Did GOP Doves Create ISIS Or Did GOP Hawks Create Them?


I seem to be watching a video from YouTube channel “Liberty Source” that depicts Rand Paul claiming that Republican Party war-hawks created ISIS, and depicts the rest of the GOP as claiming the war-doves in that party created them.

Well, I am registered to vote as a Libertarian and I can easily assure to the Republican Party [as an LP voter] from my studies of World History that neither GOP hawks nor GOP doves are at fault for ISIS, because the ideology motivating ISIS to exist and act as ISIS acts, Salafism [aka Salafi Movement], actually began well within the first five and 3/5 generations of the time of Islam [610 to 750, therefore 140 years, and 140 divided by 25 {there be 25 years in a generation} = 5.6 {five and 3/5} generations].


As a firm supporter of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, I am well aware that there is plenty of muslims on Earth who are either non-intervention towards, or at war against, the Salafi Movement; just as there are plenty of others who make up the Salafi Movement. So I may as well explain the movement to everyone: They are a religious Nationalist movement that is all about strict, literalist, and puritanical approaches to Islam’s holy book the Koran; approaches that solicit a callous disregard for any life of any human who rejects Authoritarian politics and loves liberty, whether the liberty lovers are muslim or non-muslim.

Opening History of the Salafi Movement

  • The Salafi Movement’s earliest wars of aggression, centuries before it started calling itself the Salafi Movement
  • These people first started calling themselves the “Salafiyya” during either their time as the Umayyad Empire or during their times as Rashidun Empire.

For the very first twelve decades of their history, the Salafiyya were severely stained, soaked and dripping in blood, viscera, terrorism, and depravity. Please don’t blindly believe me [or doubt me] on this, read the following Wikipedia articles instead:

  1. Rashidun Conquest of the Levant
  2. Rashidun Conquest of Libya & Egypt
  3. Rashidun Conquest of Iran
  4. Umayyad Conquest of Afghanistan and Pakistan
  5. Rashidun & Umayyad Conquest of North Africa
  6. Umayyad Conquest of Spain & Portugal

Salafism in the High Middle Ages

After the year 750, the Abbasid Empire mostly backed off on some aspects of Salafi politics in order to make room for the Islamic Golden Age, when the Abbasids decided to commit to preserving and expanding the scientific logics and reasoning styles of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

It was not until 1258 when Genghis Khan took his Mongolian Imperials to conquer 14 million square miles of Asia, four times the size of the current mainland United States, when the Islamic Golden Age collapsed and the Salafi Movement got their turn to rise again.

Four decades later in 1299, the Ottoman Turks became the major Islamic State, where Sharia applies in full, of the Earth. They threw off the Khan’s rule of the Middle East and therefore established themselves as the norm of that region until 1923.

Salafi Movement as the Ottoman Empire

Perhaps the Salafi Movement was at its most barbaric, most genocidal, most terroristic, and very most radically anti-core-US-Libertarian-Party-values [before the Digital age] during its time as the Ottoman Empire, which lasted 624 years, and ended 48 years before the United States LP began:

In its very first hours of awareness of American Independence from Britain, the Ottoman Imperial Salafis put their pirate regimes up to kidnapping, slaving, and sometimes torturing and murdering American civilian merchants who were only in the Mediterranean to start small businesses, to bring free market economics to the European continent.

It was the Ottoman Empire’s incessant Barbary Slave Trade that eventually provoked Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to ruthlessly destroy every single Legitimate Military Target the Barbary Regimes had at their disposal at the times from 1801 to 1815, and thus the Ottoman Salafis became terrified from 1815 to 1923 of the idea of enslaving Americans.

Also, during World War 1, this Empire was provoking the Arab Revolt with its barbarity toward the Arabian people of the time.

World War One smashed apart the Salafi Movement and forced them into 50 years of hiding away from the world around them [1973 when Saudi Arabia started using oil money to revive and modernize the Salafi movement {MINUS} 1923 when the Ottoman Empire fell apart and Turkey started its path to the liberal democracy it is today {EQUALS} fifty years]. Even the minimal evidence that supposedly exists of Adolf Hitler having friendliness with the Salafis goes to show anyone who is reading this page that I am not blabbing out of space vacuum when I imply as I have above that the Salafi Movement almost got phased out of reality by the end of World War One.

The Salafis lost their sharpened-iron-gloved grip on Turkey and that was the start of Turkey’s path to the liberal democracy it currently is. I call present day Turkey a liberal democracy because of the apparently very heavy amount of Westernization Turkey currently breathes.

Post-World War II Salafism

Nowadays, the Salafi movement is characterized by a network of modern-day theocracies [map I linked has the denoted nations in purplefunding guerrilla style fighters who have no morals in combat at all.

While Westernized nations currently have a softer-than-needed approach of partially destroying some LMTs [instead of totally destroying all LMTs like the Westernized nations need to do], Salafi Imperials still to this day are obsessed on willfully targeting any and all civilian peoples & properties, the Salafis still prefer conducting massacres over conducting battles, just as they did back in their old Umayyad times and every time between then and now.


If you read all of this article and all the links, then you succeed at knowing at least what I know about the Salafi Movement. But whether you actually have read it all or not, thank you in any case for at least reading this WordPress page,



Why No One Should Be Payed To Give Nothing


I am referring both to corporate welfare and social welfare in this post of mine. So yes, I am going to carefully explain why both are inherently wrong to me.

