15 comments on “RUSSELL MEANS – SNITCH

  1. Something else I’d point out related to this “great statesman” – when Bob Branscombe
    had gotten into AIM’s track related to the murder of relative Annie Mae Pictou Aquash
    and was going public with his findings Russell Means inserted himself into the
    press conference and pointed the finger at Vernon Bellecourt.
    Yet over a decade later in a conversation with Annie’s daughter Denise he told her
    he knew who the murderer was but had given his word not to tell until they had passed
    on.
    Vernon was very much alive when Means pointed the finger at him, the clear implication
    being that Russell had about as much credibility as Peltier and the AIM leadership.
    Do I believe a person with knowledge of drug dealers, rapists, murderers or other low
    lifes should “assist law enforcement’?
    I surely do, but that isn’t the issue, the issue is AIM murdered people on the mere ill
    founded suspicion of being an informant and made a career of bad mouthing anyone who
    would do likewise against them.
    In the real world you can’t have it both ways, and it’s never a good idea for people who
    live in glass houses to throw rocks – so again I say by the very metric AIM applies to
    others Russell Means was a snitch, a fed, a rat, and a sellout.
    If that rubs anyone the wrong way then by all means leave a comment and explain
    how it’s different for him. How it’s different for AIM.

    • We hear this drum to rezinate and would like for some one to explain
      how it is different, but we do not think any can.

      • I’d very much like it if a “liberator, patriot, shaimster, or last real Indian”
        would attempt to, but I don’t anticipate any doing so.

    • I don’t know about that, I can think of a lot of people
      who believe Russell and the rest of the leadership are
      frauds, serial liars,said as much, and go where the truth
      leads them just as I do.

  2. SB – when you can drop all the OKC, nazi links etc and actually
    shape your comments (spam) in such a way that they address a blog
    topic then we “can talk” as you stated.
    Russell Means whined about the necessity of leaving a personal
    legacy “for his people” – I submit he did, and that is exactly what
    I post about.
    Alive or deceased doesn’t change the reality, and it is the reality
    that needs to addressed – as long as there is any effort to glorify
    Means, any attempt to promote him as “a great statesmen”, authority
    and practitioner of matriarchy, a liberator, patriot, or any of the
    other bullshit I intend to continue doing exactly that.
    If you can rebut his “snitch” status as defined by AIM’s interpretation
    feel free to do so, if you cannot then better to be silent re your name
    to avoid making other statements you have like keeping a distance from
    LPDOC because you are aware of their rep, or that the ’99 Oyate statement
    was meaningless.
    Your omissions are as transparent as those you attempt to defend. In fact
    your entire routine is.

  3. Fair enough. But until you keep glorifying the likes of Ed Woods and make it appear that he’s worthy of the “justice” tag that he gives himself and that he is a viable part of this argument, worthy of special side bar endorsements and privilege, I’ll continue to expose him for the crooked agent and criminal that he is. And that goes for all the other Fed’s that were actually involved in the “reign of terror,” debacle and that are seemingly given a free pass by you. If you’re all for “equal justice” like you say then let’s see the name of some Fed’s. Who handled the operatives? These are the real criminals. Let’s say for arguments sake that Means was a “snitch.” Who did he snitch for? Where in that link that you provided is there any mention that the Fed’s themselves were complicit in Annie Mae’s and Ray Robinson’s death? ( Something you yourself have hinted at in the past). What are we supposed to do? Take this Jackley ( and Woods for that matter) as some kind of hero?

