And I'm telling you it's an illusion. It's a temporary change in behavior by a small number of people who were personally affected, either by their own emotional outrage over a circumstance or because the American Gestapo was shooting civilians in their city where they live. Once the threat is out of sight, their eagerness will fade, despite the wisdom you probably preach about vigilance and *keeping up the momentum*, however right you are. People don't act because of the wisdom of a distant thing, they act when they are personally affected. *Masses* of people acting that is necessary for real change only occurs at critical moments when mobs form. I can not give you a single example of masses of people acting when it is wise rather than when it is desperate. Can you? If you can't find those moments in history, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy for change to align with how people actually behave and not how it would beneficial for them to behave. What ever convinced you that your strategy is good? How many organizers and unions have utterly failed *because* people failed to stay engaged and committed? Business knows this, governments know this, they use it to break and prevent opposition all the time, they're very good at it.