M.B. Dallocchio's Blog, page 3

Effective Communication

After combing through some of my old Army Mental Health presentations, I found this gem on effective communication. We conducted presentations (mostly via PowerPoint accompanied with exercises) on a regular basis, most of which were infantry units in Iraq who were experiencing internal conflicts and leadership issues.  The following information was compiled by our team in Ramadi, Iraq and was shared with the rest of the unit, which has since been adapted for other Combat Stress Control companies and teams.  

Introduction
To be a good student, professional, parent - or, simply, a good human being - there are tools required to ensure your success in life. One of these tools is effective listening. Everyone may feel like they are effective listeners, but very few will have all the skills they require. If you're an effective listener, you're more likely to find that people will be naturally drawn to you, they’ll enjoy being around you, and you will feel more fulfilled in your interpersonal relationships.

Communication is the process of sharing and exchanging information. Information can be shared and exchanged verbally or non-verbally, and in order to effectively communicate, we must not only communicate our viewpoint or data, but we must also actively listen.

If you're not an effective listener, people may find your presence cumbersome. Some may even avoid contact with you, because they feel that you really don’t care about who they really are or what they have to say. This, in turn, may prevent any productive interaction you might desire or need to have.

Real vs. Pseudo-Listening 
Just because you are being quiet while someone else is talking does not mean that you're actually listening. Real listening is based on the intention of the four following principles.
To understand someone To enjoy someone’s company To learn something new about someone To give help or solace to someone in their time of needPseudo-Listening
The key to real listening is truly wanting too understand, to learn something new, or to help someone with his or her problems. It comes naturally in a multitude of environments. Pseudo-listening, on the other hand, masquerades as the real thing. The intention is not to listen but to hide an ulterior motive.

Examples of pseudo-listening include:
Making people think you’re listening to get them to like you. Making yourself alert for signs of rejection. Listening for one piece of specific information and ignoring the rest. Buying time to think about your next statement. Half-listening so someone will listen to you. Listening for vulnerabilities to take advantage of the situation. Listening for weak points in conversation, for ammunition, to always be right. Listening to make sure you are producing the desired effect, checking for reactions. Only half-listening because that’s what a “good” person would do. Half-listening because you don’t know how to get away without hurting their feelings.In your mind, review your listening with your co-workers in the previous days, weeks, or months.  Ask yourself: How much do you really listen or pseudo-listen?