    • What part of ” I want any and all with any complicity held to account”
      don’t you understand? And you’ll have to direct me to where I have
      “hinted” that the feds were complicit in Annie’s and Ray’s murders.
      Like I’ve said, show me that Woods was involved in the murder of
      Annie, Ray, or any of AIM’s other murder victims and I’ll be on him
      just like I am on AIM etal.
      I don’t know who handled “the operatives”, and as a fact I don’t
      believe you do either.
      But since Zigrossi addressed Hill with the wink and the nod of no he
      wasn’t an informant, but the feds don’t give any up as long as they’re
      alive Hill could be a starting point, and obviously Means “snicthed”
      for Jackley and others unnamed so that would be another place to begin.
      Should we begin there?
      As I’ve also stated my “heroes” are in the majority of another era, there
      are exceptions to that, but not a one of the AIM leadership qualifies.
      Something time is increasingly demonstrating as their facade chips and
      peels like old paint.
      A reign of terror – would you say AIM’s performance at WK2 amounts to
      a reign of terror – or do you merely view their victims there as acceptable
      collateral damage?
      Why is it you never call for justice for any of them? Is it because if the
      feds are complicit that means complicit with AIM and they too would have to
      be held to account?
      I also don’t believe you can provide anything other than the AIM manifesto
      that the feds had anything to do with Annie’s or Ray’s murder – even if
      you count Hill who some have said was Ray’s shooter, unless you want to
      say he was acting on direct orders.
      I have never lived in proximity to a fed, never had one commit murder in
      my neighborhood, could only follow then that my focus would be on our own who
      have and do – that obviously doesn’t work for you or AIM, but that’s the way
      it is…my backyard first.
      Everything you have ever said on this blog and elsewhere is an attempt to direct
      attention away from AIM – that’s the AIM game, only it isn’t played here. Not only
      that but it’s unravelling across the net.

      “These are the real criminals.” And your boys who murdered, raped, stole, and
      pimped their own are what in your estimation…saints? Or do you think liberators
      and patriots sounds better?
      Would you say it is criminal to threaten not just men and women, but their children
      and entire families as well, or will you issue a pass based on “paranoia”?
      How about ransacking, looting, and torching wk – would you call that a criminal
      act?
      How about Means absconding with his “share” of the Cleveland Indians suit and
      not a damn penny of it ever reaching “his people”. Would that be a criminal act?
      How about arson, like torching Giago’s office? What do you have to say about that,
      AIM just wanted to roast some marshmallows and the fire got out of control?
      It wasn’t long ago that Claypoole attempted to declare Price “admitted” in court
      the feds threatened to kill Annie – when called on that after wiping the egg off her
      face she was reduced to saying “it felt like he did”…..to her, and then found it
      advantageous to move on with mutterings about “phantom” sites and it was all an attempt
      to marginalize her “writing/reporting” or whatever it is she calls what she does.
      Obviously you remain clinging to the “threat” and assorted things like that
      “invasion map”, old boots, and Mr.X …….none of it works anymore SB, and in
      presenting it you look as foolish as Claypoole did and have to wipe the same egg
      off your face.
      That is the reason nobody takes you seriously – everyone knows you will not admit
      to a single truth about AIM or Peltier.
      If for the sake of argument as you say Means was a snitch how would that alter
      your opinion of him – would you in turn go after him as I’ve said I would of
      Woods if it came to light he was complicit in the murder of Annie or Ray?

  4. “If that rubs anyone the wrong way then by all means leave a comment and explain
    how it’s different for him. How it’s different for AIM.”

    Nail on the head with that one.

    I want to second that as a challenge to any AIMster, individual or chapter, whether GGC, Autonomous, Grassroots or whatever it is you claim? Educate & enlighten us as to how murder, rape, theft and the lies built because of it by your idols/heroes/leaders is so easily swept aside? Is it because the AIM agenda’s “big picture” is all that matters? What is that “big picture”?

    I see those old ones still claiming AIM are making the rounds telling stories and banging on their fundraising drum. Where is the money going? Don’t label me a fed/snitch or accuse me of playing divisional politics. The division started when the vagabonds/cons & wannabe’s started taking things over from the women who first called for action here in Minneapolis.

    I’m just a Native who’s looking for more than the typical bullshit I’ve heard all these years and am tired of the stooges who rush to defend the same crap of what I still consider to be indefensible. But hey, here’s your chance to school peep’s AIMsters!

    P.S. Holtzman…don’t even bother. I’ve heard enough of you wannabe/gottabe’s to last me many lifetimes.