Corporate Welfare

Something Wall Street seems to love is corporate welfare, which is basically government paying huge corporations to give nothing. This makes huge corporations feel entitled to take free market elements out of our economy and to take huge risks without suffering penalties. Hence the reason we have “Too Big To Fail”. The only way to truly end the corporatist element of “too big to fail” is to get rid of corporate welfare entirely, and overnight as well.

Bernie Sanders’s plan of decentralizing the big banks is not going to make the difference we need: Abolishing corporate welfare entirely as Austin Petersen aims to will make the difference, because according to iSideWith he says [and I agree] that “lawmakers are mostly to blame for creating an environment of reckless banking”. And of course government did create this reckless banking environment in 2008 when they bailed out the banks and got us addicted to corporate welfare.

Social Welfare

Ugh… paying people who are able-bodied and able-minded to not use any of their talents, whether those talents are entry level or doctorate degree level.

I, for example, have a doctorate degree talent for correctly analyzing and communicating the facts about dinosaurs, modern animals, and as you can tell by this blog foreign policy. I am thinking about charging money for copies hand-written essays I do about the various things I like to write about. I have had numerous other ideas of how to make money off my normal job I am guaranteed to start acting on in the month of June which is three days from the date of this post [5/29/2016 where on Earth I am]:

  • I have my very own fictional universe I am doing as novels and as comic books and that I have already decided who to liscence for electronic device adaptations.
  • I pondered for a while the idea of building custom LEGO people including with Green Stuff modeling putty and sculpting tools. Don’t worry about my experience level because I merge an attention to detail with an eagerness to Google for reference pics.
  • Perhaps I should also do paintings of dinosaurs and of Middle-earth Fan Art, Metal musician fan art, and other fan art; using acrylic paints and charge triple the canvas cost to me for each painting. And I will take photos for memory purposes.
  • Lastly I have been long exploring the idea of home-brewing sodas with Mountain Dew levels of caffeine and selling small cups of them to people who pass by. And yes, I do have a Soda Stream machine so I could do this.

Any of the above four ideas, regardless of whether anyone does any of them before I do, are inherently GOOD ideas of how to get extra money “on the side”. Social Welfare is inherently a BAD idea of how to get money on the side. The receiver of the social welfare is not the only one poisoned by the mere existence of social welfare:

  • Non-profit Charity NGOs are poisoned by social welfare because government bans them from giving charity the right way, by giving charity from empathy.
  • Small businesses [Main Street, the markets the embody free-market economics by creating jobs and prosperity] are poisoned by social welfare because government uses the inheritance tax, among other taxes, to force Main Street to pay for the laziness of certain workers and certain non-workers.
  • Laborers, including me, are poisoned by social welfare because we LOSE A FIFTH OF OUR LABOR ON AVERAGE so that a large amount of people who I am sure have various individual talents can be paid to avoid exerting their talents.


So I am vastly uncomfortable with any kind of social welfare: I have 4+ different earn-money-on-the-side ideas to work on! I will get to them in 6/1/2016, like I said I would. Thanks for the read,


Factual Advice To NATO And Russia From A Factual Social Media Atheist


Evidently Russia and NATO seem far too distracted by the Cold War of the 1950’s and 1960’s to really work together against the 2001-present threat of misanthropy that is the Salafi Movement. Article about them in Russian language here. Well, Vlad Putin is not the only person I direct this letter at. Current NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg will be communicated to as well.

Open Letter

Dear Mr. Stolenberg and Mr. Putin,

  • Even if both of you have never read a WordPress post by a young, nerdy, early-20’s-aged, freedom-obsessed social media sites atheist in your lives: Today is the day to make an exception. This is a plea to both of you regarding your conflict with each other and your back-track to the Cold War: Cancel it. Please, just cancel it. I understand some things about the history behind it, I really do:
  • I would like to encourage you both to please look at the bigger picture of the world we live in today, where the following are simply facts of life:
    • The Salafi movement is funded enormously by Saudi Arabia and in smaller large part by the other Arabian peninsula Islamic States [in the map I linked to, the States are in darker green]
    • The Salafi movement is looking to enslave the entire planet to a puritanical approach to 7th-century interpretations of the Koran
    • This movement also wants to murder anyone who does not espouse Salafi politics – and this movement does not care if its murder victims are Non-muslims or simply Muslims Against Salafism.
    • And just was well – this barbarity campaign of theirs includes genocide of anyone who is religiously Eastern Orthodoxy.
    • Salafi troops and guerrillas have absolutely no morals in the way they fight for their politics and their idea of their religion. Don’t just believe me blindly, instead:
    • Furthermore, even though the Iranian Revolution is a similar movement to the Salafi movement, the Iranian Revolution is a far smaller movement compared to the Salafis
  • So, my peers, I must ask you both: Do you two agree to revive the Cold War even though it risks making the Salafi movement astronomically strong? Or do you agree to leave the Cold War in the past, and temporarily unite against the monstrous barbarity we know as the Salafi movement?
  • Do not get me wrong, either of you, I wish for free trade, free migration and civilized relations between NATO and Russia, and I do want Russia to move in inches [in other words, with gradualism] toward being a free-society Democracy with a free-market Economy. But for now, our species needs you two to set aside these grievances you have with one another and work together to demolish the cesspits of theocracy and misanthropy we can call the Salafi regimes.



the Libertarian Defense Atheist, from WordPress


I think I have made a decent letter that I do hope will sway the specific people I am communicating to. Until then, I thank you both for reading this if you do read it, and as for people who have been reading me for some time thank you for the read as well,


Reflecting On The Iraq War In A Scientific Mannerism


I figured since there do exist factual voices on both sides of the Iraq War debate, as well as emotional voices on both sides, and since a core value of being any kind of libertarian is Individual Judgement, I would make my own individual judgement of the Iraq War ~ all 13 years of it.