Blocks to Listening
Comparing: Comparing yourself to your listening makes it hard to really listen because you’re trying to assess who's smarter, more competent, more emotionally healthy, or who’s suffered more. “Who’s more of a victim?” You can’t take much in because you’re too busy measuring up to the other person. Mind-Reading: When mind-reading, the listener doesn't pay much attention to what the speaker is saying. In fact, there is an element of distrust. This can be a dangerous mistake to make, as it can not only cause anger and frustration to the speaker, but it can sever communication. If you're mind-reading, you probably make assumptions about what people think of you. How would you know, you’re not them! So unless they tell you what their opinions are, you cannot possibly know what they're thinking. This is also a tactic for control and can prove to be extremely counter-productive.Rehearsing: People are notorious for doing this. They already planned what they're going to say before the conversation beings. They listen enough to appear interested and to continue the flow of conversation, but they really don’t hear what people have to say.  The point is to get one's own words right without having to understand or listen to the other speaker.Filtering: If you're filtering, you're listening to some things and not to others. It's listening enough to get the gist of the conversation, see if the person is happy or unhappy; if they’re happy, the listeners mind starts to wander on to other things. Judging: People who judge put negative labels on people, which is an enormous power. Once you’ve labeled that person, you cease to listen to them. A basic rule to listening is that judgments should be made only after the conversation is complete and you’ve had time to hear everything and evaluate the context of the message. Dreaming: You’re already only half-listening. Someone says something that triggers a chain of memories and private associations. One thing leads to another, and then another, and minutes after you’ve left for la-la land.  You return to the end of the conversation with them saying, "Thank you for listening, I know you’d understand." Identifying: Almost everything the other person says, you relate to what they’re saying by some experience you’ve had pertaining to a similar circumstance. You’re too busy trying to focus on telling your experience that you don’t even listen to theirs.Advising: You're the almighty problem solver! You don’t even listen to more than the first few lines before your brain is working on solutions. Please remember that most people are competent in creating their own solutions to problems. People often seek out others for validation, to feel like someone cares.  If they want help solving a problem, they’ll ask you.Sparring: This block has you constantly arguing and debating with people. The other party never feels heard because you’re so quick to disagree. Most of the conversation, you’re just focusing on finding things to disagree with, and respond. The way around this is to reflect back on what you've heard and try to find something you agree with, and act accordingly. One sub-type of sparring is “put-downs”. People will use this technique to dismiss the other person’s point of view. The other is “discounting” yourself, you can’t take a compliment or self-deprecate.  Being Right: Being right, people will go to any lengths to avoid being wrong. This includes twisting the facts, making excuses or accusations, calling up past sins. You can’t take criticism and the majority of the time will not see the other persons viewpoint. In your mind, they’ve been discounted. Please remember that if someone feels rejected or has a problem with something, you need to understand that they are entitled to that feeling. In fact, if you had an open mind and put yourself in their shoes, you might actually see that they have a point. Example: You claim to be so busy you can’t help with the workload, so someone else is getting the majority of the work. That person brings it up to you, and in your mind, you can’t see their point of view because 1.) That would be a form of criticism. 2.) That would be a form of correction on your behavior. 3.) Maybe, just maybe that would prove that you were making a mistake. This can’t be because you’re always right. Derailing: You change the subject if you’re not comfortable with it. You crack jokes to “lighten the tension.” You do this to avoid the discomfort or anxiety of really listening to someone. Placating: "Right….Right…..Absolutely….I know….Of course you are…. Incredible….Yes!….Really???" You’re being nice. You want people to like you. You’re maybe half-listening just enough to get what the context of the conversation is, but you’re not really listening to what is being said.
4 Steps to Effective Listening
Paraphrasing: This means to state, in your words, what the other person has just said. This is a necessary step to effective listening. Paraphrasing also helps with clarifying. This means asking questions about the context of the conversation. It goes along with paraphrasing and feedback. There are three main principles in giving feedback. Be immediate, honest, and supportive.Listening with Empathy: The one rule to listening with empathy can be summarized as simply realizing that this person is trying to survive in a mixed up world. You don’t have to agree with them, or like what they have to say, but understand they are just going through the motions in this world like you.Listening with Openness: This is about not judging someone and not finding fault in that person. Nearly everyone has a problem with listening openly. You don’t want to hear certain facts about yourself nor do you want to believe a unlikable person maybe has something of value to say. Your opinions and your beliefs are closely tied to your self-esteem. You will naturally want to argue or shut down what the other person has to say.Listening with Awareness: There are two components to listening with awareness, and one is to compare what’s being said to your knowledge of history, people, and the way things are. Do this without judgment. The second is to hear and observe congruence. Be aware of their body language. Does it fit with the topic?
Total Listening
People want you to listen, so they look for clues that you are listening. Maintain good eye contact. Lean forward slightly. Nod or paraphrase. Clarify by asking questions. Actively move away from distractions like the TV, phone, or other people. Be committed, even if you’re angry or upset, to understanding what the other person has to say.  In the end, if your genuine efforts at effective communication are not appearing to make an impact, step back and assess the situation.  See where there still may be gaps in understanding on any side.

Lastly, in spite of any bonafide efforts at effective communication, you cannot control the reaction of the person with whom you're communicating.  However, bearing in mind the principles of effective communication, you can surely increase the likelihood of meaningful, productive interaction and conversation, personally and professionally.

Adapted by our CSC from: McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1983). Messages: The Communication Skills Book. New Harbinger Publications, Oakland, CA.

Enoughness: Indigenous Economics of Sustainability

How we see the world determines how we act. Western thought sees us at war with each other over resources. In Indigenous philosophy, we are all related as individuals in balance with nature. Enoughness juxtaposes these two world views and delivers some startling facts.

It is pointed out that "Indigenous peoples territory spans 24% of the earths land surface but is home to 80% of it's total biodiversity. This is not a coincidence." Well illustrated throughout, this short film is a powerful testament to living in harmony rather than in competition with each other and the earth.

How we see the world determines how we act. Western thought sees us at war with each other over resources. Indigenous philosophy, we are all related as individuals in balance with nature. Watch Enoughness: Resorting Balance to the Economy and learn more at www.FirstPeoples.org. Share on Facebook and Twitter using #Enoughness.

MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail

"MLK Dreams" by MB Dallocchio

The Atlantic published this piece by Martin Luther King Jr. while he spent time in the Birmingham city jail.  The issues he cites remain relevant today in how we perceive community, action, and social justice.  

Having spent part of my childhood in Southern Alabama - and enduring quite a bit of racial harassment and assault - racism was alive and well in the 1980s.  Our 3rd grade class in Daphne, Alabama took a trip to a plantation of sorts and I remember a white classmate mocking the rope burns in a tree where nooses were once filled by slaves and say, "Who cares about n*****s? Let's hang all these coloreds!" he joked to a like-minded classmate.    

This hate and racial bigotry came from an eight year-old, in which he most likely learned through his upbringing, and when I scoffed at him, he told me, "Go back to your country."  

Funny, the US owns my native land, I'm indigenous.  I told him he didn't look Native and to go back to his country.  Our teacher at the time, shrugged off the exchange of words this time - and it would have been me getting the paddling for speaking up, not the white classmate.  Yes, this was back in the days of wooden paddles with holes for impact.  

I recall reading Dr. King's wonderful words amid the hate-filled classmates in Alabama and dreaming of a day when such hatred would stop.  We have yet to see such days, but we must press on and bring the truth into the light.  Enduring racial trauma weighs heavily on the human spirit, especially when you feel alone in your struggles.  It's words like these that fill the heart when all around you looks bleak and full of despair.  Let us honor the following words with corresponding action.


While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling our present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all of the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would be engaged in little else in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should give the reason for my being in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the argument of “outsiders coming in”

I am in Birmingham because injustice is here …I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider …

We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward the goal of political independence, and we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward the gaining of a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say “wait.”

But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her begin to distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger” and your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodyness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience …

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality …

There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience.

"The Wounds We Inflict on Our Soul" - MB Dallocchio
It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws…

I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are presently misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson scratched across the pages of history the majestic word of the Declaration of Independence, we were here …If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands …

Never before have I written a letter this long–or should I say a book? I’m afraid that it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else is there to do when you are alone for days in the dull monotony of a narrow jail cell other than write long letters, think strange thoughts, and pray long prayers? If I have said anything in this letter that is an understatement of the truth and is indicative of an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything in this letter that is an overstatement of the truth and is indicative of my having a patience that makes me patient with anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.


Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

This post originally appeared at The Atlantic. See the original document here.  To read more about my Alabama misadventures, grab a copy of "Quixote in Ramadi" in paperback or Kindle here.

A Message on ISIS from a Female Combat Veteran

Lionessing - Ramadi, Iraq 2005LAS VEGAS -- For any veterans getting their undies in a twist over the so-called ISIS threat issued by the FBI: Stop. Just,...f***ing stop.

There is no sense in clenching your butt cheeks over a group of hashtag jihadists and please stop making these mom's-basement-jerk-offs feel important. The fact that these amateurs have been receiving funds from our "allies" and are affiliated with the "moderate rebels" the US-funded makes their threats and special effects all the more hilarious. If we want this to stop, let's cut their allowance!

Sure, some "Daesh douchebag" can show up in here in Las Vegas anytime - let's see what happens! There's a lot of desert and no one will miss them. I'm a highly creative and twisted individual, and my spouse is too.  In fact, we were looking for another outlet for all this combat PTSD.  This should be a dream for any combat veteran.  It takes the inconvenience out of a twenty-six hour flight completely out of the equation.

It amazes me to see other veterans worry when these Salafi losers have way more to fear from people like us.  If you haven't embraced your combat PTSD in a highly functional state, let me know if you need some pointers.

How I'll be answering my door for Daesh.So, please, stop the Chicken Little nonsense.  If some loser wants to hurt you, put him in the ground. Simple. Or if you have some time, tell it to put the lotion on it's skin.  In the meantime, enjoy your fava beans and Chianti and carry on.

Channeling Sun Tzu in the War on Women Veterans

Prior to deploying to Iraq, I bought a copy of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and read it one night in Kuwait, prior to making my way toward Ramadi.  As a reliable source of timeless advice, I often refer back to it these days when faced with cases of discrimination and defamation for being a female combat veteran. It has become somewhat of an "I Ching" in my household.

