PELTIER AND THE PROMISED LAND

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addresses a crowd. August 4, 1965. Washington Post staff photo by Ellsworth Davis.

 

 

The previous blog Glyphosates and Monsanto dealt with a specific issue and not personalities – some though find it exceedingly difficult to stay on point and will attempt to come through the backdoor to advocate for a thug by the name of Leonard Peltier.

So it is the purpose of this current blog to provide a link sent in that attempt and in doing so address the reality:

“We are now coming to the end of that road, soon arriving at a destination which will at least in part be determined by you. Along the lines of what Martin Luther King said shortly before his death, I may not get there with you, but I only hope and pray that my life, and if necessary, my death, will lead my Native peoples closer to the Promise Land.”

You can rely upon Leonard Peltier to attempt to turn any meaningful cause into a missive about himself – but comparing himself in any manner to Martin Luther King jr. is too over the top to dismiss.

To begin with King wasn’t a serial liar nor did he condone violence, much less the taking of human life due to the mistaken belief that federal agents looking to serve an arrest warrant for another individual were actually coming after him as Peltier believed.

I seriously doubt King ever stuck a gun in a woman’s mouth interrogating her as Peltier did Annie Mae Pictou Aquash about a year after interrogating Minnie Two Shoes.

Peltier and his supporters have made an effort to liken Peltier to both King and Mandela when the truth of the matter is Peltier isn’t worthy to carry either of their jock straps – nor is he worthy to ever invoke the name or spirit of Crazy Horse.

King never fled to Canada or anywhere else to avoid accountability, nor did he favor minor girls. And I can’t think of a single instance where either King or Mandela boasted of being a “hero” or “warrior”, though in my opinion they both were.

Neither did either off them shoot a wounded individual(s) at point blank range and then boast of shooting “the mfer” as they “begged for their life”.

I don’t believe for a minute this missive was written in it’s entirety by Peltier, he wasn’t referred to “Dumb as dirt” among his cohorts without reason.

Peltier is right about two things though – the first being the end of one road is in sight, but a new road will open when the nations no longer have to contend with him or what remains of the AIM leadership.

The second is that water is indeed life, but so is the absence of a bullet entering your head or body as was the fate of so many of AIM’s victims.

“By facing and addressing the injustices of the past, together we can build a better future for our children and our children’s children.”

For all those who claim to be about human and indigenous rights where the hell is your commitment for the right to life for Annie, Perry Ray Robinson jr, Williams and Coler, and those AIM murdered at WK2?

How about facing the past injustices perpetrated by AIM and Peltier – or don’t you believe that would be “in the spirit of Crazy Horse”?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/16/on-solidarity-with-standing-rock-executive-clemency-and-the-international-indigenous-struggle/

Advertisements

DICK WILSON’S AND AIM’S GOON SQUADS

AIM has long history of attempting to cast everything they’ve done and do as being “spiritually” inspired, and I suspect for those who lack a fundamental understanding of what the nations various traditions and ceremonies are about have and will continue to buy into that.

Not a stretch to say that’s AIM’s endgame and they appreciate those who do.

Of course this appreciation ebbs and flows with the frequency and amount of donations and the infrequency of questions asked, so if you want to remain in good standing and demonstrate that “red heart” you might consider a monthly direct deposit to the AIM charlatan or “charity” of your choice and refrain from asking any questions – an occasional gushing of support could earn you the title of a reverse apple if you’re interested in such things.

Which kind of brings me to that “spiritual encampment” at Jumping Bull – in the aftermath of the murder at point blank range of two federal officers much has been made by AIM and the shaimsters about the “spiritual” nature and intent of those who gathered there.

It was all about the creation of a safe haven, some sort of sanctuary, and protecting elders from the infamous Dick Wilson Goon squads as it is told now.

Dick Wilson as tribal president was a piece of shit up to his neck in corruption, cronyism, and nepotism rivaled in degree only by the AIM leadership.

AIM’s efforts that included Wounded Knee 2 had nothing to do with “liberation”, what it was about was a conflict between two warring factions whose goal was to gain supremacy.

On the one hand Wilson had the BIA and the feds on his side – on the other AIM had the CPUSA and various gangs attempting to disguise themselves as a people’s movement as they dealt in drugs and gun running.

Not a healthy mix nor alliances that would actually resolve issues in an equitable manner.

