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
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