Wendy Velazquez knew Daniel for five years. She said Saenz was a body builder and may have looked intimidating to officers, but she only knew him as a “sweet guy.”
“I just really think that his name shouldn’t be dragged through the dirt above all cause he was a great person,” said friend Wendy Velazquez. “He focused a lot of religion, his family, himself and I just think there was a huge injustice and I think people really need to look into that. I don’t know the whole story but according to what I’ve heard, I don’t believe it’s right.
Texas hero murders handcuffed prisoner Daniel Saenz, in cold blood. It all escalated after Daniel exhibited unruly behavior in public. Sheeple must remain ruly on penalty of death.
No charges for the El Paso hero. Start the video at the 18 minute mark. NSFW.
Daniel Saenz was taken into police custody after erratic behavior at a supermarket led him to be taken to a nearby medical center, where he is alleged to have assaulted an off-duty police officer and the facility’s staff.
Yup. That’s two capital crimes alright. Contempt of officer friendly and the disrespect of the always helpful staff you find in overcrowded bottom of the barrel public health centers. A twofer.
Here is a blurb and further info on Monty (Montesquieu)
and Montesquieu’s “The Persian Letters” (1721)
Montesquieu (1689–1755), was born into a family of noble judges near Bordeaux. He published The Persian Letters anonymously because he feared that his criticisms of the recently deceased Louis XIV might get him into trouble with government officials.
The novel made him an overnight sensation. He sold his position as a judge and devoted himself to travel and writing. In The Persian Letters, he uses a fictional correspondence between two Persians to reflect on the meaning of government and social customs.
He paid great attention to the treatment of women and the place of wives in society.
I am not about to write a dedication, nor do I solicit protection for this work. It will be read, if it is good; and if it is bad, I am not anxious that it should be read.
I have issued these first letters in order to gauge the public taste; in my portfolio I have a goodly number more which I may hereafter publish.
This, however, depends upon my remaining unknown: let my name once be published and I cease to write. I know a lady who walks well enough, but who limps if she is watched.
Surely the blemishes of my book are sufficient to make it needless that I should submit those of my person to the critics. Were I known, it would be said, “His book is at odds with his character; he might have employed his time to better purpose; it is not worthy of a serious man.”
Critics are never at a loss for such remarks, because there goes no great expense of brains to the making of them.
“There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.”
At what point does a grown man decide, “OK, I need to punch this teenage girl”? I’ll tell you when! When a perceived authority grants him permission to do any evil necessary to accomplish his goals. This is what cops are.
As libertarians, we question official premises. And the premises promulgated for mass control and social standardization. We find the flaws in them. We reject them for specific reasons. We learn to adopt our own premises.
And that is important.
But how much further does the rabbit hole go? What about the axioms we accept without consideration. We should get jobs, and not form or join gangs, is one such axiom.
We’ve already replaced their premises to good effect. Why not do further thought experiments regarding axioms as well?
Why not approach life with a nearly blank slate and reaffirm our bedrock axioms one by one? What if there were no jobs? Or if we consciously refused to work for a wage for any entity larger than a sole proprietorship?
I have been learning that all the axioms I once accepted are flawed as well. And that is all the further I’ve come. This doesn’t mean I have a functioning replacement axiom in mind. This doesn’t mean i’m a nihilist. Or that I subscribe to the false doctrine of full spectrum moral equivalence.
Wearing leather jackets and cooking meth, and punching a time clock in an office are not the same thing. But that is what is held to be the seen. That is the company line. What about what really is. We understand company life. What about gang life? What about gang life without state interference. And what about the unseen?
Is it more destructive to sell surveillance equipment for General Electric or to cook meth as a Hell’s Angel? On an axiomatic level, there’s little you can do about a mature entrenched worldwide matrix like General Electric.
But being a member of a gang involves a finite number of people with a finite number of options and possibilities. You can even start your own gang with some friends, or join one of the wide varieties of gangs already established. Don’t forget that the state allows these gangs to exist. They’ll come with flaws of their own.