Wilson’s Goons murdered people, rode roughshod over them and relied heavily on intimidation – not to be outdone AIM murdered people, ran roughshod over them and relied heavily on intimidation ……. so whose fooling who?

Wilson and the AIM leadership were both aberrations who would stop at nothing to achieve their goal, and that goal was about power, control, and whose hands were on the purse strings.

The fact that Wilson employed goons is undeniable, equally undeniable is that AIM did likewise with individuals like Leonard Peltier and Dave Hill, they being the shortlist.

No love lost on this end for either side, for the approach they took, or the carnage and bodies they left in their wake.

There is no high ground, no moral imperative when the tactics employed by opposing sides are the same and prioritize dominance.

Wilson didn’t give a damn about communal well being and neither did the AIM leadership.

After five hundred plus years of abuse and subjugation I don’t really expect anyone outside of the nations to care, well and good if they do, but I surely do those within our communities who hold an office, any office, and those who have made a career of intoning “in the spirit of Crazy Horse”.

WE ARE ALL RELATED

We are all related – sounds nice doesn’t it? Like were all going to sit around the campfire singing kumbaya.

Everyone knows that isn’t going to happen and what it pretty much comes down to is a relationship based on genus – like all birds are related or all fish are related by genus.

If this weren’t the way of it the world might be different, because the reality is the “relations” make war, abuse, insult, ignore, lie cheat and steal, murder, rape, and pillage.

Well, if we are all related then AIM’s made a career of abusing and murdering their own kith and kin.

AIM tosses this we are all related around about as much as they do that In The Spirit of Crazy Horse cliche, and when emanting from them it is just as meaningless. They think it makes them sound real ndn, apparently the more gullible do as well.

AIM as an entity murdered their relatives, their sisters and brothers.

From Johnny Moore to Annie Mae Pictou Aquash, Perry Ray Robinson jr., Roque Duenas, Williams and Coler, Nogeeshik Aquash, those in unmarked graves at WK2, and undoubtedly others as well….that is if they really believe we are all related as they claim.

If we truly are all related in a way that transcends genus then every rapists rapes his sister, every murderer a modern day Cain – kind  of makes you think about tossing what has become the cliche of we are all  related around loosely doesn’t it?

But then AIM has little more than shopworn cliches like warrior, chiefs, liberators, ITSOCH, and spiritual leaders to drone on about – cliches, not realities.

Yeah, it would be nice if the world were all one big happy family, never been the way of it though, and I for one don’t believe it ever will be.

In the context I can think of more than one “relative” I’d disavow, and I’m confident they would be more than willing to reciprocate.

SEWAGE PONDS AND OCEANS

Strikes me as ironic that Mathiessen would employ the phrase In the Spirit of Crazy Horse as the title for his book and immediately the thugs and grifters of the AIM leadership and gofers like Peltier would begin using it as some sort of provenance attached to every word they say and deed they do.

Neither I nor anyone else I believe has ever heard of Crazy Horse stealing from his own people, or murdering a woman of the nations, not even looting and burning a village belonging to his own people such as AIM did at WK2.

The differences that separate Crazy Horse from these pretenders is as vast as the ocean – it’s like comparing a sewage pond to the Pacific or Atlantic.

Crazy Horse never gave himself a title, he in fact relinquished one when he felt he didn’t deserve it.

Can anyone imagine a Means, Banks, Crow Dog or Peltier doing likewise?

Peltier has it backwards, AIM isn’t and has never been a people’s movement, it’s been an organization run by criminals.

Free Leonard? How about actually trying to live in the spirit of Crazy Horse for a change?

IN THE SPIRIT OF CUSTER

Much has been said that the feds as an entity single handedly sued and stalled the publication of  Peter Mathiessen’s tome In The Spirit Of Crazy Horse, but the reality is somewhat different.

Something of a simplification to say the feds as an entity filed suit to stop the publication of ITSOCH as it was Bill Janklow who led off, was personal in it’s context, and had nothing to do with the feds.

“Janklow’s suit was based upon one paragraph in the book which has statements by AIM leader Dennis Banks referring to rape allegations made against Janklow by Jacinta Eagle Deer, a young Brulé Lakota on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. Banks also noted Janklow’s arrest for driving drunk and nude on the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota in 1973.” Wiki

FBI agent David Price sued in the same context,though it’s quite possible he was “encouraged” to do so by superiors as I’m sure the agency didn’t much like the way they were portrayed in ITSOCH. But I advise people to read the particulars of both suits.

