do now or will do so in the future. I would gladly sacrifice my life if I thought doing so would bring about communism -- but me and a few local comrades trying to take over our local wal-marts or something probably isn't going to lead us to communism.

I have a very strong and solidifying plan for what my country (the US) needs for socialism. I plan to first solidify that plan, second, educate people on it, and .... ummm, well, let's not give the FBI too much to work with.


You say you advocate revolution. It's all about revolution. A distant dream. A fantasy. Because that is all it is, and that is all it is going to be, as long as you won't pick up your gun and actively fight for your own ideas.

And what would you like me to do with that gun? Shoot a few rich looking people? Attack my local police station? Shoot out tires on SUVs? There's more to it than this, and while 82 men on a rickity ship may have sufficed for Cuba (who militarily was no where near what the US is), there is a much bigger struggle ahead of all advanced capitalist nations.

Furthermore, our government has yet to firehose people in the street for protesting on a regular basis -- although they're getting pretty close.


Some of you might think that "they" (why do so many people describe the workers as "they", anyways?), that "they" would be opposed to a revolution, so you cannot do it.

I generally say we. Whether or not we can do it is a question of how far our cumulative actions can take in convincing the whole of the working class (or at least a significant majority) that real cahnge is needed.

My estimate is in 30 years. Others have placed it at 50, while others maintain "within the century." But a lot of other things have to change before one can even presume that significant majority to have revolutionary consciousness.


Well guess what, if you're not from the upper class, you are just like "they". You're not something special, something seperated from the masses. You are part of the masses.

Technically, we're all part of the masses. The masses themselves, however, are granulated. There is a certain percentage who already recognizes this need, not nearly a percentage such as we need, and there is another portion which directly and consciously opposes it. Over time, we fill the division will grow more and more clear, and the divide of those who don't necessarily take either side, will become smaller and smaller.


So if you want the masses to fight, the only honest and rational thing to do is to set an example.

Any example set today that actually takes on a violent means would be completely misrperesented by the bourgeois media, and unfortunately, those people who make up that middle divide and aren't really sure yet will see that as a sign that the opposing force is right about what we seek. Most of those people in the divide cannot separate the difference between violence against a state organ upholding class oppression and/or violence against that oppressed class itself. They see violence, and they grow afraid that it will "happen to them." Without much thought of why it happened, and the bourgeois media is not about to help in making it clear why it happened. It's probably because I played doom once.


You do not need to have the whole people behind you. That is practically impossible. It is perfectly possible that a few men will start a revolution. Although the majority might be sympatethic, it is almost always a minority that change the status quo.

While it is wholely possible, there are differences in previous examples. You cannot equate the situation of the US to the situation of Russia, China, or Cuba. You simply can't. Does this mean it's not possible to spark anything... no. But in general, regardless of a few sparking it, the people of these nations were rightfully pissed off at their current situation. These revolutions were found on that discontent population... and while maybe 50% of the US is pissed that our soldiers are dying in Iraq they don't feel overthrowing their government is necessarily going to fix the situation. Hell, they don't even believe a more liberal president could.


You can wait for a million-man army to rise up against the "£vil crapitali$t$", to fight against "U$ imperiali$m", but that is not going to happen. Someone has to take the first step.

You are the first person on this board who I've seen type like that. There's no need for quotes unless you're quoting yourself.


If you want to sit and wait doing nothing, "and when the time comes" (which is not going to come before someone actually ripse up) still continue to remain inactive.. The farthest you will get is to post on a forum.

Well, certainly we won't see revolution, but a lot of us do get a bit further than a post on a forum. In general though, I agree... the time won't come until someone rises up, let's just hope it's not Bob from St. Louis attacking his local police with a .22 screaming, "THIS IS COMMUNISM."


Okay, so maybe you'll go to a few peaceful "demonstrations".. Perhaps not even that. Anyways, how is that going to change anything? It's not.

When things get critical, revolutionaries seperate themselves from the cowards.

I wouldn't exactly call it critical yet. Class struggle has existed for a very long time, and has taken on many forms. The class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat existed very much the same as it did 100 years ago. What makes now any more critical than then? Because more time has passed?

