Heterogeneous

 

 

 

On Pages 157 and 158 of his book, The True Believer, Eric Hoffer discusses how nasty a prolonged mass movement can be in a large nation with a heterogeneous population, I quote him and then comment on his content.

 

Hoffer (H after this): “                               121

 

There is perhaps some hope to be derived from the fact that in most instances where an attempt to realize an ideal society gave birth to the ugliness and violence of a prolonged active mass movement the experiment was made on a vast scale and with a heterogeneous population. Such was the case in the rise of Christianity and Islam, and in the French, Russian and Nazi revolutions. The promising communal settlements in the small state of Israel and the successful programs of socialization in the small Scandinavian indicate perhaps that when the attempt to realize an ideal society is undertaken by a small nation with a more or less homogeneous population it can proceed and succeed in an atmosphere that is neither hectic nor coercive.”

 

My response: There is a lot to unpack in this paragraph.

 

First, Hoffer by implication, is, I am convinced, a proto-typical egoist ethicist. Where radicalized, angry, revolutionary men of words conceive of a holy cause (Their idealistic vision of the perfect, utopia, which their revolution will usher in.), with its metanarrative and proposed political apparatus, to replace the existing social order and its story, and this holy cause is taken up and forwarded in reality by the fanatical, ruthless, bloody men of action, they have conjured up a mass movement to be populated by frustrated, true-believing, lost and seeking citizens. These citizen, true believers will man this mass movement, uniting and dying if necessary to secure its goal, the replacement of the standing status quo with their alternative social order, with its accompanying rationales and story.

 

This completed revolution is based on the presupposition that human problems of suffering, injustice, inequality, oppression, and class warfare are group problems requiring group solutions. The struggle is violent; conflict and killing are necessary to bring about the noble benefit for humanity, however ugly and violent the transition period is. The problem is collective; the solution is collective, so political and social change necessitate the rise of mass movements, which, do, in their active phase, bring about needed social and historical change.

 

Where large nations with vast, heterogeneous populations attempt to realize an ideal society, the revolution is noisy, bloody, violent, destructive, and ugly.

 

Hoffer notes that in small, homogeneous countries, revolution can be gentle and nonviolent, conducted in a manner neither hectic nor coercive.

 

One could conclude that Fabian-paced, lawful, peaceful minarchist or federal revolutions in small, homogeneous countries are what Hoffer is recommending, and it is true that that would work, and he would not be against that. I think his recommendation goes further.

 

I think Hoffer’s revolutionary preference--by implication but never overtly declared by him--is going much farther. Hoffer was a dyed-in-the-wool, American-loving patriot, first and foremost, so he really wants to show the world that only America’s Founding Fathers would know how to run a mass movement and revolution in a disciplined, constructive manner--of limited duration--so these wise, self-restraining revolutionaries did bring about change, but without murderous excess and horrible side-effects that ruined France as its ruling, enthusiastic Jacobins unleashed upon its people an orgy of senseless violence. They overthrew a corrupt oppressive status quo, indulging themselves in action by inflicting upon France an extreme revolutionary excess; all that happened, was, a few years later, Emperor Napoleon was crowned Emperor of France. What did the people of France gain? Nothing.

 

 Hoffer is implying that the Founding Fathers, not guided by my egoist-altruist morality, but rather, something close to it, guided by Age of Enlightenment altruist-egoist morality, were rational enough, individualistic enough, freedom-loving enough and capitalist enough, to run their moderate, aristocratic, conservative, upper class revolution against the British without allowing things getting out of hand.

 

Hoffer is implying or his line of thinking anticipates my approach (a consistent, logical theory of revolution that extends out from the aristocratic, conservative revolutionary approach utilized by America’s Founders) to mass movements and revolution to bring about social change and to seek to end authoritarian rule by the few over the class-stratified many.

 

If modern America can remain a stable and yet open-ended to gently implemented needed change and mini-revolutions, a free market constitutional republic, run by a classless (one class mostly or only) society of individuating supercitizens, most of them upper middle class,  to run repeated, perpetual reforms, within-the-existing, republican/democratic dispensation, the supercitizen morality (privately implemented rational egoism that undergirds political participation growing out of this) of these supercitizens should keep America free and humming along.

 

Supercitizen morality is a public morality, growing out of private egoist-individuality morality. This public morality is the free, willing, cooperative, negotiated, united, sharing of power by atomistic but organized individualists. This will be their collective morality of political participation to give them moral focus as they are running the country.

