Peter Voluntaryist Walker

Showing all posts tagged essay:

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)" - http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/air-force-rifle-qualification-course.html.
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.
_________________________________
Endnotes
Paragraph 1. - Mayberry RFD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_R.F.D.
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 http://thugsinsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/docs-pdfs-etc//The-Secret-Team-By-Fletcher-Prouty.pdf. 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..." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2013/mar/08/john-brennan-constitution-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!

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 http://www.petewalker.me/definitive-essay-of-politics-morality-rights-ethics-law-interpretation-enforcement-and-the-human-condition/

Endnotes

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 PeteWalker.me.



http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/freedom-movement-timeline-versus-strawman-attacks/

The Science of Hierarchy

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


Introduction:
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.


Hierarchies:
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.
_________________
Endnotes:
(1) http://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
(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.

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.)




Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought

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

Introduction:

- "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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic).

- 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.