I understand the impact is greater if this is portrayed  as being part of a grand conspiracy like the majority of the Peltier presentations but it isn’t entirely factual in doing so is it?

Both suits in my opinion were ill founded,and personally I appreciate the fact that they failed for a couple of reasons.

One being the First Amendment and the second being had the litigants prevailed the public wouldn’t have those onerous Peltier quotes indicting himself or the the Mr. X story-both of which continue to haunt him.

 “The two executed F.B.I. agents were gunned down at close range. They were disarmed, helpless and probably begging for their lives. There were no eyewitnesses, or at least none who would testify, to who murdered them. But considerable circumstantial evidence pointed toward Leonard Peltier, one of the most militant AIM leaders. There can be little doubt that the F.B.I. was out to get Mr. Peltier. Nor can there be any doubt that the F.B.I. desperately wanted to bring to justice the murderers of its agents. The real question – and the one that Mr. Matthiessen answers in the affirmative – is whether the F.B.I. framed Mr. Peltier for killings he may not have committed.

ON this issue, Mr. Matthiessen not only fails to convince; he inadvertently makes a strong case for Mr. Peltier’s guilt. Invoking the cliches of the radical left, Mr. Matthiessen takes at face value nearly every conspiratorial claim of the movement, no matter how unfounded or preposterous. Every car crash, every unexplained death, every unrelated arrest fits into the seamless web of deceit he seems to feel was woven by the F.B.I. and its cohorts.

This is not to dispute all of AIM’s complaints against the F.B.I. Some – such as infiltration of the movement for purposes of engendering internal distrust and dissension – carry indications of credibility. These tactics, indefensible though they are, have been commonly used by the F.B.I. against radical groups of all political persuasions. But other allegations, such as systematic beatings and ”contracts” on the lives of AIM leaders, do not seem credible. Mr. Matthiessen surely provides no proof beyond the self-serving claims of the alleged victims and their partisan lawyers. As I was reading Mr. Matthiessen’s ”legal brief,” I found myself wanting to shout at this good-hearted naif, ”Don’t you know that’s the kind of nonsense every convicted murderer tries to get you to believe; I get dozens of these letters every week.” But Mr. Matthiessen seems to have been taken in and to have left most of his otherwise excellent critical faculties at home when he interviewed Mr. Peltier and his followers.

Though the book purports at times to present an objective appraisal, Mr. Matthiessen finally acknowledges – near the end – that his ”account of the Peltier case argued the position of traditional Indians and their allies in the American Indian Movement.” And at the very close of the book, he describes how ”I told Leonard I believed (that he hadn’t killed the agents), and I did, and I do.” And I wonder. Why does Mr. Matthiessen go out of his way so frequently to make disclaimers such as ”my personal opinion of his guilt or innocence (is) of no importance”? And why does he quote one of the AIM lawyers as saying: ”I know Bill Kunstler (another of the AIM lawyers) thought they killed the agents, but he believes that they were innocent whether they did it or not”?

 IN the end, Mr. Matthiessen tries to have it both ways. He says that ”from the Indian’s viewpoint – and increasingly from my own – any talk of innocence or guilt was beside the point.” But he insists nonetheless that the evidence ”made it plain that Peltier had been railroaded into jail.”

”In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” documents the imperfection of the American legal system, especially when it is mustered against a political group – even one as violent as the American Indian Movement. It is also a tragic account of the self-destructive quality of many of the self-appointed leaders of that movement. Drawn from among the most vocal, the most violent and the most radical native Americans, many of these leaders exploited their newly discovered heritage for their own personal ends. Some have ended where they belong – in jail. Others have simply drifted away. What remains are thousands of poverty-stricken Indians, first driven by years of neglect to accept false prophets of violence and then shorn even of that ineffective leadership.

THE TRAGEDY OF MR.MATTHIESSEN’S BOOK IS THAT HE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THAT HIS HEROES – THE RADICALS OF AIM- DID NOT ACT IN THE SELFLESS SPIRIT OF CHIEF CRAZY HORSE, THAT NOBLE 19th-CENTURY LEADER OF INDIAN RESISTANCE, THEY ACTED MORE IN THE VIOLENT SPIRIT OF CUSTER.BY DOING SO, THEY HELPED TO DESTROY THE DREAMS AND HOPES OF AMERICAN INDIANS.(CAPS MINE)
Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard Law School.

IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE ?