We recognize the struggle, and if every passing day makes it more and more critical, we still have a number of days before it is critical enough for people to even sympathize with such a movement, let alone fight along side of it.


If you so hardly insist on fighting, so hardly insist on revolution, you should practice what you preach. You cannot demand from others what you insist on not doing yourself.

Take a page out of your own book.

I don't come here to pretend I'm planning a revolution, or even to say that we are in a position to have one. I come here to discuss what it entails, and what current society would entail for us to get there because I DO NOT believe we are there yet.

Take your own guilt out on yourself, not us.

[OleMarxco]

True. Our friend here, is impatient. I'd rather spread my ideology by doing good deeds. If enough people get convinced, then I would help lead the revolution. I'm only trying to make the theory clear so I know what I'm talking of ;)

However, I am fighting capitalism in my way. I refuse to be a part of the capitalistic system, thinking, method - That's how. I'm also willing to sabotage this as far as I can on my own, which I also do. Posting here is merely a way to educate myself.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

have you ever done anything man?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. If I did, I wouldn't answer that question for obvious reasons.



what´s about a pacifist way...? (gandhi showed it to us in a breathtaking way--> why dont we use this way to make our marxist goals real? guevara also blievd in gandhi in his young years...)

Let's put it another way... What about revolution? Why the pacifist way? And is that really a way, at all?

Actually, Guevara said in his young years, when his friend was in jail because of a demonstration, and asked Ernesto to do the same thing, Guevara said the only way he would protest would be protesting with a rifle in his hands.

Mussolini was a marxist in his younger years. So what?

I honestly don't think pacifism will get you anywhere. Why do you think it will?

Ghandi and Guevara are just two persons who do not live anymore. I don't think they are that relevant, really.


You honestly think the ruling class ("the rich guys") will just give up their power because they're perhaps a little unpopular?

Hell, in India they idolize Bill Gates, that's their role model. But there's still a rebellion going on in the country.



throughout history there had always been this debates we are making...
action must be planed man...organised..

And when, where and who is going to organize and plan, "man"?

Personally, I think this is more of complaining how much capitalism sucks (that can be changed, but I personally believe that is how it is now). It's not serious debate with the aim of actively creating a marxist/anarchist/socialist revolution.




ok you can take your gun and you can go to the next supermarket and kill some capitalists to show the world the guerilla is on...but thats not right....this all had to be organised...

I don't think killing capitalists (either political or economically speaking) will change much. That's basically terrorism. You won't get any hold of power.




and its a fact that this will take time..

Yeah, let's just wait until we are dead. *biip* Next generation please. Oh damn, they're going to sit on their asses, just like we do... Let's just wait a few decades more... Or perhaps a few centuries... Yeah, like 500 years men. THAT'S when things are going to change. I know it.

[bunk]

We need to organize, spread ideas and also set an example by confronting symbols and instruments of the government and ruling class. These actions can be violent most of the time or occasionaly non violent direct action.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How to organize, Josh?


I dont' want to sound dogmatic, but I will quote Guevara (suggest reading this carefully):


2. It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.

Link (http://www.bellum.nu/literature/guevara003.html)

[More Fire for the People]

A party of the working class would be best for now, ruled by the masses and a tool for the working class in the now that helps educate the masses and promotes the socialist ideal.

It could fund local socialist groups and promote general strike until the entire government collapses and itself is no longer needed.

[bunk]

Well firstly organize the commited revolutionary leftists into groups that do not aim to take power just instigate a social upheaval as i agree with you that there needs to be people to start a revolution before the masses join. They will also be spreading ideas all the time.

[NovelGentry]

I dont' want to sound dogmatic, but I will quote Guevara (suggest reading this carefully):

Well maybe you should note something else from Guevara:


Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fradulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

Yeah... I read that book too.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Well, Batista (although done a coup a few years before, and, correct me if I am wrong) had elections during the revolution, although they were not very popular, to say the least. So I guess you can say they "maintained at least an appearance of ... Legality"?

My point is that Guevara can speak of (what I quoted) by experience (the Cuban revolution).


Let's ask ourselves...

Even if the state maintained at least some sort of legality, can the insurrection be succesful, if it has popular support among the workers and peasants. Do "we" care if it looks legitimate or not, if it isn't, either way?


