In this section I would like to discuss an experience that happened shortly after being thrown off the land that I bought to homestead on with my children. Later that year  a stock-exchange company wanted to mine some uranium that is deep under the earth's crust here. The local Algonquin tribe set up blockades to the property where drilling would begin because it is on unresolved first nations treaties land. I showed up that first day not because I had land to protect but rather they were up against the minority of privileged whose well-being is credited for our well-being. So I felt that our experiences were similar and we had things in common. Having just lost my own battle with bureaucratic rule and regulation that removes any right for me to have my own property to manage and then give it over to my children which to me is equivalent to the European invasion on the first nations of this land. Their stand was similar to my own and I wanted to stand with them.

Upon arriving to the rally I introduced myself to an elder of the group and tried to find common ground. He disappeared and entered a meeting of the native contingent. The next person I talked to after that meeting adjourned said that at the meeting the subject that native's had to be on the look out for people who would try to hijack the agenda and change the focus of who was speaking out. It felt like the comment was directed to my attempt to find common ground with my perceived allies. So there was a definite native group and because other groups were showing up another group became identified as the settlers. However the settlers were made up of property owners mostly worried about their property values and homeowners owe at least some of their success of becoming a home owner to their success within the economy. Essentially property owners gain success by participation/colluding with the economy that is out of balance to the well-being of the very top of societal hierarchy and it's managers about the top third of pretty much every culture. A group I don't feel includes me largely the group that makes their cheese managing people like me. So after 3 days I didn't feel part of either group and stopped going only watching but also speaking up within the local community against the anti native sentiment when I heard it some of the locals were muttering about the potential job loss to the community.

I'm thinking the situation is similar to the 'occupy movements' where the movement was begun by regular folk but it wasn't long before unions were elbowing their way in and blurring the focus of who the group represented. I think 99% isn't the dividing line of the population for who has a beef with the government over the inequitable distribution of wealth. And 1% doesn't describe accurately who is getting the unfair share of the population's wealth. It's the .01%  who get the biggest unfair share. But those who are in the collusion zone comes down to about 30%. I include what social workers call, the agents of social control mostly those who are unionized. In particular those who will spin their guns and focus them on the poor citizens so as not to disturb maintaining the status quo. Many of the jobs in the upper one third of society are created to manage the rest of us. A real union should include all of the people and not just negotiators who negotiate for a small fraction of working blue collar workers against the white collar elite. So if the highest paid of the blue collar have already negotiated a better deal with the overpaid white collar community whose well-being they will protect then, they should not be blurring the focus of those left out of negotiations all of the time.

Another problem I see is that when small minority groups are negotiating with the government the appearance is a small group against the government negotiators and it seems implied that the negotiation is also against the rest of the population. The dynamic lumps the small group against the way the country works which is implied it works well for all of us except the small group. My point is made by the example of ongoing treaty negotiations for first nations communities. At first glance I am likely lumped into those negotiating against the native groups because I'm not native. However we can distinguish difference not just by race and therefore we can unify by income level. In that category I am more similar to the native inhabitants of this continent than the aristocrats of this country. I also recognize that what happened to the natives here also happened to the Europeans not that long ago. So we are both poor, we both have no rights to resources or land removed and the majority of opportunities are controlled by the upper crust which the majority of every race do not belong. If someone asked me who I support I would say give them the rights to the resources on the little piece of land you parked them on at least. Honor the deals you made.

I am grossed-out by groups of people who force people into a pen (reserves, Gaza,  gulags, camps, slums, low income projects and those outside gated communities, etc) with promises that are never honored. So when I hear of First Nations being denied what was promised to them I feel sick to be viewed on the side against honoring the deals. I would like to see lands opened up for those of us who don't fit the 'get an education and job reality' of the top third of conformists. I'm good with educating but more of a lifelong repeating re-re-educating model the one thing I'll admit is that I can't do the same thing indefinitely and remain sane. It occurs to me if all the studies say that those with high educations do better in society and that's why we spend so much of the budget annually and we don't consider any other causes as why the non conformists aren't doing as well as the conformists then we will probably continue to repeat the same behavior while expecting different results (someone important said that defines insanity).

The experience I shared at the beginning of this writing where showing up to support those being oppressed by the money folks taught me, its not helpful if I diminish the identity of the group I want to support. And that, I don't want to be included (by default) in the group whose well-being relies on me also not having any rights to resources and other self-supporting behaviors like homesteading. So supporting minority groups with similar wants/needs could use a unifying voice. A multi-cultural organization that unifies the disparate voices of those denied the rights that are relied on for human dignity perhaps the Planet Stewardship and World Rescue Team can be a good starting point and could provide the lower part of the population to gain a stronger voice and provide a source from where to find worthy elders. Given the senates/congresses of the world are supposed to be a last sober look at laws before they are enforceable; and that they are to speak for the majority, not the minority of the biased business population which happens when we have political appointments then I think  the senate is where elders can represent the majority the best.