Lakota independence—prophecy starting to be fulfilled?

Christian Kenny Heap brought to my attention the recent Lakota declaration of independence from the U.S. and I thought it was important enough news to merit a blog post. As I stated in my follow-up comment to his remark, it reminded me of a scripture:

The Lord said, “And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.” (D&C 87: 5. See also Micah 5: 8-15; 3 Ne. 16: 7-15; 3 Ne. 20: 15-21; 3 Ne. 21: 12-21; D&C 109: 65-67.)

In case you are not up to speed on what the Lakota nation is doing, read the FoxNews report, visit any of the Lakotah Oyate web sites (LakotahOyate.com, LakotahOyate.org and LakotahOyate.net), visit the Republic of Lakota web sites (RepublicOfLakota.com and LakotaFreedom.com), check out the WordPress blogs talking about Lakota, or just Ixquick “Lakota, independence” or some other term like that.

So, now that the Lakota nation has declared its independence, does this mean we are entering the time in history when the prophecies of the above listed scriptures will be fulfilled? My gut feeling (not inspiration or revelation, yet) is that both the Lakota secession and the Aztlan movement (Ixquick“Aztlan”) are pieces of the future (perhaps not-so-future?) fulfillment of these prophecies.

So, what do you, dear reader, see in these occurrences? Does the Spirit whisper that the departure of Lakota from the U.S. is a sign of the times to be examined, or is it nothing of any significance and to be ignored?

For me, this can play out any number of ways, but none of the peaceful ones seem likely.

First of all, the enemies of the U.S. would probably immediately jump on the legitimizing secession bandwagon, by recognizing the Lakota nation as a sovereign country. Apparently Russia is already considering this. If foreign countries recognize Lakota, it will be fuel to the fire if the U.S. decides to handle another bid at secession like the War of Northern Aggression (for Southerners) or the War Between The States (for some Southerners and some Northerners) or the Civil War (for Northerners), however you call that conflict. Even if the U.S. tries to handle the situation peacefully, by fighting it through the courts, the Lakota nation is pretty well grounded legally, and probably would win legally, but with recognition by other nations, the Lakota people will have already won the first battle in declaring their legitimacy as a sovereign nation. The recognition by other nations of the Lakota nation will but help to divide America into two parts: U.S. citizens and Lakota citizens. A divided nation is good if you have ideas of conquering it.

Secondly, there is a large amount of land involved, in which plenty of non-Lakota people live. These Americans “own” land, which apparently really belonged to the Lakota people, and when the Lakota nation starts issuing liens, what is going to be the reaction from these people? There is definitely going to be a whole lot of irate individuals as a result of this.

The Lakota are extending an invitation to all people, of any race, that they can come and live in their land tax-free, if they will renounce their U.S. citizenship. They are already issuing Lakota passports and Lakota driver’s licenses to accommodate people. How many people who have had it with U.S. taxation are going to take them up on this offer? The influx of people may be exceedingly great if the U.S. allows secession to go through peacefully. Only the threat of violence or illegitimacy from the U.S. might dissuade tax evaders and those who are tired of oppressive U.S. taxes (a great number of people) from becoming Lakota citizens.

If the U.S. decides to determine the right of secession by conflict, like Lincoln did, it will be facing an impoverished people who currently have nothing to live or die for. In other words, these people are destitute right now and may become galvanized into action by conflict. They have an extremely high suicide rate, indicating nothing to live for. If suddenly they have to fight for their land and freedom, the U.S. will have given them both a reason to live and a reason to die. Such an enemy will be on the defence, defending their lands, homes, wives, children, etc. (Just fill in Moroni’s whole title of liberty.)

There is also the problem of justification. Would the U.S. be justified in the eyes of God in attacking the Lakota nation? Is the Lakota nation justified in seceding from the U.S.? As LDS, we have modern scriptures that help us arrive at the correct answer to these questions, as the Lord has revealed his laws of justification in D&C 98: 33-38, as well as other places.

All in all, based upon the U.S. government’s past behavior when it comes to secession, a peaceful solution does not seem likely. Conflict seems probable. I do not expect the U.S. government to give up sizable chunks of real estate in 5 States and the accompanying tax revenue, nor allow itself to be drained of tax-paying citizens who renounce U.S. citizenship to live tax-free in another part of America, without objection. (The Lakota still live in America, so, it is not like they would be going to a totally foreign country or a completely foreign land.)

Finally, if the Lakota situation does erupt, Aztlan or other groups (such as Vermont secessionists) might see it as the opportune moment to take what they want of America. The potential for a firestorm is definitely here.

In case this comes up…

Yes, Russell Means, otherwise known as Oyate Wacinyapin, is part of the Lakota Freedom Delegation and is also the actor who starred in (among other movies) The Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day-Lewis. Means played Chingachgook, the very last of the Mohicans, but in actuality, he “was born an Oglala/Lakota Sioux Indian,” according to IMDb (the Internet Movie Database.)