We must all remember that our leadership skills and mission never end.  The environment just changes, and we must adapt and overcome accordingly. Sometimes when we find our fellow veterans turn their backs to us, mock our service, and degrade us publicly, the best thing one can do is call upon prior training. Don't get mad, regroup.

Often, when someone untrained or undisciplined is facing a threat, they act irrationally, which is what we're seeing in hateful comments regarding women in combat or entering Ranger school. Anyone who is secure in their service does not need to tear down the service of another. Remember that, women veterans, and keep the following in mind:

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu

Marxism is as Alien to My Culture as Capitalism

The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is Russell Means' most famous speech.

11/01/08 "ICH" -- -- The only possible opening for a statement of this kind is that I detest writing. The process itself epitomizes the European concept of "legitimate" thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken. My culture, the Lakota culture, has an oral tradition, so I ordinarily reject writing. It is one of the white world's ways of destroying the cultures of non-European peoples, the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.

So what you read here is not what I've written. It's what I've said and someone else has written down. I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don't really care whether my words reach whites or not. They have already demonstrated through their history that they cannot hear, cannot see; they can only read (of course, there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule). I'm more concerned with American Indian people, students and others, who have begun to be absorbed into the white world through universities and other institutions. But even then it's a marginal sort of concern. It's very possible to grow into a red face with a white mind; and if that's a person's individual choice, so be it, but I have no use for them. This is part of the process of cultural genocide being waged by Europeans against American Indian peoples' today. My concern is with those American Indians who choose to resist this genocide, but who may be confused as to how to proceed.

(You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point. I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin-which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota-or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.-and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.

(There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met "Indio," from the Italian in dio, meaning "in God.")
It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized. The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retain. It must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. No European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A master's degree in "Indian Studies" or in "education" or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.

I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I'm not allowing for false distinctions. I'm not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary. European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I'm referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and "leftism" in general. I don't believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the of the European intellectual tradition. It's really just the same old song.

The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say- and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!

This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment- that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one- is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive.

Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology- and that is put in his own terms- he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel's philosophy in terms of "materialism," which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel's work altogether. Again, this is in Marx' own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx'- and his followers'- links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel and the others.

Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But let's look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate.

The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill," at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue.

In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to "developing" a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be "developed" through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open- in the European view- to this sort of insanity.

Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in all this. After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools.

But each new piece of that "progress" ups the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for the industrial machine as an example. Little more than two centuries ago, nearly everyone used wood- a replenishable, natural item- as fuel for the very human needs of cooking and staying warm. Along came the Industrial Revolution and coal became the dominant fuel, as production became the social imperative for Europe. Pollution began to become a problem in the cities, and the earth was ripped open to provide coal whereas wood had always simply been gathered or harvested at no great expense to the environment. Later, oil became the major fuel, as the technology of production was perfected through a series of scientific "revolutions." Pollution increased dramatically, and nobody yet knows what the environmental costs of pumping all that oil out of the ground will really be in the long run. Now there's an "energy crisis," and uranium is becoming the dominant fuel.

Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate which they can show a good profit. That's there ethic, and maybe they 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 European tradition. It's the same old song.

There's a rule of thumb which can be applied here. You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples. This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe's tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. I defy anyone to point out an example where this is not true.

So now we, as American Indian people, are asked to believe that a "new" European revolutionary doctrine such as Marxism will reverse the negative effects of European history on us. European power relations are to be adjusted once again, and that's supposed to make things better for all of us. But what does this really mean?

Right now, today, we who live on the Pine Ridge Reservation are living in what white society has designated a " National Sacrifice Area." What this means is that we have a lot of uranium deposits here, and white culture (not us) needs this uranium as energy production material. The cheapest, most efficient way for industry to extract and deal with the processing of this uranium is to dump the waste by-products right here at the digging sites. Right here where we live. This waste is radioactive and will make the entire region uninhabitable forever. This is considered by the industry, and by the white society that created this industry, to be an "acceptable" price to pay for energy resource development.

Along the way they also plan to drain the water table under this part of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the region becomes doubly uninhabitable. The same sort of thing is happening down in the land of the Navajo and Hopi, up in the land of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow, and elsewhere. Thirty percent of the coal in the West and half of the uranium deposits in the United States have been found to lie under reservation land, so there is no way this can be called a minor issue.

