PDA

View Full Version : G. Edward Griffin: Should We Support Russell Means and the Lakota Indians?




FrankRep
09-28-2010, 08:02 PM
Should We Support Russell Means and the Lakota Indians? (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=Russell_Means&&refpage=issues)


G. Edward Griffin | Freedom Force International (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org)
July 4, 2008


We have received several inquiries about why we have not urged the support of Russell Means who has called for separation of the Lakota Indians from the United States. In outline form, here is the reason. (If you are in a hurry and don't have time for the details, I suggest you jump ahead and read just the last two paragraphs, starting with item six.)

1. Russell Means is considered to be a founder of the American Indian Movement; although, in later years after a split developed between him and the organization, AIM went to considerable length to distance itself from Means and to downplay his role.

2. AIM has, from its beginning, been closely aligned with Marxists who have pursued the classical Leninist strategy of dividing a target nation into splinter regions through a revolutionary strategy called War of National Liberation. This calls for identifying a religious, ethnic, or racial group within a target nation that can be mobilized on the basis of some grievance against the government or the ruling class. There usually are plenty of legitimate grievances to draw upon, but the strategy calls for making them worse and, if possible, even to create new ones. The objective is, not reform, but bitterness, hatred, violence, and territorial division. This strategy has been used in one variation or another in many countries, and it is easy to identify if you know the rules by which they play. AIM has always played by those rules, and its Leninist orientation is clearly visible. (If you would like more information about this strategy, please cpntact me at ge.griffin@verizon.net, and I’ll be glad to send you the transcript of a video I produced on that topic some years ago entitled: “More Deadly Than War; The Blueprint for Communist Revolution in America.”)

3. After being caught up in this movement in the beginning, Means eventually rejected the Leninist influence and, after a protracted period of disagreement with other leaders, resigned from AIM. Actually, the organization was quick to repudiate him and, in one of its press releases, claimed that he had resigned no less than six times, so we can well imagine what conflict went on at the leadership level.

4. There is no doubt that much of that conflict centered around the ideology of Communism. While his former comrades remained faithful to traditional Marxist/Leninist strategies and slogans, Means began to speak out against them. In a speech delivered in July 1980 at the International Survival Gathering in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Means said in no uncertain terms that Marxism was not the solution for the grievances of his people. The enemy, he said, was not even capitalism. It was European culture. Here is a sampling of his remarks:



Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate at which they can show a good profit. That's their ethic, and maybe that will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it's the most "efficient" production fuel available. That's their ethic, and I fail to see where it's preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of the European tradition. It's the same old song. …

The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or "proletarians," as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could occur only through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society. …

So, in order for us to really join forces with Marxism, we American Indians would have to accept the national sacrifice of our homeland; we would have to commit cultural suicide and become industrialized and Europeanized. …

Marxism has something of a history. Does this history bear out my observations? I look to the process of industrialization in the Soviet Union since 1920 and I see that … the territory of the USSR used to contain a number of tribal peoples and they have been crushed to make way for the factories. The Soviets refer to this as "the National Question," the question of whether the tribal peoples had a right to exist as people; and they decided the tribal peoples were an acceptable sacrifice to industrial needs. I look to China and I see the same thing. I look to Vietnam and I see Marxists imposing an industrial order and rooting out the indigenous tribal mountain people. …

I hear a leading Soviet scientist saying that when the uranium is exhausted, then alternatives will be found. I see the Vietnamese taking over a nuclear power plant abandoned by the U.S. military. Have they dismantled and destroyed it? No, they are using it. I see China exploding nuclear bombs, developing nuclear reactors, and preparing a space program in order to colonize and exploit the planets the same as the Europeans colonized and exploited this hemisphere. It's the same old song, but maybe with a faster tempo this time. …

I do not believe that capitalism itself is really responsible for the situation in which American Indians have been declared a national sacrifice. No, it is the European tradition; European culture itself is responsible. (See http://www.dickshovel.com/Banks.html.)


5. So, it’s clear why Russell Means does not get along with his former comrades who continue to have an affinity to Marxist-style collectivism. However, in spite of the fact that, more recently, he has supported the Libertarian Party and the Ron Paul presidential campaign, I can find nothing in his words or actions that reveal an clearly defined attitude about collectivism in general. The Libertarian Party embraces people from a wide range of ideological conviction, including collectivists who are merely expressing disgust for the leadership of the other parties. I would hope that Means' affinity to the heritage of his ancestors would raise him above that, but I am mindful that the Indian tradition also contains strong elements of collectivism. I would like to have the opportunity someday to talk with him about this. However, until we know where he stands on the conflict between collectivism and individualism, we cannot automatically assume that he is a champion of freedom.