    • The only response even remotely possible is the one SB is attempting at the moment,
      that is to avoid the issue by doing the feds are criminals routine and completely
      avoiding the points made.
      I’m sure there are criminal feds, convictions have proven that – but that in no way
      exonerates any other criminal. If the feds are complicit in the murder of Annie, Ray,
      or any of AIM’s victims that doesn’t exonerate the one who pulled the trigger,
      used a knife, or wielded a club.
      As a people we have about as much chance of holding a fed accountable as a cat does
      of barking, but we surely can those who murder, rape, and steal in our communities.
      That raises a simple question – where should our initial focus be?
      I believe if we can take some of these clowns down that will reverberate up the
      food chain – we have to start at the bottom like any grassroots movement and work
      our way up.
      In doing so not only do we clean up our communities but we also gather momentum,
      witnesses, and evidence.
      Other than SB the silence of wannabe “warriors” is deafening.

  5. Come on now SB, you’re always going on about being “censored”
    and how unfair it is – though you seem to find it entirely
    appropriate as a matter of rote by sites like lpdoc/ilpdc
    or those on fb who don’t like the truth.
    The questions were simple and straight forward – aren’t you even
    going to comment in the usual fashion of ignoring them and attempting
    to make other “points”?
    Nothing about Mumia, Hampton, OKC, or any of your go tos?
    It’s been established that Means was a “snitch”, not only a public
    one pointing the finger at Vernon but a closet snitch as well.
    The next question should be was he also one of those “provocateurs”
    AIM loves to go on about?
    If so events like the BIA takeover and WK2 come to mind – did he initiate
    them at the behest of what would have been his “handlers”? Did someone
    else in the leadership?
    How about that exiting and reentering WK2 as a “negotiator” and “fundraiser”,
    was that something more than claimed?
    What about Annie, did she constitute a threat to more than just Peltier?
    Is it possible she also discovered or suspected “snitches” in the leadership?
    If so consider the implications, the ramifications if that would have become
    known are huge – they would have been catastrophic for AIM.
    Years, decades, of AIM calling everybody a fed, a snitch, or rat who dared to speak
    a single word of the truth – well the cats out of the bag, the tables have turned,
    and I have an additional question to ask…..How do you like it now?

    • No go SB re your latest efforts – direct questions were asked, either address
      them or go whine and resort to your trademark cop outs someplace else.

      • Sorry SB, this isn’t “let’s make a deal” as you suggested we do – simple direct
        questions were asked, all that’s required are simple direct answers germane
        to the question.
        Kind of like if I asked someone a question about apples, reasonable to assume
        they’d respond about apples – instead you’d opt for eggs or something entirely
        different.
        You want to control a blog and promote AIM terrorists start one of your
        own.
        And personally I don’t care whether you like my sidebar “endorsements” or
        not, among which I’m pleased to point out there isn’t a single AIM/Peltier
        related one.
        I don’t care if you dislike me, the blog, or anything else.
        And speaking of sidebar endorsements there’s a few others I would add, but
        haven’t as something of a service to them figuring you’d begin spamming and
        trolling them…..I tend to look out for friends.