Saddam Era Facts

Saddam Hussein, as anyone who read about him on Wikipedia will tell you, was a genocidal and terroristic dictator with nothing to his personality but a callous disregard for individual freedom and whose regime’s civilian death toll was 1,000 per day in just 1991 alone. This is along with 182,000 Kurds murdered in genocide in 1991 and 5,000 more in 1988; another 280,000 non-Kurds murdered in the 1991 protest event, and as the article I linked to clarified, murder was not the only violent crime Saddam sponsored against individual freedom.

Iraq War Facts

Evidently, the 2003 to present Iraq War cost Western Society a combined total of 25,000 soldiers. It also cost Iraq totals of 37,000 soldiers and 115,000 civilians. Now, as the implied civilian-to-soldier ratio [roughly 23 to 7] implies, at least vaguely, moral mismanagement of the war on part of Western Society; one must also factor in the differences on Saddam’s cost to Iraq vs The West’s cost to Iraq:

  • 827,000 [lowest possible] total divided by 24 and then dividing the 35,000 by 360 means 96 civilians dead per day on average under Saddam
  • 115,000 [highest possible] total divided by 13 and then dividing the 9000 by 360 means 25 civilians dead per day on average under The West
  • 25 weighs in at 26% of the weight of 96
  • This means the Multilateral [America, Britain, Poland, Australia, and Spain] annihilation of Saddam’s regime actually reduced daily civilian deaths by 74%.
  • None of that excuses the Iraqi civilian casualties outweighing the Iraqi soldier casualties, such outweigh must be acknowledged and condemned.
  • However it does demonstrate the moral superiority Western Culture has over basically all other trans-continental cultures.
  • As for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, that was a matter of Saddam’s regime committing violence against 1,000 inmates EVERY DAY vs. twelve of NATO’s individual human members, in combined total, committing violence against only A FEW DOZENS [dozen = 12 people] of inmates a in total at least and per day at worse.
  • So Abu Ghraib’s level of prison violence by guards against inmates, in case of worst case scenario, stands at 56,000 violated under NATO rule vs. 8,640,000 violated under Saddam’s rule. Better case scenarios depict less than 56,000 on the NATO side with no change to the number on the Saddam Hussein side.


I am lead to believe that the NATO destruction of Saddam did more good than harm, and that ISIS was allowed to arise because of Bush commanding, as a favorite academic of mine called Yaron Brook puts it, “the military tip-toe around Iraq”.

In other words, The West should be praised for radically reducing violations of individual freedom in Iraq as much as they did, but should also be condemned for letting Bush’s neocon interpretation of Just War Doctrine get in the way of them doing everything mandatory to truly liberating Iraq. Such outcome would have required severe devastation against both the Salafis in Iraq and the Baathists [Saddam’s political faction]. By the way, ISIS began in 1999 under the name Jamat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. Very long birth name ISIS has, I know.


Well, I believe I have clarified the facts of the Saddam regime and the Iraq War.

I believe I can also draw a conclusion:

{I am neutral on the Iraq War due to it being a case of radical reduction of overall individual freedom violations being followed up by self-sacrificial and altruistic handling of the war on part of George W. Bush Jr.}

Do the other leaders of the other NATO nations at the time deserve blame as well? Is moral responsibility a core value to being libertarian? If so, then my answer to the other member-leaders question is yes. And guess what? Moral responsibility is a core libertarian value. Thanks for the read, readers;


Austin Petersen And The Factions of the Libertarian Ideology (United States)


Hello. I am here to speak of how Austin Petersen will unite what I might call the “factions of the libertarian ideology” against the Two Tyrants [Hillary and Trump] while Gary Johnson will cause tribalism among the four.

The Factions

Faction 1 ~ Anarchist

The anarchist faction of the libertarian ideology prioritizes their heart felt belief that government is inherently evil and should be abolished entirely. Anarchists are split into center-right and center-left sides of this faction, the former wanting America to instead be ruled by Main Street [aka small business], the latter wanting America to instead be ruled by Non-profit entities such as charities and unions. Both sides generally believe in free-society liberalism and free-market capitalism, and this faction believes in legal equality and in moral responsibility.

{These four virtues are the prerequisites to being libertarian at all, as conservatives support only moral responsibility and free markets, and as progressives support only legal equality and free societies. Authoritarians are against all four of these virtues.}

Faction 2 ~ Minarchist

Minarchists like Austin Petersen himself, and like two friends of mine whose full names I will not give here [Jake & Brad] differ from anarchists by emphasizing free markets, strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and heavily applying moral responsibility to government in a way that limits its power locally to emergency service departments and nationally to foreign policy functions like the military.

Also, minarchists tend to be the dominant faction of libertarian ideology within the Libertarian Wing of the U.S. Republican Party. Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul can be, of all libertarian factions, most precisely pinned into the minarchist faction.

Faction 3 ~ Paleolibertarian

A paleolibertarian is, in essence, someone who supports the four virtues of libertarian politics while prioritizing four things: Unilateralism, Introverted foreign policy, Pacifism-Until-Attacked, and Sealed-border views on Immigration.