The state in Nepal has had some sort of appearance of legality most of the time since 1996, but the rebellion against the Monarchy has been largely succesful, yes?

[NovelGentry]

So I guess you can say they "maintained at least an appearance of ... Legality"?

No, they couldn't.

But no need to rely on that quote alone... there's lots of surrounding information that falls in line with what he is talking about, and the very same thing we're talking about. Admittedly there are some things, conditions if you will, that a guerilla force can "create" or at least emphasize. However, this also assumes you believe guerrilla warfare makes any sense in the US. From a starting point it does not. The US is a far larger country than Cuba, and has a huge amount of people when compared, you cannot bring such a giant to it's knees with the miniscule guerrilla outbreak similar to Cuba. Wide scale guerilla outbreak might be different, but even then, you need a base to launch that support from.


My point is that Guevara can speak of (what I quoted) by experience (the Cuban revolution).

Yes, and unfortunately Guevara cannot speak about any experience taking a country like the US towards socialism.


Even if the state maintained at least some sort of legality, can the insurrection be succesful, if it has popular support among the workers and peasants. Do "we" care if it looks legitimate or not, if it isn't, either way?

The point is it won't have popular support if the government maintains this appearance.

And we drop the peasants thing? For Christ's sake, you sound like the stalinists and maoists over at EG talking about gaining support among the peasants. Materially speaking, any country with a significant or even measurable peasant population is not ready for socialism.


The state in Nepal has had some sort of appearance of legality most of the time since 1996, but the rebellion against the Monarchy has been largely succesful, yes?

The US is not Nepal. Nor is Nepal, ultimately, going to achieve anything unless a more advanced country is tied economically with it.

Now see... this is the type of shit we discuss here, but because you're too busy just screaming out "revolution" you let the ideal and romanticism grow out of pure ignorance of what is actually necessary. You think because Nepal has some shit going down the US can too. Rural guerrilla warfare worked in a small island nation with a largely unwilling military -- no doubt it'll work in a country like the US where even such similar hiding/living spaces for the guerilla's are nearly hundreds of miles away from the metropolitan areas we'd have to capture to bring the country down anyway. That last part was sarcasm by the way.

"In local news, the guerrilla organization opposing the US government has started it's long march from it's rural free territory in New Hampshire down to the capital in Washington D.C. Because of heavy traffic on Interstate 95 due to roadwork, they'll have to seek an alternate route."

[red_orchestra]

NWOG, The question that you should be aking is have you done anything for Socialism? Common, do we really need to pitch one against another...thats what Capitalists do. I am a member a Canadian Marxist-Socialist group as well as a friend of The Canadian Communist Party. I am as active as I can be in rallies and protests.

[MKS]

Personally I am very heisitant to join any group, mainly because my cynisism comes to the conclusion that not much will be gained from any action taken. Especially in the USA and other Western nations, because the main population of people see no need for a radical change to Socialism/communism.

An example: I recently atteneded a meeting of the Free Peoples Movment CT chapter. They talked about marxism/socialism etc, and as part of an "action" would help the commnuity. i.e work food kitchens, protest things, much like many other charity groups in the nation. I dont want to join a charity group, or some party that seeks to work within the system. I would rather be older an committ to something to more permamnent.

So now, in the interim, I travel to other nations (recently India), talk to people and work, in order to gain expierences and ideas that could be useful when the time comes for action.

American socialists first priority should be to destory the imperialistic capitalist system that holds the rest of the world at the point of a gun. Shame should fuel our action.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

NovelGentry,

You always refer to the US.

Many people on this planet (including people at revleft) are not from the US. For many people, their main focus is not a US revolution, or the US itself. I might live in a nation where people are more scattered around, with large areas of landscape with few people, the rest centered in several small cities.

Different living creates different perspective. You might think of nuclear weapons, mass slaughter in New York, tanks in D.C., but for others, the first things that comes to their mind might be long winters, freezing, warm clothes, guns, guerilla warfare and caves.




NWOG, The question that you should be aking is have you done anything for Socialism?

Not a day go by without asking myself "if I have done enough?". I always arrive to the conclusion that "No, I haven't". And if I ask myself "up until now, could I have done anything more than I have?", than I usually come to the vague conclusion "probably".