  6. Is this to say you’re “glorified” if allowed to comment? Do
    you want to be glorified by commenting on my blog as though
    it’s such a glorious blog you would be?
    There are countless sites that address the same issues I do
    and do it much better – why don’t you comment there?
    Oh, that’s right, they got tired of your bs and shameless pandering
    to Peltier and AIM, you can’t anymore, and decided to settle on this
    one.
    You can no more tell me what to do, what to say, or how to
    conduct this blog than any of your boys could. Men have tried that
    and failed.
    A blog is about more than agreement, it is about coherent diversity
    of opinion – the day Woods or anyone gets as stupid in their comments
    as you do is the day he or they will find themselves in the same
    category as you.
    You’ve got a lot of nerve talking about harboring terrorists
    in view of your “endorsements” and unfaltering devotion to
    AIM murderers and thieves.
    The only thing you’ve been correct about is the “privilege” of
    a person commenting on any blog – a privilege” pro AIM/Peltier
    sites don’t allow – so I’ll make a counter offer, attempt a “deal”.
    Persuade them to stop harboring and defending terrorists, allow a free
    and open “privilege” to those who can offer a coherent dissenting opinion
    and then you and I can talk – and while you’re at it convince your boy
    Peltier to sign off so his parole board and disciplinary records
    can be made public rather than hiding them – all it would take is
    for him to make his mark.
    I’m well aware of the misconduct of the feds, federal agencies, and
    politicians, I occasionally address them, but like I said if you have
    thieves, murderers, and rapist in your very midst only a damn fool
    would ignore them. Nothing occurring anywhere else alters the reality
    of events in close daily proximity that directly impacts the well being
    of our communities.
    What you need to do is drag yourself to any rez and take up residency,
    live in the midst of such conditions and then try running your mouth about
    what we should or shouldn’t do, who the “heroes and warriors” are.
    You need to try and run your bs by the true victims, to women and children
    who are physically and sexually abused, to the survivors of AIM’s victims,
    elders who won’t venture out after dark due to gang bangers, people living in
    homes without heat and some without electricity, children and families without
    food on the table, or even formula for an infant while the sorry s.o.bs.
    of the AIM leadership never do without in the midst of their being “victims” and
    fools like you “glorify” them and a “dumb as dirt” thug.
    I don’t know Woods, never met him or any associated unless they were undercover
    like Hill, and no doubt some in the leadership – but I do know the leadership
    and wouldn’t give two cents for the lot of them.
    I firmly believe deals were made, deals that included AIM, said so countless
    times – apparently in referencing this you do too, also apparent is such deals
    would have had to of been made with your beloved leadership, that translates to
    their complicity, a favorite topic of yours, but also their guilt.
    Yet in your servile toadying to them you would have them be excluded from any
    justice equation.
    On the other hand I’ve never advocated for any to be absolved – that’s the all
    with any complicity to be held to account I’ve always called for.
    As to “friends” a couple of years ago or so an invitation was extended to me
    to attend a conference or something in California, a gathering of retired
    fbi agents, maybe some active as well, and an author or two so I could learn the
    “truth” – I declined figuring the presentation would be one sided, and what
    money there was would be better spent elsewhere – the same reason I won’t attend
    any of AIM’s cartoon “tribunals”, walks, or rallies.
    That I think speaks to independence, a willingness to do the math myself, which
    I have and defines my opinion.
    You seem to forget I didn’t buy into the younger Trimbach’s “Sherlock Holmesian”
    interpretation of what Zigrossi had to say about Dave Hill.
    You also seem to forget I once supported Peltier, and having done so I know bs
    reigns supreme, that no lie is too outrageous to advance – that to anyone
    with a conscience would compel to them to speak.
    It would be the same if I had ever been involved in any government agency and
    knew bs was going on as I believe the greater good is always served by the
    truth….that and nothing else.
    And so you are left with all you have or ever will have – to avoid answering
    a direct question, attempt to portray any who don’t buy into the AIM/Peltier
    bs as a lesser human being, and continually loop the installed program you’re
    host to.
    Do you honestly believe those who read these exchanges fail to see the extremes
    you will go to not admit or address a single truth, a single question?
    You’re like Peltier in that sense – every time you open your mouth you stick your
    foot in it, yet unlike Peltier no one follows along attempting to clean up
    afterwards.
    You don’t have the battery of ghostwriters and supporters he does, you’re
    merely a replaceable drone, a token white boy handed a glowstick convinced
    it makes you a “firekeeper”.
    Why don’t you take a brief respite and run in someone from the A team, let them
    attempt to do what you cannot on the merit of what they believe, not what they’ve
    been Stockholm Syndromed into – not because they want a glowstick or a feather to
    adorn themselves with.
    In a way though I should probably be grateful for your latest offer as it
    will only serve to ramp up my commitment -think I’ve been rough on your boys,
    made you and them squirm a bit? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
    Your drivel isn’t going to be posted – consider this a response to all.
    The only avenue left is to answer the direct questions or hop on your bicycle
    and pedal around someplace else – until such a time nothing you have to say will
    see the light of day on this blog, and you can call that what you will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s