Peter Voluntaryist Walker

Essay: The Social Institution of the Dictionary (seven paragraphs)

(Revision Four copyleft Peter Voluntaryist Walker, 02-22-2018)
Who defines politically-left and politically-right? Most if not all of us presently living homo sapiens allow others to define life's most critical words like "left" or "right" for us because we are born as domesticated animals. In opposition, I've learn to define meanings -- not just words, meanings, for myself.
The word define means to describe and equally important, to differentiate from similar other things. For instance the academic field of zoology differentiates similar animals, say horses and zebras, as separate species if they can't routinely successfully interbreed. Definitions are among the most powerful of language tools and without agreed-upon definitions for key words used in problem solving, win-win solutions are almost impossible if not impossible to arrive at.
- Science-based definitions are much more objective and easier to agree on than definitions concerning human social interactions. Here indoctrination confuses word meanings. For instance to some, the word capitalism represents voluntary transactions; to others the very same word represents involuntary transactions such as corporate welfare. In such cases, if two people discussing an issue can't agree on a definition, they can come up with an agreeable substitute word. Scientists do this all the time, and if it can work for them it can work for anybody who doesn't have a sophist agenda. Where there's sophism, there's pseudo-discussion.
- I choose to have two or more definitions for social-interaction type words: What the word means to me, what the word means to most people, and what the word probably means to whomever I'm attempting to communicate with. This helps me communicate better, think better, and better recognize sophism.
- The dictionary is a social institution the same way the family is. Googling "TED talks dictionary" leads to an unconventional but true perspective of how the dictionary institution works -- almost like circular logic, where people writing dictionaries try to figure out what the general population means when they say certain words; and the general population trying to figure out what "the dictionary" says.
- TED Talks are examples of informative but incomplete information. Just as politicians are a special interest group, so are at least some of the people behind TED Talks. They and other powerfully entrenched special interest groups know they can't stop social change; and there's parts of social change they don't want to stop, because some but not all new things benefit them. Such groups seek to manage social change in a way that preserves the parts of the status-quo that benefit some at the expense of others. For instance, TED Talks won't publicize most dictionaries' customers being schools funded through governments, in-turn funded through managed illogic.
Thus the overall social institution of the dictionary supports euphemisms, ambiguity, and mal-definitions in social interaction related concepts as one small part of a much wider scope of using illogic to help the powerfully entrenched special interests manage social change in their favor. It's also a part of the dumbing-down process, because almost all of us humans are born logic and emotionally healthy but become easily manipulated if dumbed-down; and almost all of us are by forced tribal conformity; aka indoctrination, aka social engineering, aka human domestication (separate essays).
Endnotes -- None at this time.



I use my cell phone wallpaper to keep first things first.

To change it into wallpaper, I click "play" or "present" and screen-shot it.

This is a link to open the file if you have Google Docs installed on your computer, phone, etc. It is editable, so I'm not responsible for how it gets modified... I will check it from time to time...

Countries and USA States I've Been To

I know it's not all about me, rather several relatives have asked and they're not all on corporate platforms like Facebook, and sooner or later, neither will I...
Countries alphabetically: Canada, Germany, Ireland*, Italy, Mexico, Switzerland*, Turkey, USA.
* Stopover, didn't leave airport.
Alabama- X
Arizona- X
Florida- X
Georgia- X
Idaho- X
Illinois- X
Indiana- X
Iowa- X
Kansas- X
Kentucky- X
Louisiana- X
Maine- X
Maryland- X
Michigan- X
Minnesota- X
Mississippi- X
Missouri- X
Nebraska- X
New Hampshire-
New Jersey-X
New Mexico- X
New York-X*
North Carolina - X
North Dakota- X
Ohio- X
Oklahoma- X
Rhode Island-
South Carolina- X
South Dakota-X
Tennessee- X
Texas- X
West Virginia-X
Washington DC-X
* Stopover, didn't leave airport.


All posts are expanded (but not their comments) for your browser's Ctrl-F convenience -- please note the menu choice "SUB-WEBSITES (BICYCLING, MUSIC, PICS, ETC)" may contain what you're looking for, but if so, the related subject sub-website has to be opened to search it with Ctrl-F. Also the sub-websites don't have their own Subjects-aka-Tags menu selections yet made.

Commenting by non-bots/trolls is via

My Nonjudgmental Plain Vanilla Straight Dating Profile

This needs updating and meanwhile, I'm a veteran, meaning the feds etc know as much as they want, so I have little if anything to hide anyway.
My Nonjudgmental Plain Vanilla Straight Dating Profile
* Deal-breakers for 99% of female adults:
- Mo. income $2,300 & low assets/savings
- 67 yrs, 5'7", 130 lb, athletic bod, rainbow relatives (double-widowed, 1974 a black lady due to cigarettes, 2002 Native American due to alcoholism, I'm Caucasian).
- Part-time or non-LTR not for me, no exception; I will not even kiss on lips unless on-grid or off-grid married or the equivalent
- No driver's licence for the last or next decade
- 97% freethinker, minimal social skills, blunt, not "politically correct", a dork
- Vet AF E7, separated not retired
- "CO Red Card" light use edibles only
* If u r still reading:
- I only care about bone-deep beauty. We live >100 & one dies from natural causes & the other from a broken heart. "ENFJ-A Protagonist"; CDC-Kaiser=2 & resolved; equivalent adult trauma happens & I resolve it the same.
- Spiritually = participate/support/etc your choices, ForeverJung aka eclectic, archetype truths, Love is a verb, outdoors is my cathedral, Tao, Rastafari, 18 Christian commandments, more
* History
- 1952-74 Franciscans, serious sports etc, college+work+hitchhike >35 states/countries
- 74-2016 Two deceased spouses, #1 smoker's lungs, #2 Iraq vet booze, adult kids
- 94-2010
- 2010-now Semi Retired; multi-skilled, *Happily* helpful with kids/disabilities/pets/etc

* Example deal breakers for me (alphabetical):
- Any non-LTR (long term relationship) agendas, games, etc
- Corporate ("mainstream") Culture backstabbing (There are topics such as politics not discussed in polite company and those topics are not worth fighting about or breaking-up over.)
- Disloyalty
- Impoliteness
- Issues for bogus reasons like unfounded jealousy
- Issues needing fixed not getting fixed
- Incompatible morals / ethics / values / methods of disagreeing
- Life in the fast lane, workaholism, etc
- Not reasonably budgeting time together vs alone time
- Not using a qualified arbitrator such as a grievance counselor etc in trainwreck times when two heads are not good enough.
- LTR = Zero secrets, mind games, dishonesty, etc
- Old or new flames
- Putting rocks in snowballs
- Taking issues personal (I'm 100% in your corner anyhow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
- Unfriendliness

My Perfect Match:
* You are *usually* positive; *sometimes* dealing with life's curve-balls/trainwrecks and your preference is my privilege -- give you space, hold you, listen, talk, your choice.

The perfect three first dates:
*Safety first meaning we meet in a safe public place & fam/friends always welcome to chaperone or enjoy double-dating etc. Politeness always.
*It's not self-deprecating if it's true, and I am in person one half your expectations
*About first dates in general and the older those dating the more true:
- I used to not expect extremely personal details on a first date and I dated a lady whom caught me unexpected with emotional pain and I wasn't sensitive enough and I apologize so much, so much, so much.
- I have also dated people in denial about isms such as workaholism. If it's frosting on the cake, it's not addiction; if it is the cake...
-- Love is a verb, not a noun sitting on a shelf, & in my 20s I was such a gear-head I de facto loved gears more than my wife or children and now in my 60s with so much bad Karma to make up for.
*If we can agree on the above, dating will show any chemistry & if none, a graceful exit is a must to enable networking.

Medical Condition, Alphabetically….
Alcoholism* (Three Inactive years legally treated with CBD and THC)
Diabetes II* (Metformin, Glipizide)
High Blood Pressure(1) (2003 quad bypass) (Carvedilol)
OCD (not diagnosed but obvious and treated legally with CBD and THC)
Paperwork showing more disorders I had when I got my "red card" but since forgot what they were.
Probably more on my VA page I forgot
(1) Genetically they have me by the round things and pills only work in proportion to exercise.