While there is little debate about the best style of free society in libertarian ideology, paleolibertarians are the faction who call for the free society to be the closest kind to conservative the politics of libertarianism will allow. At least to me, this means they support intellectual and political freedom and zero-limits application of only the individual freedom that is in Amendments 1 through 8 of the Constitution. But they stand against ‘permissive’ society categories of freedom as implied by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. From what I can gather about them, most but hopefully not all paleolibertarians oppose the Constitutional Safeguards of Social Equality [13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26]

The best example myself and Petersen can name is Ted Cruz, if he is libertarian at all. This is because Cruz is someone who loves economic liberty but wants individual freedom and government power to both be limited to just what’s in the US Constitution.

Faction 4 ~ Neolibertarian

Neolibertarians like myself, another good friend of mine, Eddy; and also the Libertarian Defense Caucus differ from paleolibertarians like Ted Cruz in many ways.

Firstly we prioritize a Strong National Defense with fiscally conservative management of a high budget, and an extroverted foreign policy based on Thomas Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty” policy of using an equal mix of free trade, open immigration, Anti-tyrant Diplomacy, and Liberation war [equal mix according to the Yale University historic novel “Emperor of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson’s Foreign Policy“].

Most of us, myself being the only one of us I can speak for in this field, also differ from paleolibertarians by supporting the sort of lifestyle, language, clothing and diet freedoms of choice that paleolibertarians oppose. This is also a way we differ from all third libertarian factions as basically all the third factions, for purposes of this section, are split over these particular freedoms of choice.

That’s not to ignore, though, that we neolibertarians are split over abortion. Two radio show hosts who I can tell by their overall views are two of my fellow neolibertarians, Larry Elder and Neal Boortz, are extremely likely to debate one-another over abortion: Larry is Pro-Life while Neal is Pro-Choice. Me personally, I am a neolibertarian who looked into the physiology of human pregnancy to determine my stance on abortion: Let quickening, that time halfway to birth wherein the mother detects the fetus in her, be the line between legal and illegal.

We are the biggest supporters of Western Exceptionalism, which is the idea that Western culture is inherently the best-behaved and most morally healthy of all human cultures.

When Individual Freedom is under genocidal or terroristic attack by some despotic nation, most of us [again, can’t speak for all of my faction] favor retaliations similar to Winston Churchill’s ending of genocide in the Nazi Empire and/or General Sherman’s ending of slavery in Confederate America, as opposed to the soft-hitting warfare that has been the real culprit of failing us in Iraq and in Afghanistan. After a despotic regime is destroyed, we differ from Neoconservatives by wanting the troops to come straight home and leave Westernization of the defeated and unconditionally surrendering nation to our diplomats, to free trade, and to open immigration.

Faction 5 ~ Geolibertarian

These guys I have little to really say about. They are people who follow the typical libertarian patterns of pro-free market, pro-free society, pro-moral responsibility, and pro-legal equality and of being split over the choice freedoms that neolibertarians like me and paleolibertarians are both decided on.

However, some things I can observe about them that makes them their own faction and the official Libertarian Wing of the Democrat Party is this:

  • Geolibertarians want to replace all taxation and all land-owning with land rental of one’s share of American soil to the government.
  • Geolibertarians also want America to adopt a policy of the government’s non-military spendings being decided by a system of the popular vote.

Geolibertarians, in short, are very often labeled “One Taxers”, because some of them favor land rental tax on rent paid to independent, non-political land managers who legally don’t own that land they are manager of.

Faction 6 ~ Classical Liberal

My best friend Jason is basically in this faction of the libertarian ideology. Classical liberals like him prioritize literalist interpretation of the eight core liberal principles of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democracy, secularism, and friendship with like-minded nations [i.e. internationalism].

Classical liberals, along with neolibertarians, are the two absolute least religious factions, or at least that’s the impression I get observing libertarianism with my very own individual judgement. Classical liberals may not always agree with neolibertarians on foreign affairs and military defense, but us two as factions can easily agree on the freedoms of choice in lifestyle, language, clothing and diet I mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, classical liberals tend to be very invested in highlighting the difference between equal opportunity vs equal outcome. They also invest devoutly in highlighting the difference between constraints on human behavior by nature and constraints by government. The biological differences between the two sexes, for example, libertarians know are caused by nature and not by anything else thanks to this faction of libertarian ideology.

Ways Austin Petersen will unite these

  1. Highlight the diversity of libertarianism factions on social media and/or national television
  2. Encourage logical thinking in all six factions
  3. Appeal to all six factions equally without abandoning his current individual beliefs
  4. Explain all of the facts, both the painful facts and the happy-note facts.
  5. Repeatedly reference the Founding Fathers of the US and his vast knowledge of American History
  6. Refrain from assigning blame to America for everything wrong with the world, while also embracing the fact that America has made many mistakes historically
  7. Use the differences between the libertarianism factions to unite them over the common ground motivating the differences [common ground being the four virtues I mentioned earlier]

Ways Gary Johnson will divide these

  1. Assign blame to America for everything wrong with human nature
  2. Promise to sign feel-good, politically legislation in social issues favored by the Regressive Left, such as the “Equal Pay” act that ignores the FACT that the 180 wage gaps in this economy have NOTHING to do with discrimination.
  3. Declare that Jewish Bakers should be forced by government laws to bake for Nazi Weddings [which he already called “his contention” when asked on the Stossel LP debate back in April]
  4. Claim that the United Nations is capable of any kind of good, no matter how much of the UN’s own behavior contradicts the four libertarian virtues


I believe I am going to stop here with this post. I did promise earlier to commit an entire post to the moral supremacy of voting Austin Petersen, but this I think gives some good ideas of that moral supremacy. Thank you readers,


How Is Austin Petersen Not Polled Against Trump and Clinton?


