>If the majority sees the truth,
>then competent and honest public
>officials could be elected to
>institute change.

This is the key. But getting the majority to see "the truth" is the catch. Americans in general are so apathetic that getting through to them, regardless how righteous your cause, is going to be a major challenge. Even those who want to find out the real story are bombarded with media noise to the point that eventually they'll give up and join the apathetic majority.

So you've got your small band of revolutionaries who managed to stay focused and form similar opinions based on the facts that few others know or care to know. If you think armed revolution is seriously an option, think again. Because while you're reasoning with people and turning them to your cause through debate and argument, the government is simply taking the confused ones who join the armed forces and brainwashing them by force in great numbers.

The U.S. government will never drop bombs on its own soil. There's just too much of a risk of a drastic change in the way the people view their government if they do that. But they certainly have the resources to send military forces wherever they need them in no time.

So the change does have to come about using the "system". That way, hopefully someone from your small band of revolutionaries gets into a position where they can affect change on a broad scale, and legally. That's how the corporations do it - except politicians working for them get rewarded much more quickly and with much more tangible rewards. Ah, instant gratification...


"Then the police came - I went in the house.

Cause they got Magnums too.

And they don't kill cars. They kill ni-gahs." - Richard Pryor