6. Adding to this need for caution is the fact that Means is calling for secession of the Lakota Indians from the United States and has appealed to that great collectivist assembly of totalitarianism, the UN, for moral, legal, and possibly physical assistance. He has asked for a seat in the General Assembly. While any freedom-seeking person with common sense would be working to get the U.S. out of the U.N., Means is working to get out of the U.S. and into the U.N.

This is the reason we did not jump on the Russell Means bandwagon. He may not be a Marxist/Leninist, but he still appears to be promoting the strategy of so-called national liberation, and he is seeking to align himself with the U.N., arguably the worst bunch of dictators and despots the world has ever known. I don’t see how anything good can come out of that, certainly not for the Lakota Indians.


SOURCE:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=Russell_Means&&refpage=issues

Vessol
09-28-2010, 08:51 PM
The native american community is in desperate need of a peaceful revolution like our own.

Live_Free_Or_Die
09-28-2010, 10:54 PM
The only reason there is not a budding alliance between the Lakotah and libertarians is Indian culture does not recognize property rights. Land and nature are import collective aspects of native culture. If they did recognize property rights, some libertarians might have likely already migrated to the reservation and joined the cause.

Aratus
09-29-2010, 10:40 AM
thomas nast used his quill
pens to route out corruption.
more than venting at a corrupt
machine is as american as apple pie.

Fredom101
09-29-2010, 11:00 AM
The problem with Ed Griffin is that he himself supports collectivism, albeit, in small-government fashion. Small collectivism is still collectivism. And, Griffin believes that revolutions only happen when violent power is overthrown with more violent power. (I used to be a Freedom Force member and read through all the documentation carefully).

Baptist
09-29-2010, 11:35 AM
The only reason there is not a budding alliance between the Lakotah and libertarians is Indian culture does not recognize property rights. Land and nature are import collective aspects of native culture. If they did recognize property rights, some libertarians might have likely already migrated to the reservation and joined the cause.

I agree. It's funny you say this because last week I was researching living on Indian Reservations. I have been through lots of Indian Reservations around the 4-corners area and I was thinking it would be an excellent place to escape from society and live off the grid. However, it only took a few minutes of searching to figure out that you can't own land on Indian Reservations. Not only that, but from what I gather all Indian Reservations are owned by the Federal Government and leased to the various tribes. The tribal leaders can then lease sections of land and property to individuals, but the true owners of the land are the Feds.

No thanks, I'm not interested. If some Indians ever decide to wrestle ownership of their land from the feds, and then allow individuals to buy property, I'll consider living there again. Under the current arrangement there is no way I will consider it though. Even if you could own property it would be a tough call because reservations have too much baggage as it is.

lucius
09-29-2010, 12:52 PM
Hell Yes...support the Indians!!!

FrankRep
09-29-2010, 01:08 PM
Hell Yes...support the Indians!!!


G. Edward Griffin says NO:


6. Adding to this need for caution is the fact that Means is calling for secession of the Lakota Indians from the United States and has appealed to that great collectivist assembly of totalitarianism, the UN, for moral, legal, and possibly physical assistance. He has asked for a seat in the General Assembly. While any freedom-seeking person with common sense would be working to get the U.S. out of the U.N., Means is working to get out of the U.S. and into the U.N.

This is the reason we did not jump on the Russell Means bandwagon. He may not be a Marxist/Leninist, but he still appears to be promoting the strategy of so-called national liberation, and he is seeking to align himself with the U.N., arguably the worst bunch of dictators and despots the world has ever known. I don’t see how anything good can come out of that, certainly not for the Lakota Indians.

osan
09-29-2010, 01:28 PM
The native american community is in desperate need of a peaceful revolution like our own.

FYI, all of the Indians I know HATE being called "native American". They take umbrage to it.

acptulsa
09-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Hell yes, join in with native people. Not necessarily the Russel Means' of their ranks, as he is clearly not libertarian, but there are plenty of Indian Nations that are very libertarian.

And Oklahoma native lands, thanks to the inherent robbery of The Allotment, are not owned by any government (except tribal facilities, of course). If anyone was curious.