We are resisting being turned into National Sacrifice Area. We are resisting being turned into a national sacrifice people. The costs of this industrial process are not acceptable to us. It is genocide to dig uranium here and drain the water table- no more, no less.

Now let's suppose that in our resistance to extermination we begin to seek allies (we have). Let's suppose further that we were to take revolutionary Marxism at it's word: that it intends nothing less than the complete overthrow of the European capitalists order which has presented this threat to our very existence. This would seem to be a natural alliance for American Indian people to enter into.

After all, as the Marxists say, it is the capitalists who set us up to be a national sacrifice. This is true as far as it goes.

But, as I've tried to point out, this "truth" is very deceptive. Revolutionary Marxism is committed to even further perpetuation and perfection of the very industrial process which is destroying us all. It offers only to " redistribute" the results- the money, maybe- of this industrialization to a wider section of the population. It offers to take wealth from the capitalists and pass it around; but in order to do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system. Once again, the power relations within European society will have to be altered, but once again the effects upon American Indian peoples here and non-Europeans elsewhere will remain the same. This is much the same as when power was redistributed from the church to private business during the so-called bourgeois revolution. European society changed a bit, at least superficially, but its conduct toward non-Europeans continued as before. You can see what the American Revolution of 1776 did for American Indians. It's the same old song.

Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to "rationalize" all people in relation to industry- maximum industry, maximum production. It is a doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called us "precapitalists" and "primitive." Precapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists; we have always been economically retarded in Marxist term. 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 only occur through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society.

I think there's a problem with language here. Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs.

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.

At this point, I've got to stop and ask myself whether I'm being too harsh. 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 these Marxists have done what it took the English Industrial Revolution 300 years to do; and the Marxists did it in 60 years. I see that the territory of the USSR used to contain a number of tribal peoples and that 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 the right to exist as peoples; and they decided the tribal peoples were an acceptable sacrifice to the 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 the leading Soviet scientist saying that when 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 uranium 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.

The statement of the Soviet scientist is very interesting. Does he know what this alternative energy source will be? No, he simply has faith. Science will find a way. I hear revolutionary Marxists saying that the destruction of the environment, pollution, and radiation will all be controlled. And I see them act upon their words. Do they know how these things will be controlled? No, they simply have faith. Science will find a way. Industrialization is fine and necessary. How do they know this? Faith.

Science will find a way. Faith of this sort has always been known in Europe as religion. Science has become the new European religion for both capitalists and Marxists; they are truly inseparable; they are part and parcel of the same culture. So, in both theory and practice, Marxism demands that non-European peoples give up their values, their traditions, their cultural existence altogether. We will all be industrialized science addicts in a Marxist society.

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. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it. To ally with Marxism is to ally with the very same forces that declare us an acceptable cost.

There is another way. There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. A lopsided emphasis on humans by humans-the Europeans' arrogance of acting as though they were beyond the nature of all related things-can only result in a total disharmony and a readjustment which cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control and restores the harmony.

There is a need for a revolutionary theory to bring this about; it's beyond human control. The nature peoples of this planet know this and so they do not theorize about it. Theory is an abstract; our knowledge is real.

Distilled to its basic terms, European faith-including the new faith in science-equals a belief that man is God. Europe has always sought a Messiah, whether that be the man Jesus Christ or the man Karl Marx or the man Albert Einstein. American Indians know this to be totally absurd. Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only through the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw.

But rationality is a curse since it can cause humans to forget the natural order of things in ways other creatures do not. A wolf never forgets his or her place in the natural order. American Indians can. Europeans almost always do. We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science. God is the Supreme Being; all else must be inferior.

All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of all things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things come full circle, back to where they started. That's revolution. And that's a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other correct peoples.

American Indians have been trying to explain this to Europeans for centuries. But, as I said earlier, Europeans have proven themselves unable to hear. The natural order will win out, and the offenders will die out, the way deer die when they offend the harmony by over-populating a given region. It's only a matter of time until what Europeans call "a major catastrophe of global proportions" will occur. It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don't want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That's revolution.

American Indians are still in touch with these realities-the prophecies, the traditions of our ancestors. We learn from the elders, from nature, from the powers. And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere. I don't care if it's only a handful living high in the Andes. American Indian people will survive; harmony will be reestablished. That's revolution.