 

Hoffer the egoist theorist is implying that this whole bloody, inefficient, impractical, wasteful collective solution (Ruling elites field a rigid, traditional, stubborn unwillingness to allow change so there is too little change too slowly—while change is required and inexorably bringing pressure, as a historical force, bearing down on the standing dispensation, triggering mass movements to attack and uproot a society’s standing social order.) is not the best way to bring about change, especially change that is achieved by such murderous, ruthless means. The warlike and totalitarian means of achieving ideological, ideal aims ensures that the new order is often crueler and more inhumane than the old order that is just supplanted.

 

Hoffer is implying that deep, real reform and needed change must be done voluntarily, one person at a time, if she voluntarily chooses to improve herself. If enough Americans, a majority of adults, elect to live and operate as individuating supercitizens, they will save their own lives, and come up with a policy agenda that is good for all. And they will work to make sure that politicians implement it or be voted out of office.

 

Second, note that Hoffer the moderate truth-lover and truth-teller includes Christianity and Islam (active religious mass movements, especially as they gained traction over disparate peoples and nations by conversion, voluntary or coerced by the sword) with his list of secular, godless/pagan mass movements (the French, Russian and Nazi revolutions—spread through voluntary acceptance and coerced by the sword) as all serving as large, violent, wicked, murderous, inefficient, fanatical revolutions or active-phase mass movements, that are immoral collectivist moral and social programs, to solve societal problems and bring about needed change, but are not the way to bring about the ideal society.

 

Hoffer is warning we Christians and religious believers--as well as our foes and counterparts, the atheistic, agnostic, indifferent and unbelieving secular humanists arranged against us—that the mass-movementized, idealistic, enthusiastic, ideological, collectivist push to use violence to bring into existence their particular version or vision of the realized, ideal society, is a repugnant horror show that the proponents of holy causes/radicalized isms have engaged in, and will again if people go the collectivist route of using mass movements to gain ground politically and socially.

 

Third, Hoffer wants mass movement duration curtailed, to blunt the ability of its fanatical leaders’ addictive propensity to enjoy destroying and hurting as ends in themselves, through the intensity of their bloodletting, violence, and fanaticism. If the duration of their reign of terror can be limited, shortened, and shut down as quickly as its leaders can turn off its spigot, then society can be saved the ruinous effects of prolonged revolution.

 

Hoffer is implying, that gentler, short duration employment of the mass movement revolution—with a pronounced and enforceable determination by the in-charge, men of action, leaders like noble, principled, wise George Washington’s heroic act of just resigning and returning to his farm after leading our army to victory, giving up power voluntarily)—as insisted upon by the men of action running the active-phase mass movement, that this shorter duration of active-phase mass movements life span is preferable. Rare, wise, principled men of action   consciously move to shut the movement down, the second their objective is reached. This requires that atypical leader or group of ruling elitists not corrupted by power who are able to give up power to allow a democracy not a totalitarian state to settle in as the victorious mass movement cools off and ends.

 

The raging, howling mass movement, in its active-phase, be religious, political, nationalistic, class-driven or racial in self-identifying, does rip up and disembowel large, heterogeneous nations. In small societies, or in racially, ethnically and monoculture societies that are homogeneous, revolutions, are not so powerfully destructive, violent, totalitarian, bloody, prolonged and war-mongering.

 

The ideal method of reform and change, of course, is to do away with resorting to mass movements to effect reform and change at all. This ideal method is to allow change first and primarily as a private mechanism of improvement to be self-enforced and self-implemented per willing, engaged individuating supercitizen. As the people achieve societal reform and change as individual moral agents of the highest quality and result, they will work together to set up a social, cultural, and political agenda to benefit the community, state, and federal government.

 

H: “The horror a small nation has of wasting it precious human material, its urgent need for internal harmony and cohesion as a safeguard against aggression from without, and, finally, finally the feeling of its people that they are of one family makes it possible to foster a readiness for utmost cooperation without recourse to either religiofication or militarization.”

 

My response: The horrors produced by the ravages of an active phase mass movement leads to it be ruled out as a way to effect change in a small nation. Their rejection of this tool of change  expresses their unwillingness to waste its precious human material, or they insist on need to run their society based on reaching and maintaining a sense of principled, honorable internal harmony and consistency.  They express their preference for the need for humans to seek that each individual and all people have a chance for a normal, just life, and this requirement is not graspable, workable, or recognizable in a large, heterogeneous nation with an active mass movement racing along. The goals touted by a small nations should work as goals for individuating supercitizens in any size nation.