My 2020 POTUS Line in the Sand

Unlike the USA, China and Russia have had identical foreign policies that respectively haven't changed in >100 and >70 years. Their dictators are for life like our SCOTUS,
If Tulsi were POTUS and Andrew VP, it would be bad-cop-good-cop because those of their respective skills and I conclude they are both competent to be better than any bad-cop-good-cop any other country/etc (aka "The State", capitalized because it is a religion) or NGO/etc can throw.
The same pattern applies to Trump-Pence and they are probably of the highest competence in bad-cop-good-cop, but it takes >four years to re-establish broken internal and international relationships and that puts the USA at a disadvantage.
Given the exponentially increasing risk of nuclear incidents/mishaps/wars, AI, etc, I see the Trump/Pence choice as the lesser evil of all other choices except the mega more tech-savvy/up-to-date possible choice Gabbard/Yang.

Lyrics "That Smell" by Lynard Skinyard


Whiskey bottles and brand new cars
Oak tree, you're in my way
There's too much coke and too much smoke
Look what's going on inside you

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you, yeah

Angel of darkness is upon you
Stuck a needle in your arm
(You, fool, you)
So take another toke, have a blow for your nose
One more drink, fool, would drown you
(Hell, yeah)

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

Now, they call you prince charming
Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes
Say you'll be alright come tomorrow
But tomorrow might not be here for you
(Yeah, you)

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

Aw, you, fool, you
You stick them needles
In your arm
I know, I've been there before

One little problem that confronts you
Got a monkey on your back
Just one more fix, Lord, might do the trick
One hell of a price for you to get your kicks
(Hell, yeah)

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

Ooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell?
Ooh, that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

Oh, you, fool, you
Don't stick those needles
In your arm
You're just a fool
Just a fool, just a fool

For my love
For my love, yeah

Eight Crucial Differences Between Healthy and Unhealthy Pride

8 Crucial Differences Between Healthy and Unhealthy Pride

True, or "Authentic," Pride Is World’s Apart From False, or "Hubristic," Pride.

Posted Sep 28, 2016

  • MORE
Source: Comfreak/Pixabay, Public Domain
I’ve always regarded pride as a healthy human trait, linking it favorably to self-motivation, confidence, respect, and acceptance. But obviously the Bible views it differently, labeling it one of the 7 deadly sins. So might there be a "bad pride"—but a "good pride" also, absent all the former’s negative connotations? Additionally, might pride exist along a continuum?—as in, pride is positive up to a certain level, but beyond that it’s malignant? Or might bad pride—let’s call it "unhealthy pride"—be not an excess of "healthy pride" (or "too much of a good thing"), but a different facet of personality altogether?

Personally, I believe there are two distinct kinds of pride, rather than degrees of pride. And in this post, I’ll draw some sharp contrasts between these two types.

Ironically, pride might be likened to a fantastical double-edged sword, with a harmless rubber tip on one end and a destructive, razor-sharp blade on the other. And (staying with this metaphor) the stinging, pointed-edge side can easily "cut" others—and so injure relationships to the "point" they’re irreparable.

Let’s consider in detail the marked differences between healthy and unhealthy pride, which all too often are overlooked in the literature. Although good and bad pride represent seminal aspects of human personality, they’ve really not received as much critical attention as they deserve. And the fact that the term is so often applied to one or the other kind of pride without the author’s explicitly specifying which type is being referred to clearly indicates how important—for clarity’s sake—they be lucidly distinguished from one another.

As Thomas Scheff, Ph.D., emphasizes (in his Psychology Today post "Genuine Pride Does NOT Goeth Before the Fall"): "The English language, particularly, confuses authentic pride with what might be called false pride or egotism . . . [and] to the point that it taints the positive meaning of pride."

So, here are 8 key features of this personality characteristic that can be deemed healthy (or, as often designated, true, authentic, or genuine), vs. the form of pride regularly viewed as unhealthy (or false, bad, arrogant, or hubristic). And I should add that as much as I’ve tried to keep these differences distinct from one another, there’s considerable overlap between them. Several descriptions might well fit a category other than the one I (somewhat arbitrarily) put them in.

1. Healthy pride is about self-confidence, reflecting an intrinsically motivating "can do" attitude. Those with such pride find their achievements richly satisfying and truly believe that "nothing succeeds like success." The pleasure afforded them through achieving things, or simply handling them effectively, makes them eager to follow up on individual accomplishments.

Those with unhealthy pride, however, may be equally incentivized to succeed, but the dynamics governing their motivation differ markedly. They’re inordinately driven to succeed—and repeatedly, because they can’t really internalize individual triumphs. If they’re to hold onto their ultimately tenuous self-confidence, they must constantly "prove" themselves—and not only to themselves, but to others as well.

The reason for their constant struggles is that deep down the self-doubt, or feelings of shame, that plagued most of them while growing up, still—though below surface awareness—continue to disturb them. By way of compensation (or actually, over-compensation), their brand of confidence is likely to come across as cocky, or "bullheadedly" confident. And that’s a pronounced reaction to what psychoanalysts allude to as "narcissistic injury" (i.e., their not feeling loved by their caretakers simply for who they were, but only for the quality of their performance—which, typically, needed to be superlative).

2. Healthy pride represents a positive notion of self-worth, and it’s based on a history where personal effort and expenditure of energy led to success. And a major factor in the achievement of such individuals is that they’re not satisfied with mediocre performance, striving rather to do the best that’s in them. Which is why their sense of self-worth merits being seen as "earned."

article continues after advertisement

Opposite this is unhealthy pride, which depicts an overly favorable evaluation of self, based on giving oneself too much credit for accomplishments that, typically, may be rather modest. Such over-valuing of one’s abilities or achievements can also relate to attributing to oneself successes that belong as much (or more) to others involved in whatever task or project was successfully completed.

People with healthy pride genuinely feel good about themselves. And that explains why such pride is routinely associated with high (though not artificially high) self-esteem. Contrast this with the elevated self-regard of individuals with unhealthy pride, which finally is bogus in that it’s inflated and easily punctured by criticism—which, in turn, can lead to the powerfully overblown defense of anger or rage.

Beneath all their professions of superiority is an insecurity that makes it virtually impossible for them to admit when they’re wrong, or say they’re sorry—and all too easy for them to feel attacked by others. (In this respect, the reader might wish to read an earlier post of mine called "Our Egos: Do They Need Strengthening—or Shrinking?". For here I distinguish between "strong egos," belonging to those with healthy pride, vs. "big egos," portraying the unhealthy variety of pride.)

3. Healthy pride is expressed in an assertive fashion, and it’s most often conveyed implicitly. It’s a quiet, self-assured affirmation of one’s capabilities. On the contrary, unhealthy pride is a far more aggressive—and explicit—declaration not of competence as such, but of personal superiority. It frequently takes the form of looking down on others, or putting them down, whereas healthy pride isn’t about announcing any supremacy, or "specialness," but simply demonstrating one’s authentic abilities.

article continues after advertisement

Free Concealed Carry Map

Don't Go To Jail For Not Knowing
Your State's Gun Laws – Get Your
Free CC Map From USCCA©

It naturally follows that people with healthy pride have far more satisfying and fulfilling relationships than do those with the unhealthy kind. For they prefer to work with others, not against them. More cooperative, confiding, and modest in their dealings, they’re also much more affable and agreeable—vs. the dogmatic, dictatorial, defensive, and distant manner of those with unhealthy pride.

4. Closely related to the above, healthy pride has nothing to do with comparing oneself advantageously (and frequently unfairly) to others, whereas a person with unhealthy pride regularly brags about their (often exaggerated) accomplishments. "Look at what I did!" might be their words, or sentiment, with the clear implication that no one else could possibly have done such a thing, or done it anywhere as well. For them, it’s not about doing their best, but about doing things better than anybody else.