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: The tribal nature of the gospel

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: A basic right denied

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Book of Mormon Anarchy

In 3 Nephi chapter 7 there is the very interesting account of the destruction of the Nephite government and the introduction of tribal-based anarchy. A quick summary: The chief judge is murdered by the secret combination (v. 1) and it causes a great contention in the land, causing virtually everyone to become wicked (v. 7); the government and its regulations are destroyed (v. 2, 6); the people separate (v. 2, 14) into exceedingly large tribes (v. 4) with appointed leaders or chiefs (v. 3) consisting of family, kindred and friends (v. 2, 4, 14); the tribes have their own separate laws (v. 11, 14) including laws on how to interact with other tribes (v. 14); the tribes have no wars among them (v.5) and are united, but not according to their laws (v. 11, 14); the secret combination forms a monarchy with king Jacob as the monarch (v. 9-10); the tribes are united in their hatred of the kingdom of Jacob (v. 11) ; king Jacob and his subjects escape to the north (v. 12-13); the tribes stone and cast out any prophets that come among them (v. 14); Nephi ministers with great power and authority to the tribes, making but few converts, who also witness of their conversion through signs and miracles (v. 15-22.)

One of the arguments against anarchy, made chiefly by statists, is that anarchy cannot exist without a totally moral people. They argue, essentially, that since the natural man is an enemy to God, people living in anarchy would murder, rape, steal and do other very wicked deeds without a government to check their wicked ways. Nevertheless, 3 Nephi chapter 7 flies in the face of that logic, showing that even wicked people living under anarchy had “in some degree…peace in the land” (v. 14.) Obviously, “some degree of peace” applied to a temporal sense, as spiritually, these people were completely devoid of the peace of Jesus.

People normally learn about anarchy from statists, who have a vested interest to vilify and smear anarchy, because anarchy is the natural enemy of statism. Thus, a statist will say that anarchy breeds violence and chaos. Yet the Book of Mormon account of anarchy, an admitted account of a wicked people that stoned prophets of God, is one of an ordered society that, although separated into tribes, were still united and had strict agreements (treaties) between the tribes.

Some believe that once a government is removed and the natural anarchic order is allowed to settle in, family ties are strengthened exceedingly and families naturally start to coalesce into clans. (See the articles that Mary Ruwart and Phillip E. Jacobson have written on this very subject.) This is based upon historical, non-Book of Mormon data. However, the ancient books of scripture used by the LDS add to the body of evidence for this belief. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon examples of anarchy are tribal-based, a tribe essentially being a clan, or a very large clan. Tribal or clan-based anarchy appears to be the natural order of anarchy.

Jacob and his followers were king-men, attempting to establish a monarchy so that they could rule over the souls of men. These were die-hard statists and it is telling that as soon as the government was dissolved, they grouped together and created their own little state, a kingdom with a monarch (Jacob, not Jesus) to rule over them.

Another interesting point to note is that Mormon explains that it was the dividing of the people and their separation into tribes that destroyed the government (v. 2.) On the surface this might not seem like enough to destroy a government, but when you live in a tribe of your family, kindred and friends and your tribe has laws, your allegiances become torn. As they say, blood is thicker than water. These people are your relatives. To which laws do you owe your allegiance, the government or your tribe, if there is a conflict between the two sets of regulations? As long as families are nuclear and small (a mother, a father and children,) the power and pull of a family will be small and the power and pull of government will be large, but when families group together in common biological or friendship links (blood brothers), the power of a tribal family becomes large. The allegiance to it also increases. This may be why organized crime Mafia clans, which have blood ties and their own laws, command greater allegiance from their members than the legal government around them does. So, if you take the entire country, the USA, for example, and suddenly have everyone placed into a family clan or family tribe, suddenly the government loses all power, as allegiance to the government goes down to zero and allegiance to family, clan and tribe becomes all important.

A last thought: Before I learned anarchy from anarchists, I learned anarchy from state propaganda. I, like most, thought of anarchy as a great evil, to be avoided at all costs. I thought that any government was better than no government at all. Reading verse 5 of 3 Nephi chapter 7 seemed to solidify the propaganda. When Mormon used the phrase “all this iniquity,” I just figured he was talking about the anarchic, empowered tribal state, in other words, the destruction of the government. Now, though, I realize that tribes are not intrinsically evil. In fact, as LDS, we are placed into one of 12 tribes. So, Mormon was talking of different iniquities and not the ones that my state propaganda-ized mind was assigning, the iniquities of which he explains in this and the preceding chapter.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Stateless in Somalia: How Clannish Anarchy Works

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Biblical Anarchism

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist