Having just made it through Russell’s latest video “commentary” at the request of a friend I am struck by a few initial impressions, one his statement about not having the money to finish projects like the solar panel conversions for the RoL.
Not just that in itself but in the way he chose to prioritize it-evidently by his own words the “ranch” is first, to be followed by the Head Start building and then the health clinic. I would think of the three the “ranch” would and should be last-but then it is a matter of priorities isn’t it? Let’s see, that would be the “ranch” Russell calls home?
Secondly in the “delegation” visit to the U.N. the list of countries whose missions he will visit reads like a roll call of oppression-of course they are selected for their adversarial
relationships with the U.S. and probably the only ones who would be willing to provide “foreign aid”-which is being disavowed as a motivation. Uh huh-sure it is.
Let’s take a closer look at the named countries and a little of their history:
Russia-now there’s a bastion of independence, one always given to do the best for their people. Forget their invasions, expansionist and colonial ambitions and deeds. While we’re at it we should forget their long history of genocide and targeting minorities. A genocidal history that runs into the tens, if not hundreds of millions of victims.
Iran-need I say more about this country?-one of the most oppressive in the world, whose people, and in particular women, are routinely brutalized.
Cuba-With it’s long history of oppressive and dictatorial rule.
A Human Rights Watch 1999 report on Cuba notes:
“ Cuba’s provision regarding contempt for authority (desacato) penalizes anyone who “threatens, libels or slanders, defames, affronts (injuria) or in any other way insults (ultraje) or offends, with the spoken word or in writing, the dignity or decorum of an authority, public functionary, or his agents or auxiliaries.” Such actions are punishable by three months to one year in prison, plus a fine. If the person demonstrates contempt for “the President of the Council of the State, the President of the National Assembly of Popular Power, the members of the Council of the State or the Council of Ministers, or the Deputies of the National Assembly of the Popular Power, the sanction is deprivation of liberty for one to three years. ”
“ The Criminal Code mandates a three-month to one-year sentence for anyone who “publicly defames, denigrates, or scorns the Republic’s institutions, the political, mass, or social organizations of the country, or the heroes or martyrs of the nation.” This sweeping provision potentially outlaws mere expressions of dissatisfaction or disagreement with government policies or practices, clearly violating free expression. The protection from insult of lifeless entities, and state-controlled institutions and organizations in particular, appears designed solely to preserve the current government’s power. ”
“ Like defamation of public institutions and symbols, clandestine printing appears as a crime against public order in the Criminal Code. Preserving public order does not sufficiently justify the law’s extremely broad prohibition on free expression and a free press. Anyone who “produces, disseminates, or directs the circulation of publications without indicating the printer or the place where it was printed, or without following the established rules for the identification of the author or origin, or reproduces, stores, or transports” such publications, risks from three months to one year in prison. ”
“ Cuban law defines dangerousness (el estado peligroso) as “the special proclivity of a person to commit crimes, demonstrated by conduct that is observed to be in manifest contradiction with the norms of socialist morality.” … If Cuba determines that someone is dangerous, the Criminal Code allows the state to impose “pre-criminal measures,” including surveillance by the National Revolutionary Police and reeducation for periods of one to four years. The state may detain the person during this time. The law also provides for “therapeutic measures,” including detention in a psychiatric hospital, that are continued “until the dangerousness disappears from the subject.”80 The open-ended nature of this punishment affords the state extraordinary authority to abuse the rights of political opponents and the developmentally disabled.
Peru- along history of human rights abuse directed at Amazonian people and the destruction of their homeland.
Bolivia- Big issues related to human trafficking ,child labor, and the sex trade-and while Bolivia seems to be making an effort to turn the corner they have a long way to
The question that arises in viewing this list is… are these countries ones Russell would model the RoL after? I have no doubt Libya would be on this list as well if it were not for the turmoil it faces now. China? China could give rip about any of the nations, but perhaps an
effort will be made to enlist their support as well.
No one can deny the human rights violations in this country, and absolute sovereignty is the birthright of every indigenous person throughout this entire hemisphere and elsewhere, but to cozy up to governments such as these taints any call for sovereignty and in itself makes a mockery of verbiage about desiring freedom and the “fruits of civilization”.
I don’t think oppression in any form qualifies as fruit to be desired, and ultimately this is little more than that adage of “same shit, different day”-a media event.
A statement was made that forty five percent of the Lakota people want to be free-that’s about as ridiculous a statement as I’ve heard. The reality must surely be that a hundred percent want to be, but in the world of politics this is nothing more than a spinning of numbers and claiming it as support-another lesson learned and adopted.
Maybe Russell would do well to consider that if there is a lack of women volunteering for HIS treaty school if he would disassociate himself from it it might be a different story, as it was even stated on the RoL at one point that Russell doesn’t have a lot of followers or those in agreement on PR.
I think it’s more than they won’t volunteer because they need a paying job, when there are no paying jobs to be had , as he said almost as an afterthought. Most women I think who are jobless and have free time on their hands would eagerly volunteer for a worthwhile project.
The Lakota women are no different than any other in their love for children and wanting the best for them-that isn’t the issue, and in discussing this with my sister she offered the opinion that perhaps in view of the fact that Annie Mae was a volunteer, volunteering may have lost some of it’s attraction.
I doubt there is a roll for a chief facilitator in the below listed organizations-and that may be the problem-but they have great credibility and integrity-perhaps the faciltator should surrender the limelight and reach out to them……it isn’t about who gets credit, but the results.