response2theStrategicallyChallenged

(NOTE: Ever since I posted challenging remarks on BBC's forum, I began having curious problems posting titles with spaces. Every time I made a space, the whole of the text would turn into some kind of arabic (?) or asian (?) language script! So, since then, I've had to squish it all together! And...go make other blogs in other places!)

This is a comment I made on Russell Means' Freedom Blog (russellmeansfreedom.blogspot.com) I encourage dialogue! Who dares to step up?!?

I'm noting how some people are coming in [to Russell Means' Blog] and putting words into Russell's mouth. They're not responding to the actual thread/post, but are acting more like people mobilized to attack with the usual character-assassination hype and so on. The usual pattern for anyone who starts to gain any ground as far as promoting independent approaches to thinking things through.

At the risk of going off "too far" on a tangent, i want to share the following, in order to perhaps seed a more effective approach...for those who want to try to bring all of this to merely a "white against red" thing (and in so doing *try* to discourage solidarity across color lines as much as possible).

i want to say, i'm a "white" person, and while i don't agree with characterizing the systematic oppression foisted upon the oppressed as "white", i can see why so many accept that simplistic approach. BECAUSE it "works" to mobilize people.

The problem is, while it seems to "work" in the short run, it comes back to haunt in the long run.

We should be characterizing oppression more clearly. One approach would be to demystify the *chain-of-command* game. And so i think using the term "formal" and "informal" makes a lot of sense. Thus, something like *formal reps of the status quo do what they can to mobilize their informal masses so that they can carry through their mandate and orders from on high*.

This doesn't "work" so expediently for those who believe they must play propaganda games (including many "well educated" ndnz, apparently); but it DOES go to the heart. It DOES bring integrity to any group.

Of course, the political police everywhere will try to turn this to their advantage too; the thing of it is, can they really do that? How? If people are learning to think things through, if people start to see how the chain-of-command works on a systematic basis, can their seemingly limitless resources dupe so easily?

Now, on matriarchy. i agree, generally. The thing i want to question is when any one group gets hierarchical status OVER others. i suspect that Russell's project is one of the leading examples of such an excellence, even tho he's likely bombarded with all kinds of obstacles, daily. So i want to support it, even tho i have misgivings about the re-curring challenge of "power over" others simply because of a portion of who they are. So i want to watch and listen, and not let my knee-jerk reaction (recalling the Politically Correct movement in the 1980s) get the best of me!

Finally, it would be interesting to learn where many of the anti-type posters are getting their "information". I would assume, based on what i've seen so many times, that many of them are coming directly from a riling-up speech made by someone they trust. Perhaps a Rush Limbaugh-type puppet. It looks obvious to me!

The big question is, do informals/average janes and joes, realize the value of looking beyond such confines and try actually wearing empathy (and follow their own alleged beliefs, i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you.").

Feel free to discuss this kinda stuff with me [here]!