 

Also, as a reminded to my readers and myself, it occurs to me that religiofication is another technical Hofferian word that requires defining and given context.

 

Today (2/29/2024), I googled that word on the Internet and this is what came up:

“The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Key to any mass movement is “Religiofication” - the art of turning practical purposes into holy causes. Hoffer analyses the appeal mass movements and focusing on the desire for change. The men who rush into undertaking of vast change usually they feel they are in possession of some irresistible power with joined faith in the future and ... “”

 

That appears to be an online entry from goodreads as a part of their book review of The True Believer.

 

What is significant here for my purposes is their definition of religiofication—the art of turning practical purposes into holy causes. But, before I can break down what the definition of religiofication is, I have to define another Hofferian technical term used in that definition, the word holy cause.

Hoffer fields the term holy cause is in a manner that seems ironic, or paradoxical or almost sarcastic. He might believe that any religious faith, because it can be based on faith and feeling, is naturally or easily fanatical, because fanaticism and excessive emotionalism or enthusiasm are religious phenomena, if misapplied religious phenomena.

 

He probably would allow that there are humane, moderate religions that are holy causes, not too fundamentalistic, or too fanatically preached, spread and proselytized like is done by zealous adherents of holy causes. If the person religiofies his denomination or any ism, cause or abstraction that is his telos, then this healthy or wholesome holy cause becomes a virulent, radicalized, hyper-collectivized religion; it is now unrecognizable, and it is actually a demonic, unholy, holy cause. Its followers are peddling it as their reason for existing in their mass movement march across the land or the globe. This mass movement, with its on-fire, true believer followers and guru prophet is ready to take on and take over the entire world.

Hoffer and I agree that secular causes like nationalism, racism, chauvinism, Islamism, Communism Fascism Enviro-Statism are worldly atheistic causes that are holy causes in the negative sense, and these are mass movements.  

 

A holy cause in the positive sense can be religious or secular. These causes are good or holy causes (blessed by God or at least on actively opposed by God). Any ism or any cause can be a positively good cause or can be ideologized or religiofied and perverted into an negative or hateful, hating, unholy cause, once the acts of intentional religiofication of the practical activities and purposes of the backers and practitioners of that cause are made holy (made unholy).

 

I would argue that the unholy, immoral act of religiofication occurs to practice purposes, to the cause itself and is the debasement of the natural and supernatural craving that hunger each person feels to be connected to and worship a good deity. That desire is mutilated and corrupted,   once these aspects of this cause or faith are made unholy or religiofied.

 

Prager and Peterson warn that the powerful, visceral human need for purpose and meaning in their lives as explanatory reasons to live is likely a natural religious craving to worship a benevolent deity, but where cunning, untrustworthy manipulators degrade that religious craving, or by their deviousness, that ism is maladapted, distorted, religiofied (made an idol or fetish to worship), radicalized and turned into an ideology, an unholy/demonic, holy cause, that religious craving and good religions have been hijacked and are now handled tools, used by the ruling guru and his true-believing followers to amass power for their mass movement. The religious craving and denomination have been converted into what Hoffer calls a holy cause. I would argue that the holy cause worshiped by true believers is a poor, satanic substitute, an unfulfilling a replacement of religious worship of a good deity. Even true-believing atheists are now unwittingly involved in devil worship.

 

Now, I am not a fanatical Christian, but a devout, temperate, sane, holy, and virtuous Christian, as millions of Christians are, then my faith, my cause, is holy in the positive sense of being holy, that it is a religion that is holy and good, because it involves the wholesome and uplifting faith, and the complex act and process of worshiping Jesus. This religious cause is my reason for living.

 

When Christianity would be an unholy cause, or a holy cause in the negative or evil sense, would be when its adherents are no longer individualistic believers. They can still have a much stronger sense of community and unity that is ignited and bolstered by their wholehearted self-sacrificing, and they now guided by true believer morality—altruism-collectivism, not traditional Christian morality (altruism-individualism). 

 

We are half angel and half beast. Animals have their level of consciousness and their instincts guiding their wills to live to survive, and to perpetuate their species and that is what gives their lives satisfying purpose and meaning and natural law provide for them.