Must be disgruntling to say the least for the bogus AIM leaders  and Pelterites to at this juncture arrive at the conclusion that there is no quit in the advocates for justice for Annie, Ray, and others.

A reality they have little option other than to cope with, and making fools of themselves with their efforts attempting to.

In the spirit of Crazy Horse? Really? Does this mean that Crazy  Horse was a liar, a convicted felon, drug and alcohol user, a mute who selectively lost his voice- a coward
that hid behind silence and intimidation?

Warriors? Does this mean warriors murdered their own? That they raped and abused women, destroyed their own communities while enriching themselves,  and then went as an act of resume building to participate in ceremonies?

There isn’t a single known photo of Crazy Horse-he wasn’t about that-he didn’t give a damn about celebrity-try counting the photos of the liberators-try keeping them away from a camera.

Anybody think Crazy Horse ever staged a media event-think he ever gave prior notice to insure he would get his photo taken? Think he lived above the least among his own?
If there is anything of historical context that validates this I would like to be made aware of it.

Peltier’s life resembles a sundance about as much as Custer’s. Russell’s coy little alludings about how others liken him to Crazy Horse is a disgrace and an insult.

Banks and “Elk Medicine”? Oh yeah, I’m buying that-what they  all need isn’t the purification of sweats and ceremonies, more the inner purge of an enema.

MR.X-DINO, PELTIER, AND ROBIDEAU(x)

Dino Butler Interview excerpts:

“Leonard is taking direction from other people now. He’s a desperate man. When you keep a man locked up like that for years, they become desperate and they will do anything to get out because they want to end that suffering. So he’s willing to listen to anybody who comes to him and says they can get him out. Then he will turn his back on other people. That’s part of that corrupt values system. Because he’s insecure and isolated, separated from the people, it’s easy for him to give in to it. That comes from loneliness and isolation. In his learning process at this time, he doesn’t trust the people who were with him when this all happened. He listens to other people. People who are telling lies about him and about what really happened at Oglala.”

“Like this book of Peter Matthieson’s, In The Spirit of Crazy Horse, it talks about that me and Bob Robideau knew about this guy who was coming to the camp that day and that he was bringing dynamite to us and that guy now claims that he is Mr. X. Well, there is no Mr. X. There was no man coming to our camp that day bringing dynamite. Those are all lies created to keep Leonard in jail longer.”

“When this Mr. X thing first started happening we had a meeting in California. There were people there who were at Oglala that day. It was brought up about creating this lie about Mr. X being there and killing those men to raise support for Leonard’s liberation. To create this lie to show that someone else pulled the trigger. The final agreement in that meeting was that the Mr. X idea wouldn’t be used because it was a lie. We decided that because everything that we had done so far was always based on the truth, and that it was the truth that had liberated us in our trial, that when the truth finally came out that it would liberate Leonard and set him free. So it was decided that nobody would use this Mr. X theory – that it would be shelved.”

“I came back from South Dakota that year from the Sun Dance and was told that the writer from the movie Oliver Stone was considering making about what happened at Oglala had come to Portland. He was picked up by a member who was there at the shootout that day and was taken to a phone. He talked to the guy who was supposed to be Mr. X who had shot and killed those agents. He supposedly drove down there in that red pickup after the shooting was going on. His shooting was supposedly a reactionary thing that happened when this agent looked up. Like it was more or less an “accident” or something. That is all totally false. Totally untrue. That never happened.”

“I’m not going to go out of my way to cause a scene over this because I can’t divert my attention away from what is the real truth here. Peter Matthieson was victimized by that too. Whatever made him do that separated him from seeking out the truth. That’s the important thing to me, not who’s telling the biggest lie. What I represent is what I have to be concerned with and I have to be focused on the direction I am going in all the time. I cannot allow myself to become distracted by other things that do not represent the truth.”

Dino goes on to say the driver of the red truck was a man who heard shooting and went down to check on his family-maybe he was taking dynamite to his family and just on a whim decided to kill Williams and Coler?

LEONARD PELTIER AND “MR. X” – JUNE 12, 2000

(Interviewer) “Through the years there’s been discussion of someone named Mr.X who has come forward and admitted to some that he killed the two FBI agents. Leonard Peltier, can you explain who Mr. X. is?

Peltier: “Mr. X is, could be anybody. I mean there’s no doubt that somebody killed these agents, but we don’t know who he is.”

Robert Robideau “Incident at Oglala” (1991)
“It was only a couple of years ago that I had an opportunity to talk with the individual, that was the individual that killed these two agents. He told me that he was coming to the Jumping Bull home to deliver explosives that WE had asked him to bring here.” Robideau points to the field in the distance, and in great detail describes last seeing Mr. X shoot the agents and drive off in the red pickup.” That day I noticed a red pickup coming down from that white house up there, and when it got on the other side of these cars, it stopped, an individual got out, of course I knew who he was. Robideau continues with the details of what he saw and what Mr. X told him. “…and fired and killed both of them. Shortly after that the individual got back into the driver’s side of the pickup, and the pickup left, and made its way up along this tree line up here and past the green house, and I never saw the red pickup again.”

According to LPDOC Robideaux has also identified himself as Mr.X-how does that work?

Peltier “Incident at Oglala” (1991)
“This story is true. But I can’t and will not say anything about it. For me to testify against anybody or even mention, try to get somebody else in trouble is wrong. And I won’t do it.” (To identify Mr. X.)

Peltier (July, 19, 1991, Leavenworth, Darrin Wood interview)
“I can’t say anything about that Darrin, I haven’t said anything about it for almost sixteen years.”

“No, because I know his intentions are to give credibility to my claims of innocence…”

“For me it’s something very heroic that he’s done. He’s putting himself at risk, seriously at risk. I will say this: that this brother is a very strong brother. He is not a cold-blooded murderer. He is not a bad person, he’s very kind, generous and sincere.”

“…Because all the media have asked me about this, and it’s the same answer, I can’t say anything about it. I appreciate what he’s done.”

Dino Butler (1995, E.K. Caldwell, News from Indian Country interview)
“It was brought up about creating this lie about Mr. X. being there and killing those men…To create this lie to show that someone else pulled the trigger…So it was decided that nobody would use this Mr. X theory-that it would be shelved.” “That is all totally false. Totally untrue. That never happened.”

“It is totally false that I had knowledge of who that person was and knew that person was going to come into our camp that day to deliver dynamite.” “He (Matthiessen) never made an effort to contact me and ask me if this was true.”

Peltier (May 30, 1999, Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun interview)
“I don’t know for a fact who did the shooting, but I think I know,” “But I can’t say anything. Who’d believe me? Besides, we have a tradition that you don’t turn against your own. This wasn’t a domestic dispute in 1975, it was a war. A soldier who’s captured and turns against his own is ostracized. I want out of prison bad…but I can’t point a finger at some else.”

Peltier (September 10, 1999, CNN interview)
“I didn’t kill those agents. I didn’t see who killed those agents. And if I did know, I’m not telling. But I don’t know. That’s the point.”

Do you know who killed those agents? “No.”

Peltier (June 12, 2000, Pacifica Radio, Democracy Now interview)
“Mr. X is, could be anybody. I mean there’s no doubt that somebody killed these agents, but WE don’t know who he is.”

Peltier (June 25, 2000, Lee Williams, Argus Leader News interview)
“I know I’ve said in the past who he is. I said it out of ANGER. I don’t know who it is, either Mr. X, Y or Z.”

Peltier, Feb. 7, 1976 to Corporal R.C. Tweedy

Peltier told Tweedy… that the two agents had been killed because they had come to arrest him on the Wisconsin attempted murder charges. Asked if he himself shot the agents, Peltier told Tweedy, “No, but I know who did.”

Peltier, 1999 interview with CNN

Mark Potter: So with those cars down there, at the center of all that, you, as a leader, never, never went down to see what was going on?

Peltier: Right.

Mark Potter: You never saw the bodies?

Peltier: No.

Later Peltier changes his account when told that another AIM member said publicly [that] he and Peltier approached the agents’ cars.

Mark Potter: Did you see the agents dead?

Peltier: Yeah, Well, shoot. I mean I, I. Yeah, I gue[ss], you know. I knew they were de[ad], they got killed; I heard they got killed. I knew they got killed.

Peltier (Prison Writings, St. Martin’s Press, 1999)
At no point in Peltier’s autobiography does he mention either Mr. X or the red pickup.

A&E, American Justice; Murder On A Reservation, October 17, 2000
“I don’t know who killed them. I mean, I can’t say anything about that. I just, I just don’t know who did it. I don’t wanna know.”

And these represent just a few of Peltier’s stories involving Mr.X.  Does anyone, or LPDOC have an explanation for them, a spin?