I endorsed Austin Petersen directly by G-mailing him even if I may be mixed about him on foreign affairs and military defense. The guy knows that America would not be its own nation if France and Spain had not multilaterally intervened in the American Revolutionary War, but he says this after claiming that intervention should be looked at skeptically. I am at least grateful that he refuses to blame America for all of the ills of the world on top of refusing to deny that America has made mistakes overseas.

But this is not about that. This is about asking TV channel Fox News why they didn’t bother doing a second match up poll stacking Austin Petersen against Hillary and Donald.

What Makes Me Ask

Firstly, I am well ware there is no such thing as a dependable TV station when it comes to any news apart from news of the weather.

But I still need to call FNC out on their nonsense of not polling Austin Petersen against Trump and Clinton and only polling Gary Johnson against him. Gary Johnson attracted most people to him and away from the Demopublican Bipartisan by only taking 10% of the popular vote.

In every poll conducted by the LP, Austin Petersen outperforms Gary Johnson all the time.

Even in the website “A Libertarian Future”, has this to say about this matter.

Screen Caps of Polls

LP Polling 2

Half of the party I am registered to vote within wants Austin Petersen! Source: LP.org

LP Pie Graph

Johnson and Petersen poll almost evenly against each other. Source: aLiberterianFuture.com

So, in actuality, Austin Petersen is 66% more liked than Gary Johnson is, within the libertarian movement.

What Any of this Means

It means that if Fox News let people know about Austin Petersen and polled him against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, then Austin Petersen would have garnered 17% of the respondents’ votes. And he probably would have taken votes from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on top of that.

Looking at more Hard Math Data

The website iSideWith has some useful data on Democrats against Hillary [63% of their party] and on Republicans against Trump [48% of their party]. If you factor in the actual number of votes offered by this site:

  • Out of 2,167,123 Democrat votes 1,365,287 went away from Hillary
  • Out of 2,871,151 Republican votes 1,378,152 went away from Donald
  • This makes for a grand total of 2,743,439 votes that are 66% more likely to be Austin Petersen votes than Gary Johnson votes
  • This likely hood means that Gary Johnson could draw people away from the Two Tyrants by One-Third of grand total
  • You put Austin Petersen up to the same challenge he could win by One-Half of grand total.

However, if you just apply these statistics to Gallup polling on how many registered voters out of the 146,000,000 Americans who are registered to vote, then here are the results:

  • 61,320,000 are Independents
  • 37,960,000 are Republicans
  • 42,340,000 are Democrats
  • Out of Democrats 26,674,200 refuse to vote for Hillary
  • Out of Republicans 18,220,800 refuse to vote for Donald
  • In grand total this is 106,215,000 votes with a 66% higher turnout, at least mathematically, for Austin Petersen than for Gary Johnson.
  • By this logic, Austin Petersen is capable of getting over 53 million popular votes in the general election, while Johnson could really only get 36 million popular votes.


There is Legion of Reasons that Austin deserves your vote over Gary in the primaries and that same Legion is of Reasons why Austin deserves your vote over BOTH Hillary AND Trump in the general election. All of the above is just the intellectual advantage he has. Next post will be about the superior morality of voting Austin Petersen vs everyone else. Thanks for the read,


The Only Viable U.S. Republican Party Platform

Superior GOP Logo

Superior Logo for the GOP – a logo that will repeatedly remind Republicans of what the GOP is supposed to be like.


Regardless of whether the Libertarian Party remains a viable option in the way of parties, I think that they are still going to hold on to their obsessive, puritanical pacifism. Those scum even barred obvious should-be 45th president Austin Petersen from Colorado’s state convention simply for disagreeing with them on the Non-Aggression Principle and for appealing to a diversity of political psychographics.

As someone who follows a loose interpretation of the NAP that happens to permit defensive aggression while still banning initial aggression, I see this as the LP being pure Regressive Left on everything BUT economy. In fact, so much do I perceive my own party as Only disagreeing with the Regressive Left on economy that I say the LP deserves to suffer worse than just exclusion from the general election debates, if they nominate someone other than Austin Petersen, then I say they deserve to be abolished as a party, and their current typical voter-based deserves to be prohibited from exporting their puritanically-NAP to the Republican Party, for whom this post is about radically changing the platform of.

Why did I pick the GOP platform instead of aspiring to create a political party of my own? Because a half-hour read of each of Republican History and Democrat History confirms for readers that the Republican Party is the more realistic of the two mainstreams for this new libertarian platform to go usurping. Abraham Lincoln, for example, created a far better platform to birth and breed the GOP on than Andrew Jackson created to birth and breed the Democrat Party on.


The Republican party nowadays, much like the Libertarian Party, has forgotten the founding Party Principles, but unlike the Libertarian Party is open to ideological diversity within its party, even if it causes temporary disunity during times wherein elections are not the big priority. Whereas the LP obsesses, poisonously, over its own puritanical espousing of the NAP, like if I was a candidate I’d be banned from conventions because I am simply not Non-Aggression Principled enough for the LP’s behavioral ripoffs of the Regressive Left.

More simply reasoned, if the Libertarian Party were to be swung into this platform, then not many people would really know about it because the Libertarian Party is only 8% of America’s 23 million hard-core libertarians and 48 million soft-core libertarians [2 million and 4 million, respectively].

Republican Party being altered so radically as by this platform, on the other hand, this entire nation and most if not all of its neighbors would be all over such news of reform!

Think about it: 6 million of America’s 322 million total people are LP, compared with 84 million Americans who are GOP, including 10 million hard-core libertarians and 20 million soft-core libertarians.

