well I am more inclined to err on the side of expedience and what the real
world accepts as a standard definition. I think we can let ourselves get too
bogged down in philosophy when it comes to addressing and solving problems of
the day and the situation that Finicum and his cronies were involved in was a
problem of the day that they created.
Chuck
From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 6:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ‘The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered’
Well, if you use that definition you are ignoring a long and complex tradition
of anarchism with a whole body of scholarly theory and a complex history.
Anarchists from that tradition would rather object to this crude definition and
would not accept people who fit it as one of them.
On 3/6/2016 2:33 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman for DMARC) wrote:
this is the same definition of anarchist that I know and use and that I
referenced those people who are anarchists that portray selfishness that have
not done anything for anyone but themselves. I keep my politics real simple
without relating it to class struggles and the like as you all know.
Chuck
From: R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 8:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ‘The truth will
come out: Finicum was flat murdered’
Joe:
My definition of anarchist is about as follows:
anarchist
[an-er-kist]
a.. Examples
b.. Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2.
a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and
institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any
other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.
a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established
rule, law, or custom.
It may be that this is too simple for this talk group.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 3/2/2016 5:03 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
In fact again correct for most communal movements were varients of
traditional anarchist thoughts or even preceded the likes of Bakunin for that
matter. Regardless true anarchists are for cooperative and communal creation
and sharing of wealth. In other words they are for creating a sort of common
wealth in real terms. This is in fact the precise opposite of selfishness. I do
understand why Chuck would be confused though as so many right wing, selfish
and self labeled anarchists are quite selfish and are actually Randian
Libertarians rather than real anarchists.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)" mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
To: mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:21 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] ‘The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered’
My comment about bringing on the anarchy was intended as a sarcastic
response to your elevation of property over justice for human beings and the
then disparaging indication that otherwise you would have anarchy. But,
actually, I wonder if you have really ever known an anarchist. Most of the
people I have known who call themselves anarchists do not know what they are
talking about. I remember one who was a singer in a punk band who called
himself an anarchist and I asked him which anarchist tradition he adhered to.
He didn't seem to know what I meant so I offered some suggestions, Kropotkin,
Proudhon, Bakunin ... who? He then said that he was not an old anarchist, he
was a new anarchist. Then he threw around some words like death and
destruction. I just shut up having satisfied myself that he did not have the
slightest idea what an anarchist was. Then there was the woman who claimed to
be an anarchist and when I tried to explain to her where I thought anarchist
politics went wrong she also seemed to not know what I was talking about and
then went on to tell me about how important it was to vote for Bill Clinton.
The list goes on. There have been a few, though, who did adhere to traditional
anarchist collectivism. I worked with a man in the anti-draft movement who was
well grounded in anarchist politics and history. At a later time I got
peripherally involved in the defense of a high school student who was expelled
from school for being an anarchist. I had some conversations with her and while
I found her a bit naive she was definitely learning about and following
anarchist politics. Later she sued the school board and even though I was not
present in the courtroom I caught a report on television and was surprised that
my old comrade in the anti-draft movement testified as a friend of the court
and as an expert on anarchism. He turned out to be a university professor by
then. Since you describe the anarchists you have known as selfish people I
suspect that they were of the variety who claim to be anarchists but do not
understand what anarchism is. And if you take their claims of being anarchists
as good coin I suspect that you don't know much about it either. I do happen to
have some very strong reservations about anarchism, especially the position
about abolishing the state by decree and the theory that capitalism is a
manifestation of the state rather than the state being a manifestation of
capitalism or some other class system, but it is undeniable that many
anarchists have dedicated themselves to anarchist collectivism as both a
revolutionary goal and as a way of life. That is far from selfishness. In fact,
anarchist philosophy is completely incompatible with selfishness.
On 3/1/2016 12:54 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman for
DMARC) wrote:
what has anarchy ever done for people? The anarchists that I know of
are extremely self-serving and operate out of a very narrow perspective, their
own!
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ‘The truth will come out: Finicum
was flat murdered’
Property before people? How capitalist. Bring on the anarchy.
On 2/23/2016 6:38 AM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman for
DMARC) wrote:
the real issue here is how one chooses to fight for injustice. When
one crosses certain boundaries such as property lines there are potential
consequences. We live in a society where anarchy does not rule.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] ‘The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered’
And what does one risk when one chooses to not fight back against
injustice?
On 2/19/2016 9:26 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman for
DMARC) wrote:
when one chooses to live as an outlaw and adopt the ways of the
wild west taking over property that doesn't belong to them they run the risk of
being killed or murderedd if one chooses to use the melodramatic rflare.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] ‘The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered’
http://themilitant.com/2016/8007/800755.html ;
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 7 February 22, 2016
‘The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered’
BY SETH GALINSKY
Working people should denounce the cold-blooded Jan. 26 killing of
Robert “LaVoy” Finicum by Oregon State Police and the FBI; the
frame-up
conspiracy charges against Ammon Bundy and others who took part in
the
occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; and the
frame-up of
Dwight and Steven Hammond, two Harney County, Oregon, cattle
ranchers,
imprisoned for a second time on the same bogus arson charges dating
back
to 2001 and 2006.