On the contrary, someone with healthy pride might say: "I feel really good that I was up for tackling this, and it came out much better than I could have expected"—maybe even adding: "I don’t think I could have done it all by myself, so I need to acknowledge not only those who came before me, but those who offered me concrete suggestions when I was still learning how to do this."

5. As Jessica Tracy, Ph.D. has observed in her Take Pride (link is external)(2016), healthy pride is authentic. It’s an accurate, realistic estimate of one’s abilities, whereas what Tracy and other scholars call "hubristic" pride smacks of hyperbolic or distorted claims about one’s capacities. As such, individuals with this "false" pride are given to bragging and boasting, and exemplify dishonesty, arrogance and conceit. This self-aggrandizement—or better, grandiosity—is in fact at the very core of what most professionals regard as highlighting a narcissistic personality disorder.

article continues after advertisement

Moreover, such narcissists may well feel compelled to attempt things beyond their capacity to achieve them, for they so much require the adulation that comes from doing something others might not even dare attempt. And this is one reason that people with unhealthy pride more frequently fail at their (overly ambitious) endeavors than do those with healthier, more realistic and "restrained" pride. Narcissistically driven to realize their supposed perfection, their better judgment is impaired—as is the acceptance of their innate limitations.

6. As understood by experts, healthy pride relates to a person’s acting pro-socially (e.g., see Kaufman, 2012).  On the contrary, unhealthy pride links to what's generally deemed antagonistic, anti-social, or rule-breaking behaviors. The former individual encourages and galvanizes others, particularly since they’re likely to say: "If I can do this, so can you!" But one endowed (afflicted?) with unhealthy pride would imply—or outright proclaim—that what they did could only have been done by them and actively discourage others from following their example. For as competitive as they are, they’d much rather others not compete with them.

Authoritarian personalities, unfortunately so common in leadership positions, are essentially bullies. Assuming they know more than anyone else, their morally myopic perspective is characterized by smug self-righteousness and the belief that only they have the strength—or again, superiority—to be in control of others’ lives. And all too often their command leads them to take on a vaingloriously self-enhancing role that further fuels their unruly and (I might add) insatiable ego.

7. Those with healthy pride motivate and inspire others to take their lead and join them. They don’t so much "covet" their successes as evince the desire to share them. As such, others gravitate toward them, since they rarely feel threatened or intimidated in their company.

Compare this to individuals with unhealthy pride, who tend to "lord" it over others. They don’t want to share their successes, but rather do everything possible to make certain no one "trespasses" on them. In fact, in their general hostility toward others, they’re far more likely to initiate law suits against anyone whom they suspect of "stealing" what belongs exclusively to them. As a result of all this, if they gain adherents, it’s mainly because others are manipulated, intimidated, or coerced into following them.

8. Finally, healthy pride—unlike the unhealthy variety—isn’t egocentric. And that’s why those with such pride can take pride not just in their own accomplishments but in those of others as well. They can be proud of their children, their spouse, parents, friends, students—anyone whom they identify as showing the ability to advance themselves, or others, by putting forth their best effort.

Moreover, they’d never be proud of someone just because they won the lottery, for that would merely be a matter of luck. But for anyone struggling to overcome an impediment, or who made sacrifices in the all-out effort to do something remarkable, now that would be cause for them to be proud . . . and to celebrate the laudatory human potential to transcend—through sheer force of will and determination—typical deterrents to achieving something truly outstanding.

Since those with unhealthy pride commonly have narcissistic personalities, here are some complementary posts that I’ve published on such individuals:

The Truth About the Rehab Industry and 12-Step Programs

The Truth About the Rehab Industry and 12-Step Programs
19,708 views views
Published on Feb 17, 2015


Dr. Lance Dodes, retired professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, debunks the bad science behind "rehab" and 12-step programs, which have miserable success rates. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

Watch "Meet The Black Man With Two Biological White Parents" on YouTube

Meet The Black Man With Two Biological White Parents
Everybody Hates Angel                
Published on Sep 19, 2019
Don't forget to subscribe & hit the notification bell 🔔 so that you don't miss a video.
Please subscribe to my back up channel:
If you're a Black owned business, check out and advertize your business absolutely FREE!!!!!
Angel Ramirez-Jordan official social media:
Instagram & Twitter: @Angel_IKYG
My official website:
The strange but true story of Anthony Lennon. The man that was born to two white Irish parents, but he looks like a mixed race man. We also discuss Sandra Laing the South African born Black woman, also born to two white patents. Is Anthony Lennon mixed race, Black, white, transracial, a throwback or just confused?


Comments • 1,332 



Add a public comment...


    Pinned by Everybody Hates Angel 
For anyone curious or confused by Anthony Lennon's full name... Anthony changed his name legally, recently to "Anthony Ekundayo Lennon" to embrace his African Identity. He was not given this Yoruba name at birth.


If he has 32% African... someone in his family was passing for full White.


It’s not his fault. He had no control over his DNA.


It makes sense to me! Especially if you believe everything started from black anyway. I believe as much as people try to suppress, hide, breed out the black, it just comes back because the genes are too dominant


If he is 32% African, that means that one of his grandparents or one from each parent were passing for white.  I don't think his African DNA percentage would be that high if his parents and grandparents were really white.


He deserved that grant for all he went through alone.Rachel is a different case, she took all the privilege without the pain


Low key both him and his brother looked mixed as kids I don't think he is a throwback. Someone was passing and Ireland has a history of abandoned mixed race kids. There is a documentary about it. Ireland's forgotten kids, I think. It is very possible the African DNA was from a passing grandparent.


I think that though his parents and grandparents look white, one or more were actually Black but looked white. Someone or some people were "passing" because 32% African is a lot - all things considered. You tell a lie long enough it will pass as the truth, especially when those who know the truth take it to their graves.


Wow that shows how STRONG the Black gene is!!!


He can never walk around as a white man because of his skin.I just can't imagine his mind set or what he went through as a child. The man strong as hell.


I mean we (Africans) are the original man and woman sooo


That just goes to show us that we still have a lot to learn about genetics, not surprised though!!!🤷🏿‍♀️🤷🏿‍♀️🤷🏿‍♀️


So basically there was a relative who 'passed' and these are their grandchildren.  People who passed were often afraid that their offspring would reveal their true African identity.


This is just chickens coming home to roost for those that passed as white generations ago.


I’m only a minute in and hooked 😩


One of his parents was black and kept it a secret


Society forced him to identify as black, he accepted that and black people accused him of stealing their funds.. Difficult situation indeed..


Yes. Our Ancestral Bloodlines are very prominent.


No his mom wasn't banging the "black milk man".......It was his grandmother lol!


The world sees them as black so they have to adapt to being black... Perfect example of "if only we could live in a world that sees no colour".


The Ancient Greeks’ 6 Words for Love (And Why Knowing Them Can Change Your Life)

The Ancient Greeks’ 6 Words for Love (And Why Knowing Them Can Change Your Life) 
Looking for an antidote to modern culture's emphasis on romantic love? Perhaps we can learn from the diverse forms of emotional attachment prized by the ancient Greeks.
Roman Krznaric posted Dec 27, 2013
This article originally appeared in Sojourners.
Today's coffee culture has an incredibly sophisticated vocabulary. Do you want a cappuccino, an espresso, a skinny latte, or maybe an iced caramel macchiato?
Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks.
The ancient Greeks were just as sophisticated in the way they talked about love, recognizing six different varieties. They would have been shocked by our crudeness in using a single word both to whisper "l love you" over a candlelit meal and to casually sign an email "lots of love."
So what were the six loves known to the Greeks? And how can they inspire us to move beyond our current addiction to romantic love, which has 94 percent of young people hoping—but often failing—to find a unique soul mate who can satisfy all their emotional needs?