 

Humans are guided not just by instinct but by reason to come up with a satisfying system with God to worship, values, and a story—a metanarrative--for the individual and for the whole society, to provide them with necessary, critical meaning and purpose. That search for and expression of found meaning be it great or average or poor, is what they know and live by.

 

 If this set of found meanings is religiofied or ideologized, it becomes a holy cause or ism, a form of demonic worship. Consequently, the healthy innate religious desire for God and meaning in one’s life is sabotaged and redirected as an abstraction that is twisted and extreme, and the true believers worships this monstrosity. Its radical enthusiasts resort willingly to violence, terror, and coercion to force-convert and to convert others to join the holy cause. It is often okay to believe what you believe as an individual or as a member of an association, but it is never morally acceptable to coerce others to accept your beliefs as their own, against their free will.

 

I am wondering if reason and abstractions can be religiofied as well as our emotions. Once our reasons and feelings are fanaticized and ideologized, they are bald-faced lies.

 

Where any abstraction is religiofied, it is anti-reason, it is now turned by the men of words into a holy cause. Whatever reasons they muster are the servant serving its master, ideological emotionalism.

 

Universal and healthy is our selected cause, if it is an actual holy cause or ism adopted, if we dispassionate and quiet about it. Our allegiance to it is deeply felt but our gentle emotions and calm thinking about this cause is what we explain and define with clear, simple language. We invite others to join but we force none to do so.

 

To ideologize any cause or abstraction, religious or secular is to religiofy it; after that it is transformed into hateful worship, the holy cause that is the religion of Evil Spirits.

 

H: “It would probably be fortunate for the Occident if the working out of all extreme experiments were left wholly to small states with homogeneous, civilized populations.”

 

My response: This insight is brilliant and humane. If we try a variety of competing social, economic, cultural, and political experiments in small countries, or in the 50 US states, or in competing Canadian provinces, we could empirically test ideas and conclude what works. We could then recommend that successful experiments be universalized federally, internationally or we promote them to other nations as individual countries.

 

If the localized experiments prove wasteful, unworkable, vicious, or impracticable, then we will not universalize poor practices, as is routinely done in totalitarian states with active mass movements, states like China, Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany to take the whole world down. I would like to test Mavellonialism proposals, as tested experiments--through small, local trials--in this way to provide empirical proof that its proposals work, and I am confident that it mostly will. Mavellonialist moderate proposals are easily amenable to blending with social or local socialist or collectivist entities to whatever degree of being these things that they are.

 

H: “The principle of a pilot plant, practiced in the large mass-production industries, could thus perhaps be employed in the realization of social progress. That the small nations should give the Occident the blueprint of a hopeful future would in itself be part of a long established pattern.”

 

My response: His appreciation of the humaneness and moral superiority of small nations over huge nations in not doing harm and actually being good and kind, supports my Mavellonialist suggestion that people function best when political control is anarchist and local, with maximal functional local autonomy allowable within limited federal government in small countries and all large countries to keep government less tyrannical.

 

H: “For the small states of the Middle East, Greece and Italy, have given us our religion, and the essential elements of our culture and civilization.”

 

My response: Could small nations even if tribal, even if authoritarian, and collectivist or socialist economically, be on average more humane and more gentle than large, heterogeneous nations, just due to their homogeneity, and due to the fact, that being small makes anything more moral because small is more individualistic than huge, collective political units? Yes, I think so.

 

This could explain what Hoffer picked up on here: that on average, small countries like Greece and Israel gave the world—way beyond the proportion of size and worldly influence—religion, culture and civilization since what is good, original, uplifting and creative comes from the individuals (Individuals thrive in small nations better than in huge nations--especially if huge nations are totalitarian and very groupist.), not the nonindividuating, noncreative collectivists dominating huger nations. Smaller nations, even if they do identify themselves solely as groupist, could give people an implicit or overt sense of their per person, personal potency, efficacy, and individual importance: This creates a rewarding milieu for much resulting creativity and advancement culturally, due to the heritage of individual creativity in some small countries praising and reinforcing intellectual independence, personal freedom, and personal innovation.

 

H: “There is one other connection between the quality of the masses and the nature and duration of an active mass movement. The fact is that the Japanese, Russians and Germans, who allow the interminable continuation of an active mass movement without a show of opposition, were inured to submissiveness or iron discipline for generations before the rise of their respective  modern mass movements. Lenin was aware of the enormous advantage the submissiveness of the Russian masses gave him: ‘how can you compare (he exclaimed) the masses of Western Europe with our people—so patient, so accustomed to privation?’”