At this point, perhaps I should be very clear about another matter, one which should already be clear as a result of what I've said. But confusion breeds easily these days, so I want to hammer home this point. When I use the term European, I'm not referring to a skin color or a particular genetic structure.
What I'm referring to is a mind-set, a worldview that is a product of the development of European culture. People are not genetically encoded to hold this outlook; they are acculturated to hold it. The same is true for American Indians or for the members of any culture.

It is possible for an American Indian to share European values, a European worldview. We have a term for these people; we call them "apples"-red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Blacks have their "oreos"; Hispanos have "Coconuts" and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I'm not sure what term should be applied to them other than "human beings."

What I'm putting out here is not a racial proposition but a cultural proposition. Those who ultimately advocate and defend the realities of European culture and its industrialism are my enemies. Those who resist it, who struggle against it, are my allies, the allies of American Indian people. And I don't give a damn what their skin color happens to be. Caucasian is the white term for the white race: European is an outlook I oppose.

The Vietnamese Communists are not exactly what you might consider genetic Caucasians, but they are now functioning as mental Europeans. The same holds true for Chinese Communists, for Japanese capitalists or Bantu Catholics or Peter "MacDollar" down at the Navajo Reservation or Dickie Wilson up here at Pine Ridge. There is no racism involved in this, just an acknowledgment of the mind and spirit that make up culture.

In Marxist terms I suppose I'm a "cultural nationalist." I work first with my people, the traditional Lakota people, because we hold a common worldview and share an immediate struggle. Beyond this, I work with other traditional American Indian peoples, again because of a certain commonality in worldview and form of struggle. Beyond that, I work with anyone who has experienced the colonial oppression of Europe and who resists its cultural and industrial totality. Obviously, this includes genetic Caucasians who struggle to resist the dominant norms of European culture. The Irish and the Basques come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

I work primarily with my own people, with my own community. Other people who hold non-European perspectives should do the same. I believe in the slogan, "Trust your brother's vision," although I'd like to add sisters into the bargain. I trust the community and the culturally based vision of all the races that naturally resist industrialization and human extinction. Clearly, individual whites can share in this, given only that they have reached the awareness that continuation of the industrial imperatives of Europe is not a vision, but species suicide. White is one of the sacred colors of the Lakota people-red, yellow, white and black. The four directions. The four seasons. The four periods of life and aging. The four races of humanity. Mix red, yellow, white and black together and you get brown, the color of the fifth race. This is a natural ordering of things. It therefore seems natural to me to work with all races, each with its own special meaning, identity and message.

But there is a peculiar behavior among most Caucasians. As soon as I become critical of Europe and its impact on other cultures, they become defensive. They begin to defend themselves. But I'm not attacking them personally; I'm attacking Europe. In personalizing my observations on Europe they are personalizing European culture, identifying themselves with it. By defending themselves in this context, they are ultimately defending the death culture. This is a confusion which must be overcome, and it must be overcome in a hurry. None of us has energy to waste in such false struggles.

Caucasians have a more positive vision to offer humanity than European culture. I believe this. But in order to attain this vision it is necessary for Caucasians to step outside European culture-alongside the rest of humanity-to see Europe for what it is and what it does.

To cling to capitalism and Marxism and all other "isms" is simply to remain within European culture. There is no avoiding this basic fact. As a fact, this constitutes a choice. Understand that the choice is based on culture, not race. Understand that to choose European culture and industrialism is to choose to be my enemy. And understand that the choice is yours, not mine.

This leads me back to address those American Indians who are drifting through the universities, the city slums, and other European institutions. If you are there to resist the oppressor in accordance with your traditional ways, so be it. I don't know how you manage to combine the two, but perhaps you will succeed. But retain your sense of reality. Beware of coming to believe the white world now offers solutions to the problems it confronts us with. Beware, too, of allowing the words of native people to be twisted to the advantages of our enemies. Europe invented the practice of turning words around on themselves. You need only look to the treaties between American Indian peoples and various European governments to know that this is true. Draw your strength from who you are.

A culture which regularly confuses revolt with resistance, has nothing helpful to teach you and nothing to offer you as a way of life. Europeans have long since lost all touch with reality, if ever they were in touch with who you are as American Indians.