1. Eros, or sexual passion

The first kind of love was eros, named after the Greek god of fertility, and it represented the idea of sexual passion and desire. But the Greeks didn't always think of it as something positive, as we tend to do today. In fact, eros was viewed as a dangerous, fiery, and irrational form of love that could take hold of you and possess you—an attitude shared by many later spiritual thinkers, such as the Christian writer C.S. Lewis.

Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks. Which is odd, because losing control is precisely what many people now seek in a relationship. Don't we all hope to fall "madly" in love?

2. Philia, or deep friendship

The second variety of love was philia or friendship, which the Greeks valued far more than the base sexuality of eros. Philia concerned the deep comradely friendship that developed between brothers in arms who had fought side by side on the battlefield. It was about showing loyalty to your friends, sacrificing for them, as well as sharing your emotions with them. (Another kind of philia, sometimes called storge, embodied the love between parents and their children.)
We can all ask ourselves how much of this comradely philia we have in our lives. It's an important question in an age when we attempt to amass "friends" on Facebook or "followers" on Twitter—achievements that would have hardly impressed the Greeks.
Like what you're reading? We're nonprofit and ad-free—we depend on readers like you. Subscribe or donate today to keep YES! going strong.

3. Ludus, or playful love

This was the Greeks' idea of playful love, which referred to the affection between children or young lovers. We've all had a taste of it in the flirting and teasing in the early stages of a relationship. But we also live out our ludus when we sit around in a bar bantering and laughing with friends, or when we go out dancing.
Dancing with strangers may be the ultimate ludic activity, almost a playful substitute for sex itself. Social norms may frown on this kind of adult frivolity, but a little more ludus might be just what we need to spice up our love lives.

4. Agape, or love for everyone

The fourth love, and perhaps the most radical, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers. Agape was later translated into Latin as caritas, which is the origin of our word "charity."
C.S. Lewis referred to it as "gift love," the highest form of Christian love. But it also appears in other religious traditions, such as the idea of mettā or "universal loving kindness" in Theravāda Buddhism.
There is growing evidence that agape is in a dangerous decline in many countries. Empathy levels in the U.S. have declined sharply over the past 40 years, with the steepest fall occurring in the past decade. We urgently need to revive our capacity to care about strangers.

5. Pragma, or longstanding love

Another Greek love was the mature love known as pragma. This was the deep understanding that developed between long-married couples.
Pragma was about making compromises to help the relationship work over time, and showing patience and tolerance.
The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm said that we expend too much energy on "falling in love" and need to learn more how to "stand in love." Pragma is precisely about standing in love—making an effort to give love rather than just receive it. With about a third of first marriages in the U.S. ending through divorce or separation in the first 10 years, the Greeks would surely think we should bring a serious dose of pragma into our relationships.

6. Philautia, or love of the self

The Greek's sixth variety of love was philautia or self-love. And the clever Greeks realized there were two types. One was an unhealthy variety associated with narcissism, where you became self-obsessed and focused on personal fame and fortune. A healthier version enhanced your wider capacity to love.

This article is based on the author's new book, How Should We Live? Great Ideas from the Past for Everyday Life.
The idea was that if you like yourself and feel secure in yourself, you will have plenty of love to give others (as is reflected in the Buddhist-inspired concept of "self-compassion"). Or, as Aristotle put it, "All friendly feelings for others are an extension of a man's feelings for himself."
The ancient Greeks found diverse kinds of love in relationships with a wide range of people—friends, family, spouses, strangers, and even themselves. This contrasts with our typical focus on a single romantic relationship, where we hope to find all the different loves wrapped into a single person or soul mate. The message from the Greeks is to nurture the varieties of love and tap into its many sources. Don't just seek eros, but cultivate philia by spending more time with old friends, or develop ludus by dancing the night away.
Moreover, we should abandon our obsession with perfection. Don't expect your partner to offer you all the varieties of love, all of the time (with the danger that you may toss aside a partner who fails to live up to your desires). Recognize that a relationship may begin with plenty of eros and ludus, then evolve toward embodying more pragma or agape.
The diverse Greek system of loves can also provide consolation. By mapping out the extent to which all six loves are present in your life, you might discover you've got a lot more love than you had ever imagined—even if you feel an absence of a physical lover.
It's time we introduced the six varieties of Greek love into our everyday way of speaking and thinking. If the art of coffee deserves its own sophisticated vocabulary, then why not the art of love?

Bobby Kennedy on GDP: "measures everything except that which is worthwhile"

How GDP failed. Robert Kennedy addresses an election rally in 1968. Photograph: Harry Benson/Getty Images

University of Kansas, March 18, 1968

Even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
If this is true here at home, so it is true elsewhere in world.

The Truth About Codependency

The Truth About Codependency
41,996 views views
Published on Nov 18, 2015


The surprising science of alpha males | Frans de Waal

The surprising science of alpha males | Frans de Waal
230,297 views views
Published on Jul 9, 2018


In this fascinating look at the "alpha male," primatologist Frans de Waal explores the privileges and costs of power while drawing surprising parallels between how humans and primates choose their leaders. His research reveals some of the unexpected capacities of alpha males -- generosity, empathy, even peacekeeping -- and sheds light on the power struggles of human politicians. "Someone who is big and strong and intimidates and insults everyone is not necessarily an alpha male," de Waal says.

Check out more TED Talks:

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.

Follow TED on Twitter:
Like TED on Facebook:

Subscribe to our channel:

The art of argument | Jordan Peterson

The art of argument | Jordan Peterson
58,106 views Recommended for you
Published on Jul 15, 2018


Do you really want to win an argument, or do you want to find mutual ground and understanding? Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson feels that in most cases it's the latter. It might take some getting used to, he posits, as acquiescence by its very nature means admitting that you're wrong in some way.


Follow Big Think here:

Jordan Peterson: So how do you deal with situations where your words are likely to be used out of context, let’s say.

And that’s a situation I’ve encountered. Well, you see, you encounter a situation like that very frequently. Everyone does in their life. If you’re having a discussion with someone you live with, for example, so someone you have to be with for a long time – a lover, boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband—sibling for that matter. You’re going to have contentious discussions about how to move forward and it’s very frequently the case that your words will be – that you’ll be straw-manned. Your words will be taken out of context.

The other person (and you too!) will try to win instead of trying to solve the problem. What you have to kind of decide is – well two things. The first thing is: you’re probably wrong in some important way. And you might think "Well, so what?" But no, it’s not so simple. Being wrong in some important way is like having a map that doesn’t correspond to the streets.

If you’re wrong in some important way, when you go to where you’re going you will get lost and you might end up in a neighborhood that you don’t want to visit! So it actually matters if you’re wrong.

And so now if you’re talking to someone who is acting in opposition to you, it’s possible that during your contentious discussion they will tell you something—about how you’re wrong—that’s accurate. Now you’re not going to be very happy about that, because like who wants to discover that they’re wrong?

But it’s better to figure out that your map is inaccurate than it is to get lost.

And so one of the things you have to remember when you’re discussing things with people, even if they’re out to defeat you, let’s say, is that there is some glimmering of the possibility that you could walk away with more knowledge than you walked in with.

And that’s worth – that can be worth paying quite a price for.

And so I’ve had the opportunity to engage in public debate of an exceptionally contentious nature for let’s say 18 months nonstop, fundamentally. And it’s been very stressful. But the upshot of that is that my arguments are in much better shape than they were, and—I shouldn’t say that. My THOUGHTS are much more refined than they were at the beginning of this process. It’s not my arguments are in better shape. That’s not the right way to think about it.

It’s that I’m clearer about what I know. I can articulate it better. And that’s all forged in the heat of conflict.

If you’re discussing a contentious issue with someone you love and that you have to live with and put up with, you want to listen to them. Because what you really want to do is establish a lasting peace, and you might even have to make their arguments for them. Maybe you’re more verbally fluent than your partner (which doesn’t mean, by the way, that you’re more right, it just means you can construct better arguments on the fly. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re more accurate).