 

My response: Where large nations or empires are totalitarian governments that keep their revolutionary technique, that brought them to power, as the technique of permanent governance, now that power is consolidated and unassailable, these rulers utilizing the active phase of mass movementization of society as the new status quo way of governing, these rulers of this new social order are as evil as rulers can be.

 

 Evil grows not only out of bad morality (altruist-collectivist) but by means of the ideological, coercive, totalitarian federal campaign, inflicting this vicious system upon its civilians.

 

Where totalitarian brutality is the settled political norm, with the secret police dominating, and a society of all informing on all, these group-identifying, group-rights champions, these group-living nonindividuators live in and experience hell on earth. The frustrated are kept perpetually frustrated, but the militarization of society makes them have to put up with the brutal Party running things. In each heart, festers the now quieted fanaticism, but still the inner anger burns, ready to erupt in mass protest. All are forced into secular devil worship, and these collectivized, submissive peoples, so group-oriented and demanding to be enslaved and oppressed, are given by their totalitarian puppet masters, what they demand. Freedom, prosperity, plenty, and happiness will not visit these blighted lands.

 

 

These three countries mentioned were evil prior and just go worse with huge populations now radicalized and spread pure wickedness, hurt suffering and loss across the world.

 

 

 

Hoffer’s ethical, ontological and sociological observations about the human condition, as communicated to the public by him in his book, The True Believer, lead me to be more  convinced than ever that he is a proto-Mavellonialist, and was an undeclared, moderate rational egoist (he never claimed any of this, of course). He is so articulate, accurate, insightful, and honest in his portrayal of how humans are good and evil, that his marvelous work astounds me. With his anticipation of my development of Mavellonialist morality and philosophy, he described well the problems humanity faces, and hinted as to how these problems can be solved. He is not easy to read and seems very dark and pessimistic. In actuality, he is not so pessimistic but is realistic and truth-telling. It. Modern intellectuals, believing concepts like God, good and evil are metaphysical gibberish, cannot relate to Hoffer. They cannot stand to study him, so he is kept marginalized, repressed and forgotten.

 

H: “Whoever reads what Madam de Stael said of the Germans over a century ago cannot but realize what ideal material they are for interminable mass movements: ‘The Germans,’ she said, ‘are vigorously submissive. They employ philosophical reasonings to explain what is the least philosophic thing in the world, respect for force and the fear which transforms that respect into admiration.”

 

 

My response: To understand how the German people’s attraction to and eagerness to join mass movements, we need to recognize that group identity was all, that being tyrannized by elites was their history, and that the individual’s complete subservience to obedience to the state was freedom for them, asserted their philosophers for centuries. The masses were inculcated with the cultural command that their moral duty was to submit to the aristocracy, emperor and later a dictator like Hitler.

 

If one reads Stephen Hicks book (Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault) where he traces how Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Herder, Fichte, Nietzsche and others taught the masses to obey the State and to think as told to think by the agents of the State, one realizes that these people were almost doomed to embrace Hitler’s mass movementization of Germany, with totalitarianism, militarization of society, world war and death camps as the fruit of this poisonous fig tree.

 

Germans heeded the European intellectuals that roundly denounced English Enlightenment, its defense of individualism, reason, science, capitalism, democracy, an economy of plenty that grew its industrialized, middle-class, modern nation as Western, as a decadent, irreligious aberration. No wonder Hitler came to power and about destroyed the world.

 

H: “One cannot maintain with certitude that it would be impossible for a Hitler or a Stalin to rise in a country with an established tradition of freedom. What can be asserted with some plausibility is that in a traditionally free country a Hitler or Stalin might not find it too difficult to gain power but extremely hard to maintain himself indefinitely. Any marked improvement in economic conditions would almost certainly activate the tradition of freedom which is a tradition of revolt. In Russia, as is pointed out in Section 45, the individual who pits himself against Stalin has nothing to identify himself with, and his capacity to resist coercion if nil. But in a traditionally free country the individual who pits himself against coercion does not feel an isolated human atom but one of a mighty race—his rebellious ancestors.”

