[Peace-discussion] Re: Coalition with Libertarians Unless they Are Openly Racist or White Nationalists

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:43:33 -0500

Having been fired from one job for taking an anti-racist stance and
having damned near lost another for the same thing, I hope that Henry
is not referring to me here.
I also was attacked on three occasions in a violent way - one of us
nearly was killed- by the KKK.
So I do not like Henry's ignorant attack on me - if that is what it
was.   I will forgive - and not forget.
As for women's rights I was attacked by a senior administrator of my
institution in the press because of a position I took on hiring a man
for the leading position without allowing a woman to compete!  This
man has the power to fire me!!!  My coworkers for the most part
remained silent out of fear of being fired.
So I would say that anyone who attacks someone with these credentials
might be barred from being on any peace and justice committee.   Don't
you agree, Henry?
john walsh (MA delegate)
p.s. The degree of smug self-righteousness on some of these missives
stinks to high heaven.

On 12/15/07, henry duke <henryduke2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The nazi's, KKK, or radical libertarians in the minutemen; Me and mine shall
> have no coalition with.
>
> Being against the war because you want the National Guard back in the USA to
> build the wall against Mexicans, is a position I will not make coalition
> with, as these chauvinists are the growing righwing violent militias which I
> will positively peacefully oppose.
>
> I can make coalition with uneducated, unprincipled opportunists, or even
> evil cynical fools like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or Republicans
> who think Iraq is wrong because the real war should be in Afghanistan.
>
> And for the European Colonialist types who justify White or European
> "democracies" like Israel or South Africa as legitimate, yes, like the
> European conquests of the so called new world, they may be legitimate, but
> it is a legitimacy based on terrorism, violence, and war, and specifically
> White / European terrorism, violence, and genocide.
>
> Having blabbed that I can work in coalition with anti-war types, but when it
> comes to openly chauvinist folks, I draw a line, refuse,  and IMO - and very
> stubborn opinion -- we all should and I think we should exclude people from
> any peace action committee who are not committed to anti-racism or against
> womyn rights.
>
> For action,
> Henry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org
> [mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org] On Behalf Of Aimee Smith
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:15 AM
> To: John Walsh
> Cc: a.gronowicz@att.net; David Strand; Nick Schmader; GPAX Discussion List
> Subject: Re: So John, what's your plan...Re: [Peace-discussion] Must read.
>
> on fillibuster -
> There is someone in town very excited to join this campaign
> Will let you know what we come up with.  In particular, he wants
> to expose the democratic officials enabling war.
>
> On coaltion with Libertarians:
> in MI we have a third parties coalition with the libertarians (who
> have ballot status), socialists (who don't have ballot status), and
> US Taxpayers party (who like us have ballot status.)  It is mostly
> geared toward electoral reforms, but as far as I am aware, the
> alliance is cordial and productive.
>
> Aimee
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:05 PM, John Walsh wrote:
>
> > I might point out that the same "pwog" Dems like UFPJ have worked hard
> > to keep Greens, Libertarians and Ralph Nader out of the peace
> > movement.  We already have the  same enemies.
> >
> > Now you ask how an alliance with Libertarians is possible?  To do so
> > at the national level is something that needs work.  It will not
> > happen if we do not discuss it.
> > BUT I think of two things:
> > First, see FilibusterForPeace.org   Kevin Zeese (another Green),
> > myself and Richard Aucoin, the Libertarian Lt. Gubernatorial candidate
> > here in MA, started it.  In fact we fondly hope that GPAX will push
> > this - it shows that the Dems HAVE the power to end the war in a
> > veto-proof way to end the war.  They have the power but they favor the
> > war.  That is a great help in getting at the "left" wing of the
> > duopoly.
> > Let's discuss it in our next conference call.
> > Second, Kevin Zeese ran a Senatorial campaign in which he got the
> > endorsement of Libertarians AND Greens in MD.  That is a model for the
> > future.
> >
> > Right now Paul is much to be preferred over any of the candidates
> > running a real national campaign.
> >
> > john walsh (MA delegate)
> >
> > p.s. I stopped talking of sins when I abandoned my plans for the
> > seminary at age 17.  Or as Jesse Jackson said once, "This is politics
> > not theology."  Principles are essential and no one is speaking of
> > abandoning them BUT on the Left there is often a smugness about having
> > all the answers.  We do not.  Too often this smugness is a triumph of
> > ideology over fact - to paraphrase Ralph Nader in another context.
> >
> > On 12/15/07, a.gronowicz@att.net <a.gronowicz@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Correct.  Tony
> >>
> >> -------------- Original message from David Strand
> >> <mncivil@yahoo.com>:
> >> --------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Seven Deadly Social Sins
> >>>
> >>> Gandhi
> >>>
> >>> 1] politics without principle
> >>>
> >>> 2] wealth without work
> >>>
> >>> 3] commerce without morality
> >>>
> >>> 4] pleasure without conscience
> >>>
> >>> 5] education without character
> >>>
> >>> 6] science without humanity
> >>>
> >>> 7] worship without sacrifice
> >>>
> >>> John, I am willing to make alliances to end the war
> >>> but as far as your statements about "purity" I think
> >>> what you are calling "purity" is what many of us we
> >>> call "principles" and I don't believe in doing
> >>> politics without principles.
> >>>
> >>> Can we still form strategic alliances to achieve
> >>> common goals such as ending the war?
> >>>
> >>> Abso lutely.
> >>>
> >>> Do I think liberterians are gulity of several of
> >>> Ghandi's so called Deadly Social Sins?
> >>>
> >>> Yes!
> >>>
> >>> But I'm still willing to work with them towards common
> >>> ends.
> >>>
> >>> So, what is your proposal and how would it work?
> >>>
> >>> No one has said we can't do such alliances for
> >>> strategic purposes we are simply saying why we don't
> >>> support Ron Paul. Now a strategy to end the war
> >>> together with Ron Paul supporters, that is obviously
> >>> open to discussion, what does it look like?
> >>>
> >>> After all, even the nonviolent theologian and theorist
> >>> Bonhoffer found that sometimes actions he would have
> >>> thought unthinkable were right under given
> >>> circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> David Strand
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> ___________
> >>> ____
> >> & gt; Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> >>> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discussion mailing list
> Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
>
>
>