You might have to help your partner formulate their arguments so that you can really get to grips with what it is that they’re trying to say. So that you can alter the way that you’re constructing your own narrative and your joint narrative, so that you’re not butting heads unnecessarily as you move forward through life.

It’s not a very good idea to win an argument with your wife. That isn’t what you want, because then you have a defeated partner. And a defeated partner is not happy. And a defeated partner is often out to reclaim the defeat.

And so as a strategy for moving forward with someone who you’re going to wake up beside 5,000 times it’s not a very advisable strategy. It’s better to listen, to flesh out the argument on both sides, and to see if you can come to a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement. And that’s the case in most encounters in life if you can manage that. But it’s easy to want to win.

Are You a Fascist? The Real F-Scale by Tom Woods

Are You a Fascist? The Real F-Scale by Tom Woods
216 views Recommended for you
Published on Jul 4, 2018


If you like this, you’ll love The Ultimate Red Pill:

Follow me on Twitter at: @an_capitalist Keithknight13 @KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone
BitChute: KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone

Tom Woods - Myths of the Addiction Industry

Myths of the Addiction Industry
2,456 views views
Published on Feb 21, 2018


Steven Slate, who once struggled with drug use himself, joins me to talk about whether what we think we know about addiction is really true. Is addiction a "disease"? Is "treatment" the only way to deal with it? Are people who believe that don't need treatment "in denial"? Is moderate consumption always off limits for people who have had problems? Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

Top Comments

Ed Waggoner Sr. | 4 months ago
My dad always said he was a drunk and that being a drunk was a sin. His sister referred to herself as an alcoholic and had a disease. My aunt was in treatment for her entire adult life. It was hard for my dad to give up the habit he had created but he did it (with a little tough love from my mom). My aunt spent a ton of money, both her own and from the STATE. My dad didn't spend a dime. My dad spent a lot of time on his spiritual life, priests work for free, my aunt spent a lot of time with expensive therapists.

Jimmy Catalina | 4 months ago (edited)
12 step programs are cults. First rule of cults: Thou shalt not disagree. They want you go to meetings for the rest of your life. At every meeting they reinforce the idea that they are all still addicts even if they haven't done any dope for years. They refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. I smoked pot for 30+ years. Eventually l decided it just wasn't good for me and l stopped.

Charles L | 3 months ago (edited)
They actually teach you how not to "waste" your drugs and validate your "weakness" because it's not your fault, it is the addiction or disease. Additionally, if you for instance stop drinking / other annually for a month, two, three or even six months a year, then they just tell you, "Yeah, but you just can't maintain it by 'white knuckling' it. You have to go to AA forever." In rehab, ON THE FIRST DAY & EVERYDAY they tell you over 85% of you are going to keep relapsing.

jeffersonianideal | 3 months ago
16:34 "On the order of more than 90%. More than 90% of alcoholics will get over it." Did Mr. Slate arrive at his calculation by including death as an acceptable remedy? Could it be that Mr. Slate is either conflating or confusing his claim with the 2014 CDC study that found 90% of heavy drinkers are not considered to be alcoholics?

jeffersonianideal | 3 months ago (edited)
6:42 I've always been skeptical of the claim that an addiction such as alcoholism is merely a hereditary disease. (26:58) Also, while there may not be conclusive evidence to show addictive personality disorders exist, there is no disputing that some individuals for whatever reason are more susceptible to habitual behavior than other individuals. Any non-drinker who puts up with the antics of raging alcoholics knows this. Still, I can help but to conclude after listening to Mr. Slate's assertions that he's oversimplifying certain elements of the problem.

The Famed Hater | 3 months ago
Tom, can you do a video, or point me to one where you discuss patent and copyright laws and the role they play in forming and maintaining monopolies

DHRGrafix | 3 months ago
I've seen Steven Slate's commercials for a number of years and was intrigued. As someone who broke free of the addiction model myself I wondered what his take was. But having come to a balance in my own alcohol and drug use I wasn't in need of his services so I never followed up. I'm glad Tom ran this episode. Steven Slate and I came to similar conclusions about the disease model of addiction. I was particularly interested in the various studies Steven cited that seem to debunk many cherished 12 step program myths. I look forward to reading his book.

jeffersonianideal | 3 months ago
I'm surprised there was no mention of the code of self-ownership and the principle preserving someone's option to engage in unhealthy or dangerous behavior so long as they do not violate another individual's right to life, liberty, or property.

EgadsNo | 3 months ago
Use is different then abuse. If you take rats and put them alone in a small cage with two water bottles, one has opium laced water, and the other has water. They will eventually overdose. Take a large group of rats, and put them in a safe and stimulating environment, well fed and offer them the choice between opium laced water and plain water and they won't overdose. Some will periodically ingest the laced water though.

Rica The Hopeful Voluntarist | 3 months ago
Great show! Until the end... :(

JFK and Free Speech Versus The Establishment

(About six paragraphs with endnotes, Revision Two copyleft 4-27-2016 by Peter Voluntaryist Walker)
Me posting this graphic doesn't mean I agree with all the notes added to the original photo, rather it shows even the Warren Report narrative reflected here is full of holes, such as why the School Book Depository wasn't cleared for snipers prior to the POTUS riding in an open-top car directly underneath it.
History is very much like a routine fender-bender with several witnesses who mostly provide honest but nonetheless conflicting narratives; with the seldom but occasionally dishonest alleged witnesses further muddying the water. I so far conclude the JFK assassination incident had an unusual amount of dishonest witnesses in USA government employ:
1. November 22, 1963, I was ten years old, it was a school day, and in those days a typical USA kid such as myself could go home for lunch; in my case a quarter-mile. I was returning to school and walked up to the intersection of Maple Avenue and Main Street in Downers Grove, Illinois, a town then much like Mayberry RFD. The crossing guard said, to honestly recall and quote/paraphrase to the best of my memory, "President Kennedy has been shot". He seemed to be in a state of confusion and when us several kids asked questions, he kept saying "I don't know, I don't know." Us group of kids walked to our classes and I can only speak for what happened next in my class.
2. I took my seat among about fifteen other economically very well-off kids who also demonstrated shock with their unprecedented silence. Our teacher was Miss Sealy and the principal Miss Moorehead who walked into our room and told us JFK was dead. All of our demeanors demonstrated shock and reverence.
3. Eleven years later I entered USAF basic military training (BMT). I earned a marksmanship ribbon even though I had never used a firearm until that M-16 -- I simply followed instructions very well with an accurate piece of technology: "During the actual firing, you'll fire a total of 80 rounds at a man-sized target (upper body only) at ranges from 75 meters to 300 meters... The range at Lackland is a short range ... the target sizes are shrunk to represent the proper sizes at the specified distances (75 meters, 175 meters, and 300 meters)" -
4. In 2015 I didn't plan to visit the site of the JFK assassination, but my Greyhound bus had a two-hour layover just down the street and I walked there. Remembering BMT, I immediately recognized the School Book Depository as an ideal sniper's nest and was surprised at how close the School Book Depository was to a POTUS riding in an open-top car -- *directly underneath* with tons of documentation the building was never cleared prior to the POTUS procession -- something even a person with no more education than BMT would demand: In commonplace military training/real-world jargon, "Why haven't you cleared that nest yet you dumbasses!!!"
5. Free Speech and The Establishment: Between now and curve balls such as martial law, I can within reason express free speech as long as I remain a small fish; but no way I can recount my personal JFK experiences in any more public forum without getting ad-hommed. Nonetheless, I reflect that during my twenty-so years in the USAF including multi-service and multi-national-military assignments, almost every military member discretely discussed smelling a rat in the JFK incident but knew what to keep extremely low-level about -- that is, when we knew what was good for us. Ditto my fifteen-so years as a public school teacher. Today I'm ashamed of much of the above and can only do my best to make restitution to my Bill of Rights oath.
Paragraph 1. - Mayberry RFD -
Paragraph 4 graphics - The graphic with the annotations inserted reflect the Warren Commission's version of events; nonetheless, the route shown is historically valid and verifiable.
Paragraph 5:
- The Establishment: "...tons of documentation the building was never cleared prior to the POTUS procession..." - The fact the Warren Commission had the opportunity to blame a sniper in the building is empirical evidence; additionally, where are the government personnel witnessing they cleared it(?), and there's Also, what a coincidence the person JFK fired from being the head of the CIA was appointed to head the Warren Commission, etc., etc.
- "...Bill of Rights..." - is about a government official swearing an oath using *the draft* USA Constitution, not *the* USA Constitution. *The* USA Constitution was and to me remains conditional on the BoR being followed; this doesn't mean my oath has an expiration date or that if I'm officially or unofficially reactivated into the military or whatever that I won't defend; but it does mean I won't exclude the BoR from my actions/inactions, including *the original* interpretation of the Second Amendment, not the neolib/neocon one that says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." means only in armories controlled by ruling elites -- it says "bear", duh!

Bogus Limey "News" Crown-vs-Epstein Interview

They start the interview with "...who committed suicide..." and continue and end the interview with The Establishment line "Nothing to see here folks"; i.e., "Silly sheeple, laws are for you, not your owners."

Your Wildest Dreams via Moody Blues, and I Have a Few Myself...

Old age ain't for sissies and me being here is nothing less than my wildest dreams in the 50s coming true in the 60s, where the true me has happily been stuck in ever since. What Jung called the "shadow self" was true all those decades for the breadwinner part of me, which I did twice and broke tons of barriers in having fun doing so.

It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

Please Note: This is the source for the quote "He not busy being born is busy dyin' "
It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)
5,141,512 views views
Published on Apr 21, 2014


"Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon
There is no sense in trying

As pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you'd just be one more
Person crying

So don't fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing

As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred

Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Make everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred

While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you've got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it

Advertising signs they con
You into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you

You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you

A question in your eyes is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit
To satisfy, insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not forget
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to

Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to

For them that must bow down to authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone living in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To tell fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer's pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death's honesty
Won't fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes must get lonely

My eyes collide head-on with stuffed
Graveyards, false goals (gods), I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough, what else can you show me?

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only"

Top Comments

MsB - Springsteenfan | 1 year ago
Congratulations to Bob, awesome.....Bob deserves his Nobel Prize!!

Principled Uncertainty | 2 years ago
The greatest song ever written.

Leopard Skin Pillbox Hat | 1 year ago
My current obsession with this song is unhealthy

Gerd Moe-Behrens | 1 year ago
Congratulations - Nobel prize in literature - awesome!

TheGhost5600 | 1 year ago
How in the world did he remember all those lyrics?

Jumpin' JAKE Flash | 1 year ago
My favorite song by the greatest songwriter of all time.

Grant Neal | 1 year ago
Not sure why everyone likes to shit on Dylan's singing. He's got a great voice.

Jack Smith | 2 years ago
The good news; this is still a great song, The bad news; the shit is still going on.

Maria Pratiwi | 2 years ago
OMG.. that's very long lyric! you're so amazing Dylan

Conrad Conero | 1 year ago
A true genius. Congratulations on the well deserved Nobel Prize!

I've studied nuclear war for 35 years -- you should be worried. | Brian Toon | TEDxMileHigh

I've studied nuclear war for 35 years -- you should be worried. | Brian Toon | TEDxMileHigh
1,359,817 views views
Published on Feb 1, 2018


For the first time in decades, it's hard to ignore the threat of nuclear war. But as long as you're far from the blast, you're safe, right? Wrong. In this sobering talk, atmospheric scientist Brian Toon explains how even a small nuclear war could destroy all life on earth -- and what we can do to prevent it. A professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder, Brian Toon investigates the causes of the ozone hole, how volcanic eruptions alter the climate, how ancient Mars had flowing rivers, and the environmental impacts of nuclear war. He contributed to the U.N.’s Nobel Peace Prize for climate change and holds numerous scientific awards, including two NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. He is an avid woodworker. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at

Freedom Movement Timeline Versus Strawman Attacks - The Art of Not Being Governed

Written by Peter Voluntaryist Walker
(Mini-essay "Freedom Movement Timeline Versus Strawman Attacks" Release Three 9-22-2014. R2 added Paragraph 9 and R3 updated Paragraph 9.)

1. Present mainstream culture includes a practice of refusing to consider any alternative to the social institution of the state, aka government. A common strawman argument against those discussing more than one way to solve a problem is to portray us as naive or as advocating violence.

2. I’m anti-revolution because I’m pro-evolution, meaning successful anarchy will first require a multi-generational cultural change. Present society isn’t ready for instant statelessness, but to say our species never will be is a non sequitur.

3. For the same reason, I’m not wholesale anti-military or anti-police; they’re individuals and like all groups of individuals, some are healthy towards the generic individual in society, and some are not.

3.a. The root cause of war is very small percentage of individuals who, as sociopaths, find it advantageous based on the assumption they as individuals won’t fall victim. In the future, those they prey upon will have the knowledge to raise children in a way that they don’t become sociopaths, and those few remaining sociopaths will be identified and cared for as insane rather than followed.

3.b. Just as present society isn’t ready for instant statelessness, so it’s not ready to be instantly devoid of military or police. Rather, the social institutions of large-scale defense and local law enforcement will transition over generations into some different form; probably more of a preventive than reactive nature. Present generations can speculate and possibly pass some ideas forward, but future generations will determine the exact what and how. The same applies to preventing government from rising again.

4. It took the western civilization abolitionists from the early 1700s to the early 1800s to change mainstream culture from accepting chattel slavery to abhorring it. Chattel slavery was abolished through laws enforced through violence. One-sided advances in weaponry since then mean violence won’t work against the state. However, as a parasite, it can be starved once enough people — especially military and police — understand what it is and what the alternatives are.

6. Presently the discussion of government’s true nature and its alternatives is just beginning. We’re where the abolitionist were in the 1600s; discussing and experimenting mostly among ourselves. However, our message may spread faster due to technologies in our favor.

7. Like science, alternatives to the state advance one generation at a time because the gatekeepers are invested in the status quo. Their weakness is they’re more invested in themselves than future generations. Another is they don’t produce wealth, they only transfer it. The social institution of the state is a parasite, and parasites can be starved.

8. Although I agree with the logic of anarcho-capitalism, I see no problem with multiple other systems existing side-by-side, as long as one doesn’t impose on another or on the individuals involved. Additionally, future generations may develop presently unknown better ideas and implementations.

9. A comment I got on Release One of this essay was "‘Present society isn’t ready’ is not a very convincing defense for moral violations–what does that have to do with my right to be free?" I wrote the above mini-essay based on people naysaying about the future, so that’s why I overlooked that point. I may not be the best person to answer the question, but I am (in my unbiased view) a concise writer who writes as a part of his critical thinking process. So I wrote Paragraph 4.d. of


Paragraph 1.: Government in the context of the state differs from the concept of government in the context of an individual governing him or herself.

– Some are too impatient to consider multi-generational change as a strategy.

– An illusionary shortcut to multi-generational change is the idea of just getting the correct people into office. But any system depending on the benevolence of its office holders is a bad system.

Paragraph 2.: By "successful anarchy", I don’t mean 100% perfect societies, I mean multiple social institutions to choose from being in total more successful than the social institution of the state. I assume our species doesn’t go extinct first; whether or not we do is probably about a 50-50.

Paragraph 3.: By the generic individual in society, I mean the smallest minority is the individual; that individual rights trump any alleged group rights.

Paragraph 8: One misunderstanding about anarcho-capitalism is everything is for-profit. Wiki-type organizations, charity organizations, etc. are all within the original definition an-cap-ism; with the caveat that for-profits can choose to compete with charities or whatever other organization.