So without further hold up, allow me to write a platform that, unlike the previous Republican platform I wrote, puts forth fewer planks with better explanations.

1 = Individual Freedom

Government has no moral or legal duty, or even option, to set limits to political, intellectual, social, or even sexual freedom; the only exception being limits that are purely about guarding from individual freedom from barbaric aggressors.

It is therefore only compliant with the platform the GOP was founded on for the GOP to be in favor of ending the war on drugs. It is also only hard-core Republican Partying for the Republican Party to be favoring the abolition of Abstinence-only “education” and the replacement of it with Abstinence-plus, aka Comprehensive, for all Colleges, High Schools and even Middle Schools.

Not only do such policies increase individual freedom, but also they have proven themselves historically to get the absurdity called abortion radically reduced in terms of how frequently it may occur. True Republicans [who are Pro-life] will seek every Non-invasive, Secular-science method they can find to end abortion, because there are options. Two of them named above.

Other freedoms no Republican should ever favor limits to are Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Media; Freedom of Religion; Freedom of Choice in the areas of school, language, lifestyle, diet, & clothing; Freedom of Movement; Free Migration; Right of Self-Defense; and Civil Rights. The American Civil War was fought by the GOP for Civil Rights for all races and for both genders. Equally. Which leads us right into the second tenet of true Republican-partying.

2 = Legal Equality

The Reconstruction Amendments; 13, 14, and 15; are all equally clear: From Abraham Lincoln’s time to now, Legal Equality was and is a mandate.

So-called “Republicans” who favor repealing any of these amendments are terrible for the moral health of the GOP, and would be better off being Independents or something else other than Republicans.

Legal Equality means that the same laws, same freedoms, and same moral responsibility standards, apply equally to all citizens.

3 = Economic Liberty

True Republicans must equally support maximum freedom for all Americans, both employed and unemployed, on-duty and off-duty. This is wherein lies the importance of economic freedom.

It pains me to know that the GOP has been taken over by Wall Street corporatism, did you know Big-shot National Corporations as represented by Wall Street despise Capitalism for the exact same reasons for which Democratic Socialists despise Capitalism?

Both despise capitalism precisely because capitalism is all about leaving economic policies to small businesses as represented by the global generic phrase “Main Street“, resulting in an equal working field for all people and in ultimate prosperity for all, and capitalism also creates jobs by encouraging merit-driven wage laws that favor hard work and smart work equally.

Capitalism also means individuals have permission to set up their own e-commerce trades like Amazon, AirBNB, and Uber. And people are allowed to independently publish their very own fictional universes in print and/or ebook format!

4 = Moral Responsibility

The only crimes that count as crimes are violent crime and property crime. And even then, true Republicans should not be wanting federal government to make crime policy. Local communities, meaning city and town populations, should be the bosses of what laws to make against actual crimes, including what to prescribe for perpetrations of such violations of individual freedom. However, this must be decided by local populations within Constitutional limits. Speaking of constitutional limits…

5 = Constitutional Republic

The Founders created the US Constitution with good reason: to ensure that our nation remains a civilized nation, to remain the role-model to foreign nations of how to morally operate a nation.

The Articles, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional Safeguards of Civil Rights. All of these serve a purpose: to keep America civilized at all times. America is meant to be a role model for all civilizations, and so far America has historically had success setting an example for other Westernized nations of the world, up until the 1950’s at least.

Regardless, true Republicans will have to be upholding of the US Constitution, plus must emphasize the difference between democracy and republic: the former is based on Rule of Mob, the latter is based on Rule of Law.

6 = Armed Freedom

Securing Freedom domestically does not even temporarily require banning of certain ideological groups, it does not mandate refusal to adopt open immigration, it does not mandate border walls, and it most easily does not mandate resistance to free trade or such invasions of privacy as the Patriot Act.

Instead securing freedom domestically mandates a very strong, highly funded, all volunteer national defense. Our military needs to be constantly seeking Non-coercive ways to expand the range of qualified volunteers and Fiscally Conservative ways to deploy its current and reasonably high budget; such as military pilots ditching the higher-priced & lower-quality F-35 Lightning program for higher investment in the lower-priced, higher-quality A-10 Thunderbolt program.

More fiscally conservative reforms that need to be made to the U.S. military, in place of altering military spending in either direction; include the restoration & modernization of Letters of Marque and Reprisal as a viable alternative to sending in US troops to foreign battles, and cutting midrange weapon prices in half by ditching the highly-viable $1120 M4A1 carbines for the equally-viable $673 M16 rifles.

As for American civilians, honest-to-earth Republicans will call not for No Gun Control but for Less Gun Control, true Republicans need to tell the reality of gun rights like it is:

The right of the People to Keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

-Second Amendment

In other words, true Republicans are going to half to espouse the fact that we need more room for citizens to be Allowed to be upstanding armed citizens, not forced to be.

7 = Empire of Liberty

Legitimate Republican Partying factors in that Thomas Jefferson once said:

“We shall divert through our own Country a branch of commerce which the European States have thought worthy of the most important struggles and sacrifices, and in the event of peace [ending the American Revolution]…we shall form to the American union a barrier against the dangerous extension of the British Province of Canada and add to the Empire of liberty an extensive and fertile Country thereby converting dangerous Enemies into valuable friends.”

This was on December 25th of 1780 he said this. Merry Christmas, The West! Thomas Jefferson’s Christmas gift to humanity: the “Empire of Liberty” theme for foreign policy positions.

With this being in mind, true Republicans recognize that while Defensive War is Right of Self-Defense for Westernized nations, aka free nations, and while Wars of Aggression, Preventive War & Preemptive War are inherently criminal; Liberation War must not be the only policy for converting theocracies into republics: Free Trade, Open Immigration, and Liberation War were all equally Jefferson’s actual style of bringing freedom to the world, the best exponents of Empire of Liberty have been James Madison, GOP founder Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Here in the Twenty First Century, the GOP needs major exponents who the novel “Emperor of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson’s Foreign Policy” is mandatory reading for. Yes, we need to recognize as Thomas Jefferson did that war is neither always the answer, nor is it never the answer, to Empires of Tyranny.

Jefferson was never self-sacrificial about his ambitions, either. The GOP needs to adopt his balance of bringing freedom to the world with refusal to take the altruism and self-crippling of just war theory seriously.

8 = Art of Liberation War

Back in the 6th Century BC, the Chinese general and author Sun Tzu created the book Art of War, which the GOP needs to commit to using to utterly replace Just War Doctrine.

Republicans also need to open the US military to history of how Liberation Wars were managed in the past by people like General Sherman during the American Civil War and Winston Churchill during the Second World War.

The GOP has a moral duty to open the US military to how General Sherman needed to devastate the Slave South severely in order to end Southern support for slavery and the ideology spawning it at the time: White Supremacy.

The same moral duty applies to educating the military about how Winston Churchill needed to severely devastate the Third Reich in order to end the Reich’s genocidal campaign against ethnic Jews, including the ideology spawning the genocide: Nazism.

Which brings us to another part of how the GOP is supposed to handle war: No wise general targets a practice like slavery or genocide. One must target the ideology motivating oppression and slaughter in the world, whether it is Nazism, or its 21st-century equal, the religious fanatic ideology of Salafism. The Salafis are the Nazis of the 21st century, and their despotic behaviors have no source except for Salafi Movement philosophy.


If you did not see an issue appear here that you care about, please be assured that all legitimate Republican Partier opinions, whether they differ from each other or not, will be motivated by the eight core values laid out above.


That’s all I got for a legitimate Republican Party platform for the United States. Thank you for reading all of this,


Logo Created for my Internet Name

Here it is… I one day decided to create a logo for my internet alias.

Libertarian Defense Atheism logo

How to explain: The face is the Disturbed rock band mascot face because, 1 = I love their music its my favorite music, 2 = the leader of that band, David Draiman, is a fellow libertarian, 3 = the Far Left and Far Right seem to share a false belief that human rights is ‘evil’, plus much of the LP thinks human rights is only NOT evil in America. And since this face is evil-looking, I asked my brain “why not?”

This is one of my many color-ins I created based on a template I drew out on Apple OS-only programming called “Paintbrush“, template based on the Statue of Freedom, known as Armed Freedom.

Other Color Ins?

Why yes, I did create other color-ins.

This one:

Superior LP Logo

Inherently better logo for the party I am registered to vote within.

This one:

Freedom Defender - brunette version

Because I vastly admire women with black hair & blue eyes…

And because I am such a dork with how into Middle-earth I am, I even went so far as to make this weird thing:

Dark Lord of Freedom

The reason this is so weird, and probably unwise, is because the fictional character who the face is molded on, Sauron, is the dear-leader of all that is Despotic in his fictional world, yet here’s his face on a template based on “Armed Freedom”.


Well, I am very artistic, with Paintbrush, and yes, as you may have seen in March or earlier [or was it April?] with my repaint of a certain LEGO mini-figure of mine. And I paint Citadel minis you can and will see on my Middle-earth blog, “Haradrim and Easterling Scholar”, or should I create a third blog that is just about my drawings? I’ll think on that…

…but for now, thanks for the read,


Nearly Half of the Common Voters Will Vote for Austin Petersen


Well… as the internet atheist who currently endorses Austin Petersen for president, I believe it is time for me to explain how he has a higher likely-hood of being our 45th president than any of the four or five possible “Demopublican” [Democrat & Republican] contenders.

Millennial Voters

I am a millennial – I turned 22 on May 6th of this year [2016] and used some Amazon.com money to buy the nonfiction novel “Emperor of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson’s Foreign Policy“. I use Wikipedia to garner knowledge and Amazon to buy most of my stock, and sparingly for groceries that the store I work at does Not offer.

Therefore I am extremely proud to announce the three reasons in a choice between Democrats, Republicans, or Petersen; around half of my generation will choose Petersen:

  1. Two-in-three millennials; 64%; prefer Free Markets over Government Scheming
  2. Fifty-two percent are Independents, neither Democrat [32%] nor Republican [16%]
  3. Sixty-Nine percent favor Gay Marriage legalization with an average of the same ratio, 69%, favoring individual freedom in lifestyle, in clothing, in diet and in other choice categories.

Source = Reason Magazine’s “Millennials: The Politically Unclaimed Generation”

Voters In General

According to Gallup polling posted to the internet this exact year, 42% of Americans of all generations are Independents, contrast with 29% Democrat and 26% Republican.

Organically, this means Petersen gets to look forward to almost half of the popular vote.

Voting Legitimacy

Do you really think that Wall Street, Government, or who ever else is accused of buying elections these days [I don’t know enough about the electoral field of politics to really speak reliably about it] will just give the election of 2016 to Hillary or Sanders, or to Trump or Cruz [or Kasich] if Austin Petersen both gets into the general election and wins the popular vote as the above statistics are all that are needed to know he will? You really think people who buy elections or whatever will declare “Well, ya know, the people have chosen Austin, but… HILLARY! OR BERNIE! OR DONALD! OR TED CRUZ! ONE OF THOSE FOUR!”