But I think there’s more worth discussing about Motorcycle Club members than there is about a mega-conglomerate like General Electric. And what if your club goes around buying and selling all imaginable goods and services using bitcoin?
Or your gang works at day labor and odd jobs off the books. Or repairs motorcycles, autos, and machinery to raise club revenue. Maybe you all become rogue food delivery men, or run a two wheeled taxi service. Or supply needed muscle and physical presence to anyone who hires you as a mercenary service for a short term assignment.
Working in an office, and cooking meth and acting as smugglers and pirates are merely two ways of making a living at the axiomatic level.
Letting go of your axioms. Jettisoning your current operating system and starting fresh doesn’t mean you can’t still prefer one over the other. But is does make you do so for your own reasons, and not because your acting in a rote, unthinking manner.
Questioning axioms means listing objectively what is the difference between these two occupations? What are reasons pro and con for preferring either one or the other.
Being in a gang may not mean being violent or violating the NAP.
Working for General Electric may mean all manner of violence, fraud, or forced conscription is done out of sight and without your knowledge. And that you draw a paycheck in part because of these clear violations of the NAP.
When surrounded by such an immense matrix of standardized behavior and control, how significant is it really which one you choose? The crushing overwhelming reality is General Electric is just the camel’s nose in the tent of similar entities which furnish nearly every reality and convenience you’ve ever known.
Edison’s General Electric really started taking off after the dams were built at Niagra Falls and then several other locations. They’ve amassed inconceivable amounts of capital and have a hand in all kinds of products and services you’re not even aware of.
More than that, they are just a single entity in the vast international gang of giant associations just like General Electric.
You can have your opinions of it. You can form premises about it. But you can not easily alter it propensity to prosecute its axioms further and further every day.
Which axiom are you more drawn to? Fight, fuck, work, ride, drink, party with like-minded individuals?
Or restrain, control, ration, surveil, dictate, abstain, investigate, and spectate in isolation with other faceless, unthinking, unquestioning cipers, with no idea what’s really happening down in the rabbit holes and how all the magic happens, and who benefits, and who suffers, and how long any of it is even going to last?
@Tor – Your GE and more like them are described to a T in R. Buckminster Fuller’s “Grunch of Giants”. A Sorcerers and a Rosetta Stone book. But only for those who can still think.
If you give the in-your-face social indoctrination of the next generation of children, “The Lego Movie” more than 1/2 star for production quality don’t bother. It will just waste your time and confuse you.
That video is special to me. Why? Because when it came out I was working in the LA County women’s prison and locked in with 150 female trustees in their dorm 8 hours a day.
In exchange for their not scratching my eyes out I offered a late night big screen viewing of home movies with me and my fellow heroes providing Gay Pride Parade protection services.
A gaggle of nuns at the convent could not have been more cooperative.
Tor – They sent me over to the female big house in E. LA for two weeks. No thanks. I would rather deal with the Crips & the Bloods before going back there.
There’s a dude I see walking his dog sometimes in the morning. He’s got “13” inked on the back of his head in about 10 inch letters. He’s always smiling and seems harmless, but the 13 is probably not just his lucky number.
Years ago, I read Hells Angels by Hunter Thompson. The old-school Angels (’60s vintage) seemed mostly ok. Buncha dudes who liked to ride, drink, fight and fuck – not necessarily in that order. If they kept it to themselves – among themselves – I’m cool with it. In fact, I kinda dig the concept. The current Sons of Anarchy TV show touches on some of these themes. The lead character, Jax, is actually very Libertarian and basically a nice guy who just wants his freedom, to be left the hell alone. I can get behind that.