If you enjoyed this article you can follow Peter on his Facebook page Peter Voluntaryist Walker, his website

The Science of Hierarchy

The Science of Hierarchy (essay) (pic)
(Six paragraphs, Release Two, Copyleft 2018-06-05 by Peter Voluntaryist Walker)

The 300M number Dr. Jordan Peterson(1) cites is a one possibility and the hierarchy going back only 13M years(2) is another. Orangutans and homo sapiens have a common ancestor about 15 million years ago, but orangs live without social hierarchy(3). This is probably why a small percentage of our species prefer to live as lone hermits: It's very possibly due to a recessive gene from not that long ago. It's also possible orangs had parallel evolution where they dropped hierarchies. The 300 million years ago when lobsters started having hierarchies could also have been their parallel evolution not inherited from the common ancestor we share with them.

1. They are in homo sapiens DNA. 2. Voluntary human societies such as the Moresnet case study(3) had/have hierarchies *but* individuals were free to leave one hierarchy for another *or* for no hierarchy at all.

Science Notes:
We homo sapiens are equally or more hierarchical than chimps in their wild state. Our bipedal ape ancestors split off from them about six million years ago. Species change little if they don't have to; thus before our and chimps' common ancestor split, that ancestor was almost the same as today's chimps: Mega hierarchical and murderous (50% of male chimps die in chimp border patrol violence and chimps do genocide against other chimp troops; each troop having unique cultures in their troop sign languages etcetera; just as some human political cultures commit genocide).
- The main difference from us, chimps and bonobos (they split from chimps 2M ago) is our huge fore-brain versus their puny fore-brain. The three main *systems* of the mammal brain are hind, mid, and fore-brain; respectively instincts, emotions/subconscious, and intellect/future-forecasting. In each of us individual humans, as long as these three are on the same team, naming the hundred or so technical brain parts is Academic Ivory Tower Details (I capitalize religions) unless one is going for a medical degree.
- Our hind and mid-brains are almost clones of the bonobos' and chimps’. The hind and mid systems are the millions of years old and our fore-brains less than 200,000 years old -- in the prototype stage and like all complex prototypes, full of malfunctions that will take a long time to resolve. For instance we as a species can but don't sustain a reasonable quality of life for all.

- Science has recently learned of our stomachs containing cells very similar to brain cells. The reason is because hundreds of millions of years ago, our anscestors didn't even have heads, let alone an organ called "a brain"; but they did have gut feelings from their stomachs. That was an extremely primitive version of thinking, but it is a proven part; unlike our 200,000 year-old prototype fore-brain.

- As you can see from a brief history of our evolution, our bodies evolved as efficiently as possible to survive, and a part of this efficiency is when we humans are emotionally hurt, our brains use the same circuits as they do for physical pain. This is why emotions such as loss and heartbreak can be physically devastating as well.

Conclusions: 1. Evolution isn't as simple as "Such and such goes back 300M years" because there are complex patterns such as parallel evolution.
2. Hierarchies can be moral if their members can choose to leave a hierarchy for another or for no hierarchy.
(3) One offspring at a time lives with the mother, but paediatrics don't count as hierarchies. The male orangs sometimes rape the females, but these are one-night stands few and far in between and thus are not *social hierarchies* as they are with gorillas, chimps, and us.

Orwell on Writing, aka Politics and the English Language

Excerpts from Politics and the English Language (attached .pdf):

"A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

"1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

"And he will probably ask himself two more:

"1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?"

"I think the following rules will cover most cases:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

Altruism Versus Selfishness

In each of us homo sapiens, Yin includes altruism and Yang includes selfishness. Both are needed in as close to a 50-50 balance as we can each manage. An amount of selfishness is needed because one can't give away what one doesn't have. Scientifically speaking, our group selection put altruism in almost all of us and the individual's evolution *within* the group put self- centeredness in almost all of us:

"If we assume that groups are approximately equal to one another in weaponry and other technology, which has been the case for most of the time among primitive societies over hundreds of thousands of years, we can expect that the outcome of between-group competition is determined largely by the details of social behavior within each group in turn. These traits are the size and tightness of the group, and the quality of communication and division of labor among its members. Such traits are heritable to some degree; in other words, variation in them is due in part to differences in genes among the members of the group, hence also among the groups themselves. The genetic fitness of each member, the number of reproducing descendants it leaves, is determined by the cost exacted and benefit gained from its membership in the group. These include the favor or disfavor it earns from other group members on the basis of its behavior. The currency of favor is paid by direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity, the latter in the form of reputation and trust. How well a group performs depends on how well its members work together, regardless of the degree by which each is individually favored or disfavored within the group. The genetic fitness of a human being must therefore be a consequence of both individual selection and group selection." - Wilson, Edward O.. The Social Conquest of Earth (Kindle Locations 765-774). Liveright. Kindle Edition. (Some words bolded by me.)

Marcus Aurelius: "When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself:"

"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural." ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Fundamentalism / Ideology In General and Anarchists In Particular Release Four(1)

Fundamentalism / Ideology In General and Anarchists In Particular
Release Four(1)

Textbook movies about Fundamentalists / Ideologues (FIs) include Agora, starring Rachel Weisz; and American History X, starring Edward Norton. I identify FIs by their shared logic-fail / propaganda case for their beliefs, whether intentionally or unintentionally: "God" by whatever name or ism, is on their side; e.g., "Because pure freaking magic, that’s why"; or "Because that’s what I believe". If another disagrees, FIs add more non sequiturs, or escape logic with methods such as "Agree to disagree", escalation up to and including violence, or squid-fogging(2).

For instance, some Islamic FIs initiate fraud / property-destruction / theft / violence / etc because they claim having God aka Allah on their side. Some Christian FIs(3) make the same case for KKK type actions / inactions(4). The same pattern applies to many groups(5), including FI anarchists / voluntaryists. They exist at different points on the traditional left-right spectrum (e.g., respectively AnCom and AnCap); with anarchy sometimes as their version of "God is on my side", and sometimes with themselves as "God".

I claim to be a voluntaryist type of anarchist, but not an FI. My voluntaryist-anarchist political position is multi-generational and non-aggressionist in the tradition of Carl Jung (towards the middle of the traditional spectrum), Noam Chomsky (more left), and Murray Rothbard (more right). Where I see myself on this spectrum is irrelevant to this short essay.

To conclude, deciding if one is or isn’t an FI requires at least an understanding of Aristotelian logic, archetypes, introspection, and others’ feedback. I don’t claim perfection, but I do claim to be a free-thinker(6), the opposite of an FI.

(1) Update published Oct 7, 2019, on my Facebook page under "Notes". Updates: Wordsmithing; Ver Two abbreviations; Ver Three conclusion paragraph added; Ver 4 endnote 5 added details. Like the New York cab driver joke Passenger: "Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?" Driver: "Practice, practice, practice."

- By anarchist / voluntaryist / etc, I mean self-identified. By argument, I mean two sides each making a logic-based case, not verbally or otherwise fighting.

- I use the slash to mean *and / or*, and dashes when two or more words together result in one meaning. I put some words / phrases / terms in between two asterisks to not lose meaning in plain text. I use *etc* without a period when it doesn’t end a sentence. *e.g.* is Latin for "for example"; and *i.e.* Latin for "that is".

(2) All logic-fails / propaganda-techniques are variations of *non sequitur* (Latin for "does not follow"). Examples include skipped premises; changing word meanings in mid-argument; not having an agreed-upon axiom (i.e., an agreed-upon foundation such as what the argument subject is); argument from authority (e.g.., Einstein was a socialist and so socialism is best); and argument from emotion (e.g., escalation, "You’re wrong because f*** you", up to and including violence).

- Credit goes to Stefan Molyneux on his call-in show for me realizing the squid-fog concept. A defensive squid or octopus creates a large black cloud, and when the fog clears, the squid or octopus is long gone. I saw a mother do this when confronted about sibling favoritism. Rather than talking about it, so she threw an extreme emotional fit, and by the time all present were over the shock, she was in her car down the road. Similar squid-fog techniques include adults crying like children, taking infinitely repeating time-outs, etc, etc.

(3) "inaction" here referring to not helping when basic morality archetypes say to.

