Excellent article, John! It's surprising so few see through this. I suppose part of the problem has been the ruling class' successful inculcation of the "middle class" with the idea that it is actually responsible for racism and should therefore accept being considered guilty.
I think one of the big problems is that all too many anti-establishment activists don't even think about how to persuasively refute the ruling class propaganda lies; instead they only think about expressing their anger at injustices and assume that those who disagree with them do so because they are simply bad people and that nothing the activists could ever say would make them change into good people, so why bother even trying? This reflects the anti-working-class elitism that I have posted about earlier. It is a BIG problem.
If activists, instead, said to themselves and each other, "Why do lots of people disagree with us? Let us assume at least initially that most people who disagree with us do so because they think their view is the right one, not ours, for making a more just society. What facts exactly do they believe about the world that we think are false, that causes them to disagree with us? Are they right about these beliefs, or are we? What's the evidence that we are factually right and they are factually wrong? Let's gather that evidence and respectfully present it to those who disagree with us and thereby persuade them (the ones who are good people, at least) to agree with us"--then I think we would see the growth of a large egalitarian revolutionary movement.
Excellent article, John! It's surprising so few see through this. I suppose part of the problem has been the ruling class' successful inculcation of the "middle class" with the idea that it is actually responsible for racism and should therefore accept being considered guilty.
Thank you. And you make a good point.
I think one of the big problems is that all too many anti-establishment activists don't even think about how to persuasively refute the ruling class propaganda lies; instead they only think about expressing their anger at injustices and assume that those who disagree with them do so because they are simply bad people and that nothing the activists could ever say would make them change into good people, so why bother even trying? This reflects the anti-working-class elitism that I have posted about earlier. It is a BIG problem.
If activists, instead, said to themselves and each other, "Why do lots of people disagree with us? Let us assume at least initially that most people who disagree with us do so because they think their view is the right one, not ours, for making a more just society. What facts exactly do they believe about the world that we think are false, that causes them to disagree with us? Are they right about these beliefs, or are we? What's the evidence that we are factually right and they are factually wrong? Let's gather that evidence and respectfully present it to those who disagree with us and thereby persuade them (the ones who are good people, at least) to agree with us"--then I think we would see the growth of a large egalitarian revolutionary movement.