The question is not what you and I have done. It is the attitude that we are going to change this world, no matter what, or avoid such thinking. That is the question.



Common, do we really need to pitch one against another...

I agree. We shouldn't pich against each other. That was not my intention at all. I think it's all about doing something that will change.

I might be narrow-minded, but I do think it's "either you are totally for it, or you are against it". The world is not that simple, but that is a stand we all have to take before our life runs out. Sooner or later we are going to die. During your lifetime you'll have to decide if you are going to dedicate yourself to revolutionary activity, or live the rest of your life as a "pink commie", drinking coffee, reading the daily newspaper, and talking about revolution.



"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."

[NovelGentry]

You always refer to the US.

Many people on this planet (including people at revleft) are not from the US. For many people, their main focus is not a US revolution, or the US itself. I might live in a nation where people are more scattered around, with large areas of landscape with few people, the rest centered in several small cities.

Different living creates different perspective. You might think of nuclear weapons, mass slaughter in New York, tanks in D.C., but for others, the first things that comes to their mind might be long winters, freezing, warm clothes, guns, guerilla warfare and caves.

Most other advanced capitalist countries are along similar lines as the US. Germany, France (and for that matter a good chunk of the EU), Canada, England, etc.

Any nation which maintains an abundent rural scene, particularly for it's most major political/economic centers, or one that is even surrounded by such, is probably a lesser developed nation. In which case, the quesiton you and anyone else, in these nations (like Nepal) or not, should be asking themselves is, "is this nation even advanced enough to be thinking about socialism?"

Cuba is strangely unique, in that it's existence was supported by a state capitalist (referring to the USSR here) system that developed much of the economic boom of capitalism while avoiding the brunt of unregulated capitalism that would be held in completely private interests. In essence, the USSR developed so far so that Cuba didn't have to at the time. But this is fading fast. The MIGs are getting even older and there is no one to respond and essentially provide all of this to Cuba.

So what will be left after all such nations in the end? What will happen to all those nations with socialist attempts when Cuba seizes to exist as we know it? You can only bring such nations so far together.

But this is my point: We could sit here all day and discuss the material reality of such nations progressing towards socialism, the flaws and troubles that will have to be overcome with the guerilla/vanguard paradigm they will use, etc. And we would both be better for it, because we may resolve some of these problems and come up with a cohesive and agreeable means to overcome them. To me, such discussion is far more useful than just screaming revolution from the hills of Nepal.

To you, and for whatever reason, which I can only imagine is your own guilt. You'd rather try and belittle this type of communication and tell us all we're robbing the revolution short, a bunch of bastards waiting for "them" to sacrifice "their lives." Well, and I can only speak for myself, I'm not. I don't expect any third world nations to do such things, in fact, I'd rather they not. I'd like more than anything to see the proletariat, as such a class ONLY can be developed by capitalism, push forward in advanced capitalist nations such as my own, but they're not exactly ready to do that.

So in light of my recognition of this, and other people's recognition you feel it's applicable to apply your own personal guilt to how we feel we can advance this cause (through discussion and spreading understanding). Then when I make some statement about the nation I live in, the nation which I would be making revolution in if I were to bare such a responsibility alone, you spin it and try and make it look like there's some xenophobic nonsense and US centered egoism.

I'm NOT going to fly to Belize and pick up a rifle -- I don't speak Spansih, no one there knows me, and I have no clue about the specifics of their situation, nor can I claim to be "helping them out" by taking up arms in a country I'm not even fully conscious about. Nor am I going to fly to Nepal, a country which I don't even feel would be materially ready for socialism to advance a Maoist cause and side with reactionary peasants to overthrow a most backwards system that should have been overthrown by bourgeois interests long ago (except apparently it's just not that useful a territory).

Instead I find the proper course of action is to remain here, advance socialism in my own country, and spread this word, as you have pointed out, through a medium that reaches a broad range of people from all over the world. And when I push, I will push here. And when we are ready, I will fight here. Not a day goes by that I don't think about what I can do, both in the theoretical aspects and in making practical change, but to simply run head first into such an action is not going to be very fulfilling for the cause.

Likewise I do not preach that anyone should be taking such action right now. If I thought such people should be rising to arms I'd be right there with them, but we shouldn't be. And Nepal should undergo a serious capitalist revolution first. And the workers of Belize should seriously be contemplating what is to come of the action they are taking. No matter how many bourgeois politicians or state protection mechanisms you wipe out or overcome, it isn't going to mean shit if you remain unconscious to the environment around you and develop a meaningful idea of what happens next.

With that said. I would challenge you to tell me what is the best course for the workers of Belize, or the people of Nepal, after their revolution. How should the US, Germany, England, etc, organize and progress towards socialism after they've all made the bourgeois blood spill?

I challenge you to give me a more meaningful plan for a country like the US than what I can supply, specifically, because that is what I focus on, because that is where I happen to live, and thus happens to be where I can make the greatest impact. And when you present me with that plan, show me the support for it, show me even 10% of the US who will strive for the same. If you can do that, I will pick up a gun and aim it at whatever state mechanism you want.. but you can't. So there is far more that needs to be done, yes, here... but there is far more that needs to be done in a lot of places like the US.

I do not represent the workers of Belize, nor can I claim to know what is right for them -- they will do this, and they will forge whatever society they wish to compromise on, or else it will be disarray and possibly civil war. I do not represent the maoists in Nepal... nor am I a maoist, nor do I believe the actions to be genuinely capable of even achieving socialism without first succumbing to far stronger capitalist influences.

I am, however, a working class American from the US. I can relate only to this environment, and I do so, and whether you want to believe me or not, the majority of this country is not ready for such events, and yet you will openly attack me and anyone else capable of recognizing this for inaction. Again, if you are feeling so guilty, take this out on yourself.

[Parkbench]

NWOG: This is all very well and good if you're talking about organising--you're 100% right. My problem with what you're saying lies in the fact that you're trying to discredit discussion. The very same thing happened to me in a soulseek anarchist chatroom just recently.

Yes, it is bad to sit here and claim to be doing things when actuality it is all talk.

However, discussion, consensus, philosophy, theorising--this is how we even arrive to the point where we have ideas for revolution. Discussion and human communication are what makes us able to think, and there's nothing wrong with philosophising about anarchism, socialism, communism, and what have you--as long as you realise it's just discussion.

Deluding yourself into thinking saying "hasta la victoria" will do anything is one thing, it is naive and useless. Discussion and the sharing of knowledge and ideas is another and whether through books or the internet it is how the seeds of revolution start. And we may assist each other.

That's just my view on discussion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Parkbench
However, discussion, consensus, philosophy, theorising--this is how we even arrive to the point where we have ideas for revolution. Discussion and human communication are what makes us able to think, and there's nothing wrong with philosophising about anarchism, socialism, communism, and what have you--as long as you realise it's just discussion.

I completely agree!

In fact, I've grown somewhat weary of people who come here and proceed to take an attitude of "moral superiority" by pointing out that "we're all talk and no action".

Talk is what a message board is for.

We do have a Practice forum where people can talk about what they and others are actually doing.

But, as Parkbench correctly pointed out, we have to be able to think and discuss what revolution actually means if we are to get anywhere.

I don't want to sound too harsh here, but just running out to "do something" is usually stupid and will have no positive results at best and some pretty damn negative results at worst.

I understand that sometimes people are impatient -- I am too! I wish history "moved faster" than it does. I wish I could think up some "astonishing strategy" that would "electrify" the working class. Or some set of "brilliant tactical innovations" that would build a mass revolutionary movement "in the next six months".

I am not smart enough or experienced enough to do those things...and neither is anyone else that I've ever run into.

But if anyone ever is smart enough, and ever does come up with those ideas, you can win some extra spending money by betting that it will happen on a message board...and maybe even this message board.

I know that if I ever had some kind of "stroke of genius", I'd take it to message boards, indymedia sites, and blogs to "spread the word"...in a few days, I'd reach tens of thousands of people and in a few months, millions.

It's a new day.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[OleMarxco]

Y'know, there's something called "picking up a rifle and just start shootin'". Then perhaps, more people will just come joining and you could sort out that "big theory"-stuff later. Who needs a genius, but someone unmodest to gain power and be above the masses? ;)