“The truth will come out. LaVoy was just flat murdered,” Tad Houpt,
the
owner of a small logging company, said by phone Feb. 7. Finicum and
Bundy were traveling to a Jan. 26 community meeting that Houpt
helped
organize in John Day, Oregon, when they were intercepted by the
cops.
Bundy initiated the refuge occupation Jan. 2 to draw attention both
to
the frame-up of the Hammonds and to U.S. government land policies
that
have been undermining the livelihood of ranchers and farmers.
The persecution of the Hammonds outraged small ranchers and farmers
throughout the West — controlled burns are common to control
invasive
plants and to prevent the spread of wildfires.
Despite serving the sentence imposed by the trial judge, the
Hammonds
went back to jail Jan. 4, because of a U.S. Appeals Court ruling
that
their sentences didn’t meet federal minimum rules.
After the trial the U.S. Bureau of Land Management vindictively
revoked
the Hammonds’ grazing permits, threatening the survival of their
ranch.
Meanwhile, the Oregonian reported Feb. 6 that the scanty official
information and one grainy video released on the killing confirm
many
aspects of the accounts by Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp — who were
in
the pickup truck driven by Finicum.
According to both of them, the cops first fired one shot at the
vehicle
they were in after Finicum initially pulled over. Finicum then
shouted
out to the cops, “I’m going to see the sheriff,” a reference to
Sheriff
Glenn Palmer of Grant County, who was also scheduled to be at the
John
Day meeting and has been quoted in the press as saying the Hammonds
should be freed.
Finicum tried to drive away, but was soon forced off the road
again. The
Oregonian reports that the FBI admits lethal force was used when
the
truck “approached the checkpoint,” that is, even before the vehicle
crashed into the snow bank and Finicum gets out with his hands up.
Much of the capitalist press justifies the killing and prosecutions
by
labeling Finicum and Bundy as extremists and outside agitators.
“To his detractors,” the New York Times said, “he was a doctrinaire
leader of an illegal protest that is deeply opposed by many who
live
near the refuge.” The paper conveniently leaves out that most
people in
the area support the demand to free the Hammonds and are
sympathetic to
their opposition to the government land policies. Many local
residents
visited the refuge, met Finicum and Bundy or donated food and
supplies
to the occupiers.
Some 1,000 people attended Finicum’s funeral in Kanab, Utah, Feb .
5.
While pretending to be objective, the Times’ description of the
scene
plays on many of its readers’ prejudices. After the service there
were
“cowboys on horseback and members of so-called patriot groups
wearing
camouflage and carrying small weapons,” it reports.
The Times did quote one rancher from Nevada, Diana Clark, at the
funeral. “All of us ranchers feel like we’re backed into a corner,”
she
said. “And it’s hard to get anyone to acknowledge our needs, and so
they
gave us a platform.”
At least 22 smaller protests against the killing of Finicum took
place
Feb. 6, from Florida to Washington. One common placard was “Hands
Up,
Don’t Shoot,” a slogan first popularized by protesters against
police
brutality after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,
in
2014. At events in John Day and Prineville, Oregon, dozens of local
ranchers participated.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have now indicted 16 supporters of
the
occupation with conspiracy to “prevent by force, intimidation and
threats, officers and employees of the United States Fish and
Wildlife
Service … from discharging the duties of their office” at the
wildlife
refuge.
The list of what the indictment calls “overt acts” to further the
conspiracy is proof itself that the prosecution is a frame-up.
The first “act” it lists is an Oct. 5 meeting where Ammon Bundy
warned
Harney County Sheriff David Ward that if the Hammonds went to jail
there
could be “extreme civil unrest.”
Although the occupiers are not accused of pointing their weapons at
anyone, the indictment claims that they “brandished and carried
firearms.” Oregon law allows the open carrying of firearms.
Bundy released a statement from prison Feb. 6, noting that the
occupation was civil disobedience. He encouraged those “who
disagree
with my speech” or dislike his ideas to engage in civil discussion.
“If
you do not advocate for government to tolerate ideas that it hates,
then
the First Amendment and free speech mean nothing,” he said. “Arm
yourself with ideas. … Argue and disagree. Be free.”
Supporters of the Hammonds continue to organize. A new online
petition
calling on President Barack Obama to free the Hammonds had 3,341
signatures as of Feb. 9. The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association is
asking
that donations be sent to: The Hammond Family, c/o Sandra Carlon at
US
Bank, 493 N. Broadway, Burns, Oregon 97720.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