So, I suppose to conclude this, I should state clearly that leading anyone toward Marxism is the last thing on my mind. Marxism is as alien to my culture as capitalism and Christianity are. In fact, I can say I don't think I'm trying to lead anyone toward anything. To some extent I tried to be a "leader," in the sense that the white media like to use that term, when the American Indian Movement was a young organization. This was a result of a confusion I no longer have. You cannot be everything to everyone. I do not propose to be used in such a fashion by my enemies. I am not a leader. I am an Oglala Lakota patriot. That is all I want and all I need to be. And I am very comfortable with who I am.

Russell Means, born an Oglala/Lakota in 1939, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation near the Black Hills. As a young man, Russell's life was full of ups and downs. In the late 60s he became focused and put his energy into fighting for Indian rights with The American Indian Movement. He became the first national director of AIM.

A Kinda Awkward Note to America by Ferguson Kids

Share the Cause! Six black kids from ‪#‎Ferguson‬, MO bluntly and sarcastically educate white America about the racist reality in 2014. Recruited from the very block where unarmed black teen Michael Brown was gunned down by a white police officer, these kids ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, use sometimes uncomfortable humor to show white people the continued racism their generation faces. Armed ONLY with statistics (hands up, don't shoot) these articulate and adorable kids are not having it while much of white America would rather pretend racism is over.

Iraqis and Kurds Team Up Against IS

An hour-long discussion on Al-Etejah TV in Lebanon with German journalist Manuel Ochsenreiter (editor in chief of the Zuerst Magazine) and Navid Nasr (radio host and political activist from Maryland), on Iraq, Syria, IS(IS), the Kurdish Regional Government, the Peshmerga and related matters.

This is a great primer on the roots of current violence in Iraq and Syria.  Here's the full discussion, broken up into two segments.

Red Cry

Red Cry is an original, feature-length documentary film chronicling the lives of Lakota Elders and Oyate (people) in the face of ongoing genocide against the Lakota by government and corporate interests.

The incendiary film is the result of a historic collaboration between traditional Tetuwan Lakota Elders and Warriors from Pine Ridge Reservation and a growing group of native and non-native solidarity activists. In togetherness they are working to bring Lakota Elders -- particularly Grandmothers -- to the world stage to speak with their own voices to the International community.

The Lakota Solidarity Project with the Lakota Cante Tenza Okolakiciye (Strong Heart Warriors) are issuing an International Call To Action for both Native and non-native Warriors, Activists, Artists, Culture-Jammers, Organizers, Community Builders, Freedom Fighters, Idle-No-More Supporters, Occupy Groups, Indignados, Organizations, Coalitions, Networks, Spiritual Communities, Elders and Youth to join us at this critical moment to help end the genocide of the traditional and grassroots Lakota Oyate (people) and support the renewal of traditional matriarchal -- Grandmother led-leadership.

Wagunpi Woashake Ikickupi (Lakota Elders Take Back Their Strength) is a grassroots movement to end the genocide of the Lakota people and support the full renewal of matriarchal leadership by Lakota Grandmothers on Pine Ridge and across the Lakota Nation.

The movement also works to educate non-Natives about the situation of the Lakota, mobilize long-term solidarity networks to benefit Lakota Elders, and build solidarity with other indigenous resistance movements worldwide.

The Lakota Solidarity Project is an all-volunteer group of people and organizations who work in togetherness with traditional Tetuwan Lakota Elders, warriors, grassroots activists, and Oyate (people)- led by the Grandmothers.

Advocate for the Lakota Grandmothers: http://www.lakotagrandmothers.org

Four Horsemen

FOUR HORSEMEN is an award winning independent feature documentary which lifts the lid on how the world really works.

As we will never return to 'business as usual' 23 international thinkers, government advisers and Wall Street money-men break their silence and explain how to establish a moral and just society.

FOUR HORSEMEN is free from mainstream media propaganda -- the film doesn't bash bankers, criticize politicians or get involved in conspiracy theories. It ignites the debate about how to usher a new economic paradigm into the world which would dramatically improve the quality of life for billions.

"It's Inside Job with bells on, and a frequently compelling thesis thanks to Ashcroft's crack team of talking heads -- economists, whistle-blowers and Noam Chomsky, all talking with candor and clarity." - Total Film

"Four Horsemen is a breathtakingly composed jeremiad against the folly of Neo-classical economics and the threats it represents to all we should hold dear." - Harold Crooks, The Corporation (Co-Director) Surviving Progress (Co-Director/Co-Writer)