Washington Post interview with Sonny Barger July, 2000: I don’t have contact with him although my ex-wife talked to him before I got out of prison in ’92 (I was locked up for conspiracy). There was a lady named E. Jean Carroll who was writing a book about Hunter and wrote me in prison asking to talk to me and I agreed. Hunter found out I was upset with him because he never paid us the keg of beer he was supposed to pay us at the finish of the book. He sent word back via my ex that he was willing to pay it now; I said the beer was due in the ’60’s, not the ’90’s. The book is great reading and he’s a great writer, but I don’t think much of him as a person. He reneged on our deal.
(Personally knowing their lifestyle and rules I can say “no, not for me”. But I can and do appreciate the philosophy and belief system as expressed by the ultimate anti-clover.)
Sonny Barger- Freedom – Credos From the Road, 2005
Let me begin by saying that I am a lifelong fan of the American way of life., particularly the way of life and the rules that our founding fathers mapped out for us a couple of centuries ago. To me these rules are where freedom really lies. America was born out of a revolution staged by smart and tough renegades and radicals. Guys like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and Samual Adams are the quintessential American rebels, troublemakers and innovators who stayed loyal to one another and true to one single vision: freedom.
My way of life is an American way of life that requires a never-ending devotion to the “idea of” and the “practice of” freedom. Being aware of yourself and looking after your brothers, sisters, and partnetrs means staying vigilant and aware at all times. As much as I’m looking out at the road ahead, I am tempted to look over my shoulder, back at the legacy I am leaving behind, a legacy of brotherhood, loyalty, fun times, and hell raisisng. But I never look back. I always look ahead, to the side, but never back. Writing freedom made me ask myself a lot of serious, soul-searching bottom-line questions, questions you’ll need to ask yourself in the process of reading this book. Who am I really? What are my strongest beliefs? What do I stand for and represent? What’s worth living for? What’s worth dying for? What is my individual definition of freedom?
By the way, Sons of Anarchy is basically Hamlet redux, with a touch of MacBeth.
Sons of Anarchy is “biker flick meets Hamlet”
Jax is Hamlet.
Gemma is Hamlet’s mother Gertrude, with a dash of Lady MacBeth.
Clay is Hamlet’s uncle Claudius.
(Notice how the character names are similar, and begin with the same letters?)
Tara is Hamlet’s doomed love Ophelia.
So if someone gives you flak for watching a biker flick/series, just tell him you’re watching Shakespeare!
This is probably going to get me heckled, but so be it:
Shakespeare is impenetrable. I am suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise who isn’t also conversant in Elizabethan English. Which isn’t very many people.
Watching a play helps; eventually, you can sort of figure out the gist of it.
But otherwise? It’s almost as heavy going as trying to parse Sumerian.
Jose Flores, El Paso Police Officer, Buys Boots For 83-Year-Old Homeless Vet (Jan 2013)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/homeless-man-lowes-new-boots_n_2552890.html
Jose Flores, El Paso Police Officer, Executes Handcuffed Prisoner In Cold Blood (Mar 2013)
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Video-realesed-of-El-Paso-prisoner-shooting-5561875.php
Friends Mourn 37 Year Old Bodybuilder Killed by Jose Flores, El Paso Police.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_22777262/friends-mourn-man-shot-by-el-paso-police
Heroes Discuss Shooting By Officer Jose Flores
http://www.policeone.com/bath-salts/articles/7296293-Video-Suspect-shot-to-death-by-Texas-cop-in-jail-struggle/
Wendy Velazquez knew Daniel for five years. She said Saenz was a body builder and may have looked intimidating to officers, but she only knew him as a “sweet guy.”
“I just really think that his name shouldn’t be dragged through the dirt above all cause he was a great person,” said friend Wendy Velazquez. “He focused a lot of religion, his family, himself and I just think there was a huge injustice and I think people really need to look into that. I don’t know the whole story but according to what I’ve heard, I don’t believe it’s right.
http://www.innocentdown.org/2013/03/08/daniel-saenz/
Texas hero murders handcuffed prisoner Daniel Saenz, in cold blood. It all escalated after Daniel exhibited unruly behavior in public. Sheeple must remain ruly on penalty of death.