V4Vendetta
09-29-2010, 03:38 PM
The native Americans had their land stole, their people murdered, and purposely exposed to disease, all in an attempt to wipe them off off the map. I am totally in favor of anything the Lakota nation is doing in an attempt to secede from the union. By any means necessary, whats wrong with using the same tactic the u.s. government used against them? They can buddy up with the U.N. to gain more influence, then as soon as they are successful, they can unfriend the U.N. whats wrong with that?


This is the story of Leonard Peltier
This is why I agree with anything that grants them secession!
YouTube - rage against the machine - freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqcM5lVoteQ)

lucius
09-29-2010, 04:22 PM
No disrespect, you and I are cut from the same jib so to speak...

But, G. Edward Griffin is the disinfo-agent considering many-things for the banksters...he is limited-overhang...what he leaves out of vanguard Eustace Mullin's work, is how this death-cult from way-back-when who-have run things forever so to speak...

Griffin does not quite make it to root-cause ala Emerick Jones (February 11, 1974: a tiger), what happens if you continue to have usuary, factional reserves on a whole Gold Standard? Think Usury...

1684 Bank of England...rest assured everything will be ok, especially with the vatican reserves...they get to dance and call the tune so to speak...

just saying...

my two cents worth...nothing else... :)

-l


G. Edward Griffin says NO:


6. Adding to this need for caution is the fact that Means is calling for secession of the Lakota Indians from the United States and has appealed to that great collectivist assembly of totalitarianism, the UN, for moral, legal, and possibly physical assistance. He has asked for a seat in the General Assembly. While any freedom-seeking person with common sense would be working to get the U.S. out of the U.N., Means is working to get out of the U.S. and into the U.N.

This is the reason we did not jump on the Russell Means bandwagon. He may not be a Marxist/Leninist, but he still appears to be promoting the strategy of so-called national liberation, and he is seeking to align himself with the U.N., arguably the worst bunch of dictators and despots the world has ever known. I don’t see how anything good can come out of that, certainly not for the Lakota Indians.

LibertyEagle
09-29-2010, 04:27 PM
The native Americans had their land stole, their people murdered, and purposely exposed to disease, all in an attempt to wipe them off off the map. I am totally in favor of anything the Lakota nation is doing in an attempt to secede from the union. By any means necessary, whats wrong with using the same tactic the u.s. government used against them? They can buddy up with the U.N. to gain more influence, then as soon as they are successful, they can unfriend the U.N. whats wrong with that?




I can see that our government-run education system has been successful, once again. :(

Oh, and isn't that group you like so much, Rage Against the Machine, a pack of Marxists? Just dandy.

BuddyRey
09-29-2010, 10:41 PM
I really like Edward G. Griffin and am even a member of his group Freedom Force International, but I don't think I could disagree with this article more. American Indians may indeed come from a tradition of communal land ownership, but this is an example of voluntary collectivism and in no way implies the kind of brutish violence and neglect for personal freedoms inherent in Marxist-Leninism.

FrankRep
10-23-2012, 06:12 AM
Russell Means, RIP.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 06:36 AM
6. Adding to this need for caution is the fact that Means is calling for secession of the Lakota Indians from the United States and has appealed to that great collectivist assembly of totalitarianism, the UN, for moral, legal, and possibly physical assistance. He has asked for a seat in the General Assembly. While any freedom-seeking person with common sense would be working to get the U.S. out of the U.N., Means is working to get out of the U.S. and into the U.N.


The reason for this is that you are only a "country" if other "countries" "recognize" you as a "country." If a state were to attempt succession, they would need the same international support. (or at least recognition from other countries) RIP Russel.

FrankRep
10-23-2012, 06:43 AM
The reason for this is that you are only a "country" if other "countries" "recognize" you as a "country." If a state were to attempt succession, they would need the same international support. (or at least recognition from other countries) RIP Russel.

Ron Paul doesn't support the United Nations and wants to end our membership.

I support Ron Paul.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 06:54 AM
Ron Paul doesn't support the United Nations and wants to end our membership.

I support Ron Paul.


The US is already recognized as a "country" and doesn't need the UN. Ron Paul is not a Lakota Indian trying to secede from the US. Ron Paul might control your opinions or actions, but he's just one of many inputs for me.

Did you read what I said? Did you understand it? It sounds like you didn't.