(4) The Bible is empirically much longer than the Quran and thus has a wider range of interpretations; e.g,, in the US 1700s and 1800s, the Methodist Church split into the anti-slavery Northern Methodist Church and pro-slavery Southern Methodist Church; both claiming to read the Bible without any intrerpretation. An FI 12-stepper once told me in reference to the AA literature "Only read the black letters on the white page with nothing added or taken away." I hold this is impossible because all individual human minds process complex abstract concepts differently, with the exception of FI programmed minds -- but even among those, there are sometimes disagreements.

(5) Some FI self-proclaimed anarchists such as some Antifas interpret their ism as justification / rationalization for initiating fraud / property-destruction / theft / violence / etc; claiming fill-in-the-blank "________ started it." The same principle applies to those whom Thomas Sowell calls "The Anointed Ones"; e.i., elected and unelected bureaucrats, politicians, college administrators, etc, etc, who raise and spend taxpayer money collected at gunpoint in fraudulent and ridiculous ways almost all, if not all, taxpayers vehemently disagree with.

(6) I partly agree with the Wikipedia definition: "Freethought (or ‘free thought’) is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma." I say "partly" because I also agree with Carl Jung’s concept of archetypes; further, I claim to know nothing 100%. Rather I consider all my knowledges to have a percentage of probability.

- For instance, did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone if at all in the JFK assassination? I say 99% probability no. Is global warming/climate change caused by us humans? I say the question is way too simple and instead of answering, needs to be broken down into several questions, such as "What role, if any, do humans play in global warming/climate change; and if so, approximately what percentage are we presently playing?"

- This endnote is close to a copy-and-paste from one or more of my other essays.

Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought

(About ten short paragraphs, Revision Three, Copyleft 2018-06-13, Peter Voluntaryist Walker.)


- "Formal logics were developed in ancient times in China, India, and Greece. Greek methods, particularly Aristotelian logic (or term logic) as found in the Organon, found wide application and acceptance in science and mathematics for millennia" (

- The Three Laws of Thought credited to Aristotle are Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle. There's much more to logic, but this is a good beginning.

- Please note: All logical fallacies are non sequiturs (Latin for "Does not follow"). For instance, if a professional politician and I have a beer and a nice talk together and I think that makes him/her/etcetera nice in real life, I committed a non sequitur because of the Law of Identity.

1. The Law of Identity says a thing can only be itself, aka A=A. Professional politicians are not nice people in real life because a person can only be one or the other. That said, situational reality sometimes makes it to one's advantage to have a politician in one's corner.

1.a. Another example is Shakespeare said a rose is a rose by any other name, and the same is true of the homo sapiens individual. An example violation is when people dehumanize each other, a textbook case being when Hitler dehumanized anyone he tagged "Jew" as being less than human.

1.b. All namecalling dehumanizes and is filler, meaning a replacement for content in an argument (argument in the context of making a case for or against something being true). Rudeness in general is also a form of namecalling because it's a practice of treating humans as less than human.

2. The Law of Non-contradiction says everything has an opposite and a thing cannot be its opposite.

2.a. For instance some people argue against property rights while simultaneously using parts of their body as they see fit in order to communicate their message; thus refuting the existence of the very thing they're doing. These are self-defeating arguments.

2.b. Claiming a knowledge exists when it doesn't is also self contradicting. An example is people stating as fact they know what *you* think, understand, like, etc., when it's impossible for anyone but you to know without sensors wired directly into your brain. They can can calculate probabilities based on your observable behavior, but there's a large gap (aka does not follow, aka non sequitur error) between brain and outward behavior. For instance you may understand something and simply choose not to let on that you do.

3. The Law of the Excluded Middle says an argument can't be true and false at the same time. "Either I will call my mother tomorrow, or I won't call my mother tomorrow. One or the other of these statements about the future must be true. The principle that either a given statement or its denial is true is called the 'Law of Excluded Middle.'" (David Hunt)

3.a. This law primarily addresses the semantics of accurately stating a problem or proposition. For instance, if an agreement has good and bad parts, it's not a 100% good or bad agreement; to accurately describe it, it has two or more parts needing to each be understood separately from the other part(s). Thus I also call the excluded middle *conflation*, similar to what Ayn Rand called The Package Deal. It's a critical law of logic because, whether intentionally or not, semantics often mislead.

3.b. Another conflation error is to conflate the already unconflated. For instance the non-aggression principal (NAP) says it's immoral to initiate coercion. Many say this is a too simplistic "truncated argument" because it allegedly ignores things such as the alleged necessity of central planning or the alleged social contract. But according to The Law of Identity, adding such things would make it no longer the NAP. In such cases the avoided NAP core proposition is whether or not initiating coercion is moral -- a complex argument involving definitions and interpretations of coercion, morality, initiation, and complex circumstances such as lifeboat scenarios and raising children. Therefore the NAP isn't over simplified or truncated; rather it's either a valid or invalid premise to be argued on its own merits. If it's accepted as valid, then issues such as central planning and social contracts can be measured against it. If the NAP is invalid, obviously it's irrelevant; but simply refusing to consider it is a non sequitur.

3.c. An equally common conflation error is goldplating; a textbook example being contractors for the USA Department of Defense writing specifications for hammers and toilet seats that made perfectly usable generic items unacceptable for no reason other than profit. Doing so provided the very same contractors with opportunities to sell hammers and toilet seats meeting their own specifications at multiple times the profit of generic items. Goldplating applies to present mainstream culture portrayals of critical thinking; that is, mainstream culture presents the tools of critical thinking such as logic as too complex for anyone to understand other than spokespersons for the hyper-elite.


Endnotes - None at this time.

Site Intro/Me Intro

(This is a new and in-work blog. Most subjects are in The Tag Cloud and I'm working on getting it in alphabetical order (got code?). Commenting by anyone not a bot or troll is via
"He not busy being born is busy dyin' " - Bob Dylan
"Do no further harm." - Medical cliche
(Next pic Vietnam War Memorial, explanation following.)

Above is the most descriptive photo of my brothers and sisters who didn't make it -- we are the Vietnam War generation except for the chicken-hawks like Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney. Chicken-Hawks will take their ways to their graves and I wish them all due speed.
I am the Vietnam war generation because each generation is a war generation, a democide generation, a holocaust generation, a massacre generation, a lynch mob generation, etc. Names like "baby-boomer" and "millennial" are Orwellian language-takeover scams.
(My HS Grad 1970 pic.)

(Me 2019 in Winter)

(Me 2019 in Summer)

I have the perspective of a primatologist and we as a species are presently causing the sixth extinction. I've been inside ICBM silos, submarines, and all types of military aircraft and this world has so many active nukes pointed at each other right now that it's a miracle if we as a species show up to our next meal. Added to war is the reality of our technologies beginning with AI repeating the mistakes we made with nuclear bomb invention and escalation.
We as a species mostly agree on what I call "Point A", meaning the condition our condition is in. We mostly agree on "Point C", meaning our overall reasonably ideal condition (by definition including our environment). What we mostly disagree on is "Path B", the path to Point C.
It's mostly discussing Path B here, so please use professional-type politeness, all positive, no negative.
"Rudolph Joseph Rummel (October 21, 1932 – March 2, 2014) was professor of political science who taught at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaii. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government (compare genocide), such as the Stalinist purges and Mao's Cultural Revolution."
- Wikipedia as of 2018-07-03

Contact/Social-Media Info (Email is very hard to use as back-and-forth messaging and is more for one-time official stuff, and one can't tell whether or not an email has been received or read.)
Facebook Messenger: "Peter Voluntaryist Walker" on Facebook and best to go to Facebook Messenger and send me a message and that way you don't have to be a FB "Friend . FBM is the best for back-and-forth messaging and one can tell whether or not the other person has read one's message and it has many more options than cell texting.
Smoke Signals: Three puffs, wait three minutes, RePete.
Snail Mail: Peter Walker, 330 E Costilla St, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (Mailing only address and I live near the intersection of Wahsatch Ave and E. Bijou in Colorado Springs, CO)