Peter Voluntaryist Walker

Showing all posts tagged politics:

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.

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

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!

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.

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.