No charges for the El Paso hero. Start the video at the 18 minute mark. NSFW.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=932_1403035174
Daniel Saenz was taken into police custody after erratic behavior at a supermarket led him to be taken to a nearby medical center, where he is alleged to have assaulted an off-duty police officer and the facility’s staff.
Yup. That’s two capital crimes alright. Contempt of officer friendly and the disrespect of the always helpful staff you find in overcrowded bottom of the barrel public health centers. A twofer.
Horrendous – but becoming routine.
Summary execution for failure to submit & obey.
Where have I heard about that before . . . ?
Here is a blurb and further info on Monty (Montesquieu)
and Montesquieu’s “The Persian Letters” (1721)
Montesquieu (1689–1755), was born into a family of noble judges near Bordeaux. He published The Persian Letters anonymously because he feared that his criticisms of the recently deceased Louis XIV might get him into trouble with government officials.
The novel made him an overnight sensation. He sold his position as a judge and devoted himself to travel and writing. In The Persian Letters, he uses a fictional correspondence between two Persians to reflect on the meaning of government and social customs.
He paid great attention to the treatment of women and the place of wives in society.
Intro and 161 anonymously penned: “Persian Letters”
http://rbsche.people.wm.edu/teaching/plp/
Stanford’s archive of Montesquieu
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Monty’s other famous work: The Spirit of Laws
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm
Intro to the letters:
I am not about to write a dedication, nor do I solicit protection for this work. It will be read, if it is good; and if it is bad, I am not anxious that it should be read.
I have issued these first letters in order to gauge the public taste; in my portfolio I have a goodly number more which I may hereafter publish.
This, however, depends upon my remaining unknown: let my name once be published and I cease to write. I know a lady who walks well enough, but who limps if she is watched.
Surely the blemishes of my book are sufficient to make it needless that I should submit those of my person to the critics. Were I known, it would be said, “His book is at odds with his character; he might have employed his time to better purpose; it is not worthy of a serious man.”
Critics are never at a loss for such remarks, because there goes no great expense of brains to the making of them.
“There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.”
Montesquieu (thanks, RS)
At what point does a grown man decide, “OK, I need to punch this teenage girl”? I’ll tell you when! When a perceived authority grants him permission to do any evil necessary to accomplish his goals. This is what cops are.
As libertarians, we question official premises. And the premises promulgated for mass control and social standardization. We find the flaws in them. We reject them for specific reasons. We learn to adopt our own premises.
And that is important.
But how much further does the rabbit hole go? What about the axioms we accept without consideration. We should get jobs, and not form or join gangs, is one such axiom.
We’ve already replaced their premises to good effect. Why not do further thought experiments regarding axioms as well?
Why not approach life with a nearly blank slate and reaffirm our bedrock axioms one by one? What if there were no jobs? Or if we consciously refused to work for a wage for any entity larger than a sole proprietorship?
I have been learning that all the axioms I once accepted are flawed as well. And that is all the further I’ve come. This doesn’t mean I have a functioning replacement axiom in mind. This doesn’t mean i’m a nihilist. Or that I subscribe to the false doctrine of full spectrum moral equivalence.
Wearing leather jackets and cooking meth, and punching a time clock in an office are not the same thing. But that is what is held to be the seen. That is the company line. What about what really is. We understand company life. What about gang life? What about gang life without state interference. And what about the unseen?
Is it more destructive to sell surveillance equipment for General Electric or to cook meth as a Hell’s Angel? On an axiomatic level, there’s little you can do about a mature entrenched worldwide matrix like General Electric.
But being a member of a gang involves a finite number of people with a finite number of options and possibilities. You can even start your own gang with some friends, or join one of the wide varieties of gangs already established. Don’t forget that the state allows these gangs to exist. They’ll come with flaws of their own.
But I think there’s more worth discussing about Motorcycle Club members than there is about a mega-conglomerate like General Electric. And what if your club goes around buying and selling all imaginable goods and services using bitcoin?