You really think those who buy elections will silence the popular vote if the largest minority of such a majority-Lacking popular vote if this popular vote goes to Austin Petersen?


Because it would be a rancid black eye on this entire country’s entire Human Rights status. You do not respect the collective peace of your entire country by saying “Yups, we know you wanted the Third Party candidate but we wanna keepz muh tow parteh Sith-tum”

That’s NOT how you respect the peace of the US, that’s how you end up with a Second American Revolutionary War being warranted.

The Reality

So, in truth, if Austin Petersen wins the popular vote, then him having gotten the Libertarian Party’s nomination will have paid off.

Speaking of which, Petersen needs the popular vote within the LP first before he can get the popular votes of the 42% of Americans overall who are Independents, the 63% of Democrats who wanted Bernie if Hillary gets the Democrat Party’s popular vote, and the 59% of Republicans who refuse to vote for Donald Trump.

Remorsefully, my “Constitution” State [quoted to convey sarcasm] has chosen to make ballot access very, very tough for the Libertarian Party to obtain. Thats why I could not vote in the CT Primary this year.


Another short one, readers. I believe very strongly that another 4 to 8 years of Democrat or Republican system of no-third-way is NOT unavoidable. There is the best chance that Austin Petersen will win the popular vote within the LP, I cite polling conducted by the LP itself:

LP polling

Austin is the most electable, by a difference on Gary of 2 points and a difference on John of 14 points.

And there is the best chance that he will win the popular vote of the general election, My citation being the polling data by Reason and Gallup cited earlier.

But if he wins the popular vote But Then gets shut out of being 45th president on behalf of how elections currently go, then I believe that a Second American Revolutionary War and/or second Civil War is unavoidable, as the next 4 to 8 years of our nation’s status quo. So if you want maximum peace domestically

…then peacefully vote AND donate to Take Over The Government To Leave Everyone Alone.

Thank you readers for reading,


List of Western Cultural Values


I look on Wikipedia and I see no viable article for a “list of Western Cultural Values”.

Plus, many distrust Wikipedia over the fact that anyone with a Wikipedia account can edit, even I see that as its number-one design flaw. However, they fixed that with making having an account one of many prerequisites to being able to edit it.

So I figured I should do a WordPress post naming and Summarizing each Western Cultural Value.

I am going to use Merriam-Webster dictionary to define each value, and for values it refuses to define I will fall back on Wikipedia.

The List

  1. Rationalism = the mentality of using logic, reason, and personal experience to explain one’s actions, one’s opinions, and the world around one’s self and refusing to ever use feelings or organized religion
  2. Humanism = the mentality of basing one’s values on the idea that most people are good people and problems can only be solved by drawing solution ideas from reason and never from religion
  3. Debate = a peacefully occurring two-or-more-sided discussion between people wherein each side espouses a different mix of opinions
  4. Free Thought = unconventional opinions and/or beliefs such as Atheism, Deism, or other Non-religious mindsets
  5. Human Rights = the regarding of liberty and equality as belonging to the entire human species
  6. Legal Equality = the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice [i.e. everyone held to the same moral standard no matter their race, gender, nationality, skin color, eye color, hair color, ethnicity, religion, irreligion, disability, or annual income amount]
  7. Democracy = a form of government under which people choose their leaders by voting, have maximum freedom, and are all held to the exact same moral standard
  8. Secularism = the idea that religion should not play any role in government or in the rest of the public sector, and also that government should not play any role in religion
  9. Experiments = the scientific testing in which you perform actions to carefully observe their affects for the sake of learning
  10. Sciences = branches of knowledge about and study about the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
  11. Political Pluralism = the recognition of peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles within a political body
  12. Natural Law = a body of law or specific principle held to be adapted from nature and binding upon human culture
  13. Constitutionalism = the desire for government to espouse a strict interpretation of a Constitution
  14. Parliamentary system = a system of government wherein the executive draws its legitimacy from a legislative branch
  15. Presidential system = a system of government wherein the executive draws its authority independently from any legislative
  16. Republic = a form of government wherein the leaders are elected representatives and an elected leader instead of a king or a queen
  17. Rule of Law = the legal principle that law should govern a nation instead of impulses or religion governing a nation
  18. Freedom of Speech = the freedom to express one’s opinions freely without fear of retaliation or censorship
  19. Freedom of the Press = the freedom for journalists to simply report the news without fear of censorship, while not crafting the narrative
  20. Freedom of Religion = the freedom to espouse any religion or non-religion both in public and in private, both on one’s job and off one’s job
  21. Free Market = the economic system wherein prices are based on competition among small businesses and the economy is neither regulated by government nor monopolized by big corporations
  22. Civil Rights = the principle that everyone should have the exact same freedoms no matter their gender, race, ideology or whatever else
  23. Open Immigration = an immigration policy of letting human beings migrate to whichever nations they see opportunity for a better life in
  24. Free Trade = a system of trade between nations wherein there are no import or export taxes, and wherein the only regulation that exists are prohibition of violent crime and prohibition of property crime
  25. Freedom of Choice = an individual’s opportunity and independence to make non-aggressive choices in one’s own lifestyle, diet, clothing, and/or ideology


Well, now when someone Googles “list of western values”, they can look to the list above for a learning experience. There are some which I may be missing, such as empathy, but some values like that we can say are Western instincts rather than Western values. Thank you either way,