for Su Su and Others:

[aungsoe@xxxxxxxxxxx]

hi susu:

r u looking for activists with brain?

u r reading attitudes and opinions of those activists but not how their 
brains function for their survival.  i ain't blaming rachael for exchanging 
her beliefs with her personal freedom 'cause she had no other option to get 
her life back but this trade-off.  every activist knows her position.  
everyone knows aung san suu kyi'll be well treated by regime if she also 
makes such trade-off: between pro-belief and pro-survival. so will our 
freind minn ko naing.
they remain in cativity for their conscious choice based on their moral 
principles.  it doesn't mean that aung san suu kyi, minn ko naing and other 
prisoners of conscience r brainless and not in touch with reality.  it's a 
matter of choice.  they go with their beliefs.
rachael went with her passion for life.  i won't say she is an immoral and 
coward member of freeloving society.  but her sudden and unexpected exchange 
of her beliefs with her freedom did shock many activists who were and r 
still considering her as one of their kind of freedom lovers.
ppl who criticize rachel have mostly known her and shared her with their 
political ideas and contacts regarding democratic struggle in burma.  her 
press statements did crush this trust into pieces.
ppl r constantly changing both in their attitude and belief.  as we grow to 
high levle of political and social maturity, we tend to place more 
importance on moral beliefs than on materialistic beliefs.  some intelligent 
ppl with halfcooked maturity tends to play between these two choices and 
used to become amoral persons.  they seem to be capable of living in any 
world of any kind of truth.  because, after all, belief and truth r not 
their means to live with on this earth. it is their addiction to "freedom" 
outside the prisoned humanity. submission to unjust laws doesn't seem to 
matter them much.

r u a free person?  am i?  as long as we remain truth conscious and faithful 
to our beliefs, one way or another, we'll never be free in body or mind.  i 
ain't tutoring u about life.  but i'm explaining u about the main chemistry 
that makes up activism and its nature. i don't think, true activism changes 
by time from classic to post-modern.  Time has no functional effect on the 
truth. If truth ain't time-resistent, perhaps, rogers and dawnstars belong 
to classic activism, that simply refuse to negotiate or make a deal.

it is not important who is brainless or who is heartless. but it is 
important how we represent and interpret our beliefs.  Mahatma Gandhi, 
Castro, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Martin Luther King, Subash Chandra Bose, 
Nelson Mandela, Eugene Debs, Elizabeth C. Staton .....many more... have done 
this representatin and interpretation in different ways.  They survived and 
died for nothing but truth.  It is their living for high moral and natural 
laws that makes black, white, yellow brothers and sisters of both poor and 
rich more equal and free than before.  They never submitted to oppressive 
rules and the rulers.  Are they anarchists or just legal heretics or 
brainless nuts?

activists with such beliefs r not ur enemy, susu. they are ur ally.  and 
they r out there!  embrace them with an open heart and mind.
aungsoe

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com