Or your gang works at day labor and odd jobs off the books. Or repairs motorcycles, autos, and machinery to raise club revenue. Maybe you all become rogue food delivery men, or run a two wheeled taxi service. Or supply needed muscle and physical presence to anyone who hires you as a mercenary service for a short term assignment.
Working in an office, and cooking meth and acting as smugglers and pirates are merely two ways of making a living at the axiomatic level.
Letting go of your axioms. Jettisoning your current operating system and starting fresh doesn’t mean you can’t still prefer one over the other. But is does make you do so for your own reasons, and not because your acting in a rote, unthinking manner.
Questioning axioms means listing objectively what is the difference between these two occupations? What are reasons pro and con for preferring either one or the other.
Being in a gang may not mean being violent or violating the NAP.
Working for General Electric may mean all manner of violence, fraud, or forced conscription is done out of sight and without your knowledge. And that you draw a paycheck in part because of these clear violations of the NAP.
When surrounded by such an immense matrix of standardized behavior and control, how significant is it really which one you choose? The crushing overwhelming reality is General Electric is just the camel’s nose in the tent of similar entities which furnish nearly every reality and convenience you’ve ever known.
Edison’s General Electric really started taking off after the dams were built at Niagra Falls and then several other locations. They’ve amassed inconceivable amounts of capital and have a hand in all kinds of products and services you’re not even aware of.
More than that, they are just a single entity in the vast international gang of giant associations just like General Electric.
You can have your opinions of it. You can form premises about it. But you can not easily alter it propensity to prosecute its axioms further and further every day.
Which axiom are you more drawn to? Fight, fuck, work, ride, drink, party with like-minded individuals?
Or restrain, control, ration, surveil, dictate, abstain, investigate, and spectate in isolation with other faceless, unthinking, unquestioning cipers, with no idea what’s really happening down in the rabbit holes and how all the magic happens, and who benefits, and who suffers, and how long any of it is even going to last?
@Tor – Your GE and more like them are described to a T in R. Buckminster Fuller’s “Grunch of Giants”. A Sorcerers and a Rosetta Stone book. But only for those who can still think.
If you give the in-your-face social indoctrination of the next generation of children, “The Lego Movie” more than 1/2 star for production quality don’t bother. It will just waste your time and confuse you.
Darn WodPress limits.
I should have written “more than 1/2 star ONLY FOR IT’S production quality don’t bother.”
That video is special to me. Why? Because when it came out I was working in the LA County women’s prison and locked in with 150 female trustees in their dorm 8 hours a day.
In exchange for their not scratching my eyes out I offered a late night big screen viewing of home movies with me and my fellow heroes providing Gay Pride Parade protection services.
A gaggle of nuns at the convent could not have been more cooperative.
– oops, sorry, logged in as the wrong user
Tor – They sent me over to the female big house in E. LA for two weeks. No thanks. I would rather deal with the Crips & the Bloods before going back there.
Aren’t all women part time members of the Bloods gang?
‘Being raped by a gang is normal – it’s about craving to be accepted’
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/18/being-raped-by-gang-normal
Mara Salvatrucha 13 Women
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/centam-street-gangs-reject-rely-on-women-study
There’s a dude I see walking his dog sometimes in the morning. He’s got “13” inked on the back of his head in about 10 inch letters. He’s always smiling and seems harmless, but the 13 is probably not just his lucky number.
Wait until he takes his shirt off.
Years ago, I read Hells Angels by Hunter Thompson. The old-school Angels (’60s vintage) seemed mostly ok. Buncha dudes who liked to ride, drink, fight and fuck – not necessarily in that order. If they kept it to themselves – among themselves – I’m cool with it. In fact, I kinda dig the concept. The current Sons of Anarchy TV show touches on some of these themes. The lead character, Jax, is actually very Libertarian and basically a nice guy who just wants his freedom, to be left the hell alone. I can get behind that.
Eric – “Freedom” is a good followup book to read.
Washington Post interview with Sonny Barger July, 2000: I don’t have contact with him although my ex-wife talked to him before I got out of prison in ’92 (I was locked up for conspiracy). There was a lady named E. Jean Carroll who was writing a book about Hunter and wrote me in prison asking to talk to me and I agreed. Hunter found out I was upset with him because he never paid us the keg of beer he was supposed to pay us at the finish of the book. He sent word back via my ex that he was willing to pay it now; I said the beer was due in the ’60’s, not the ’90’s. The book is great reading and he’s a great writer, but I don’t think much of him as a person. He reneged on our deal.
(Personally knowing their lifestyle and rules I can say “no, not for me”. But I can and do appreciate the philosophy and belief system as expressed by the ultimate anti-clover.)
Sonny Barger- Freedom – Credos From the Road, 2005
Let me begin by saying that I am a lifelong fan of the American way of life., particularly the way of life and the rules that our founding fathers mapped out for us a couple of centuries ago. To me these rules are where freedom really lies. America was born out of a revolution staged by smart and tough renegades and radicals. Guys like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and Samual Adams are the quintessential American rebels, troublemakers and innovators who stayed loyal to one another and true to one single vision: freedom.
My way of life is an American way of life that requires a never-ending devotion to the “idea of” and the “practice of” freedom. Being aware of yourself and looking after your brothers, sisters, and partnetrs means staying vigilant and aware at all times. As much as I’m looking out at the road ahead, I am tempted to look over my shoulder, back at the legacy I am leaving behind, a legacy of brotherhood, loyalty, fun times, and hell raisisng. But I never look back. I always look ahead, to the side, but never back. Writing freedom made me ask myself a lot of serious, soul-searching bottom-line questions, questions you’ll need to ask yourself in the process of reading this book. Who am I really? What are my strongest beliefs? What do I stand for and represent? What’s worth living for? What’s worth dying for? What is my individual definition of freedom?
Hat tip, Gary – I wasn’t aware of this book; I will order a copy today!
Dear Eric,
Sons of Anarchy!
Hell yeah!
I’ve watched every episode so far. Really looking forward to Season 7.
Man, seeing Tara murdered by Gemma was a bummer.
I don’t know how the writers are going to deal with that development.
Morning, Bevin!
When I was in the trough of a really rough time domestically, I gave serious thought to a “SOA Solution”:
Get on the bike and just go. Wherever. Screw the house, forget the stuff. Forget it all – except the open road and come what may.
Came this close to doing it, too.
By the way, Sons of Anarchy is basically Hamlet redux, with a touch of MacBeth.
Sons of Anarchy is “biker flick meets Hamlet”
Jax is Hamlet.
Gemma is Hamlet’s mother Gertrude, with a dash of Lady MacBeth.
Clay is Hamlet’s uncle Claudius.
(Notice how the character names are similar, and begin with the same letters?)
Tara is Hamlet’s doomed love Ophelia.
So if someone gives you flak for watching a biker flick/series, just tell him you’re watching Shakespeare!
Yup – and I can understand SOA!
This is probably going to get me heckled, but so be it:
Shakespeare is impenetrable. I am suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise who isn’t also conversant in Elizabethan English. Which isn’t very many people.
Watching a play helps; eventually, you can sort of figure out the gist of it.
But otherwise? It’s almost as heavy going as trying to parse Sumerian.
Dear Eric,
Shakespeare IS difficult to get a handle on.
The key is to translate it into vernacular one can easily understand. If one can do that, then one can read the lines and sound natural.
Shakespeare is often presented in the popular media as something that must be delivered in a pompous manner.
That is exactly wrong.
Shakespeare to sound right, must be delivered in a manner such that it sounds exactly like a line in some TV series. The lines must be “thrown away.”
Here is an example of Shakespeare done right, delivered masterfully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-yZNMWFqvM