FrankRep
10-23-2012, 07:01 AM
The US is already recognized as a "country" and doesn't need the UN. Ron Paul is not a Lakota Indian trying to secede from the US. Ron Paul might control your opinions or actions, but he's just one of many inputs for me.

Did you read what I said? Did you understand it? It sounds like you didn't.

I didn't realize you needed U.N. support to become a country.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'll just stick with Ron Paul and be anti-U.N.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 07:27 AM
I didn't realize you needed U.N. support to become a country.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'll just stick with Ron Paul and be anti-U.N.


You don't. You need the recognition of other countries. That's an easy way to get it. If I could declare myself a country and join the UN, I would. Then I'd no longer be subject to US law, US taxation, etc. If my neighborhood wanted to do that, I would support it.

Whether the US should be involved in the UN is another subject entirely. So you're addressing an issue I'm not even talking about.

LibertyEagle
10-23-2012, 07:32 AM
You don't. You need the recognition of other countries. That's an easy way to get it. If I could declare myself a country and join the UN, I would. Then I'd no longer be subject to US law, US taxation, etc. If my neighborhood wanted to do that, I would support it.

Whether the US should be involved in the UN is another subject entirely. So you're addressing an issue I'm not even talking about.

And if you did, you would have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 07:34 AM
And if you did, you would have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

How would I not be clearly better off?

LibertyEagle
10-23-2012, 07:46 AM
How would I not be clearly better off?

Initially, you might be, but you would have sold your soul to the devil. If you haven't noticed, the UN is not big on national sovereignty.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 11:08 AM
Initially, you might be, but you would have sold your soul to the devil. If you haven't noticed, the UN is not big on national sovereignty.


And the US does not respect my sovereignty one single bit. So I'd call that a wash at best, or a point in my favor as far as who recognizes my sovereignty.

Everything else is a positive. My country would have zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero law enforcement. I'd initiate no warfare.

The US would not recognize the sovereignty of the Lakota, either, but they'd have a chance if the UN did. In case you haven't noticed, the US has zero respect for sovereignty around the world as well. The US is likely worse than the UN on that point.

LibertyEagle
10-23-2012, 11:11 AM
And the US does not respect my sovereignty one single bit. So I'd call that a wash at best, or a point in my favor as far as who recognizes my sovereignty.

Everything else is a positive. My country would have zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero law enforcement. I'd initiate no warfare.

The US would not recognize the sovereignty of the Lakota, either, but they'd have a chance if the UN did.

You haven't been keeping up if you believe that you would be better off with the UN. Global taxes, World Court, IMF, WTO, Agenda 21, etc. They would be all down in your skivvies.

Ron Paul was never about moving power in the direction of a world ruling body. Just the opposite, in fact. He has been trying to move power from the higher areas back down to the states and the people. The UN, he has been trying for years to get the U.S. out of and have the organization kicked out of the U.S..

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 11:26 AM
You haven't been keeping up if you believe that you would be better off with the UN. Global taxes, World Court, IMF, WTO, Agenda 21, etc. They would be all down in your skivvies.

Ron Paul was never about moving power in the direction of a world ruling body. Just the opposite, in fact. He has been trying to move power from the higher areas back down to the states and the people. The UN, he has been trying for years to get the U.S. out of and have the organization kicked out of the U.S..


I wouldn't be the US. I'd be me. Same with the Lakota. If they would have been able to get the UN to recognize them, it would have caused problems for the US refusal to recognize them. I'm not advocating that the US be part of the UN and never have. However, I will stand by my statement that the UN recognizes sovereignty more than the US. UN invasions are advocated, coordinated, and led by the US. Then on top of that, the US does not respect sovereignty when acting alone, either. So I'll stick by my statement that the UN is better at recognizing sovereignty than the US, and also that the Lakota would be better off if recognized by the UN.

I agree with Paul regarding the US and the UN, but that is not inconsistent with any of my other statements.

Elwar
10-23-2012, 11:32 AM
FYI, all of the Indians I know HATE being called "native American". They take umbrage to it.

As a native American I would take offense to being called Indian. I was born in America not India.

specsaregood
10-23-2012, 12:10 PM
If my neighborhood wanted to do that, I would support it.


Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_republic

IIRC, pcosmar was down there as a secessionist.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-23-2012, 12:58 PM
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_republic

IIRC, pcosmar was down there as a secessionist.


I assumed he was just an internet observer of Fantasy Fest. I would encourage the Lakota to have such an event... as well as every city or neighborhood for that matter.