 

My response: Hoffer is right: A country with a history of oppression and submissive, very group-oriented masses, held down by state police for hundreds of years as in Russia, there a mass movement can more easily arise than in the countries of Western Europe, or America, for example. A Hitler or Stalin could grab power here as that monster Trudeau is doing up in Canada right now, but there is a chance, down the road, in any of those countries, that the masses will resent to new overlord, and rise up to overthrow, oust him and abridge his strong man grip upon society.

 

I would add that the individual cannot withstand a mass movement or totalitarian state if he is a mere small individual, nonindividuating, group-oriented, group-living and motivated by bad altruist-collectivist morality.

 

But an individuating-supercitizen, an individuator and living angel working for and in league with the Good Spirits, that individuates, individual-lives, is individual-oriented and motivated by admirable egoist-individualist morality, would have the internal resolve, iron will, and granite resolve to stand up to any mass movement, or totalitarian state, no matter how much they mistreated and tortured him.

 

After they executed and mistreated a few Mavellonialists like him, then the other individuating supercitizens would rebel and commence overthrowing the wicked status quo.

 

Hoffer is a man of unerring accurate instincts: when he states that if the economy improves, anywhere, it has the potential to activate a tradition of freedom or instigate in oppressed people, some thoughts of freedom. Underlying this assumption is egoist ethics: a free person is or can become an individualist motivated by self-interest, an activistic spirit, a love of wholesome materialism, uplifting wealth-acquisition, and a rising standard of living. If his material conditions can improve, then he might think of improving or altering his political state or his cultural experience.

 

The tradition of freedom is a history of revolt. Here is why: people are born depraved, which means they are evil more than not, which means they group-live in social hierarchies; they justify succumbing to ruling elite maltreatment by lying and living a life of lies amidst other habitual, serial liars for whom lying is as natural as breathing. This community of liars justify their love of enslaving and being enslaved. An elite, in each country, rule the masses down below them, and yet the elite somehow conform to social injustice and dysfunction which the masses insist upon perpetuating and living under.

 

History is the record of various authoritarian, class arrangements where the elite tyrannize, enslave, terrorize, murder, exploit and oppress the poor, disenfranchised majority who like being oppressed and abused, and their immoral theory, the altruist-collectivist morality, allows them to live in chains and justify this as normal, healthy living, and that they are happy living that way.

 

If a people slowly come alive, love themselves, acquire some modest degree of individualism and sense of egoist self-care, they begin to value themselves and assert themselves, that they have a right to be free from tyrants above them. This is the tradition of loving freedom, fighting,  dying and revolting to gain freedom, and trying to keep freedom once won—often failing to maintain freedom gained— and this tradition includes revolting against tyrants over them, the masses, be those tyrants the leader of a mass movement, a totalitarian dictator, or a soft dictator like Justin Trudeau in Canada.

 

I would recommend that a free people rear up a generation of citizens to live and run the system as individuating supercitizens, and they will be impossible to enslave, keep enslaved or re-enslave, because they live the tradition of freedom and revolt every day.

 

A word of caution: Revolution and revolutionaries—including mass movements in their active phase--and their foes, the radical, reactionary authoritarians with secret police crushing potential revolters, dissidents and freedom-lovers as brutally and harshly as in going on today in Russia, China, and Iran, might seem like polar opposites, but they are not. Most revolutionaries, if they prevail, will not bring in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the human and civil rights of its citizens. Most revolutions are not a revolution but a coup de’tat, for a new class of elites ruling the oppressed, have-not masses is what is the reinstated new dispensation consists of, when the dust settles. The oppressed have-nots are still oppressed and are poor.

 

Only limited revolution, conducted by aristocratic, conservative rebels like George Washington, provides a mass movement or revolution is shut down by its leader or leaders, the second the revolutionaries take over the government, and defeat their oppressors.

 

The individuating supercitizen as a rebel or revolution supporter, is really a customized, unique, individualistic version of George Washington, a conservative, aristocratic (Merited, earned, virtuous and intellectual, superior personal bearing and status, as in being and living as a high class person of self-actualized genius and accomplishment), yet one of millions of equal, fellow individuating supercitizens, peers and common people, overthrowing the unjust dispensation, but immediately setting up a democracy or constitutional republic. Revolution is their tool, but never their end.

 

The individuating supercitizen and the constitutional, capitalist republic run by him and his millions of fellow individuating supercitizens is the foe of those twins, the Bolshevik revolutionary, and the mullah thug, driving down and smashing his citizens, via his totalitarian order terrorizing places like Iran and North Korea today.