Stable Alliances and Unstable Alliances


Remember when Thomas Jefferson advised that Americans should avoid entangling alliances? Well, what did he mean by that? He was referring to George Washington’s Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, and George Washington there was warning against the idea of making alliances with unstable regimes. But how do we tell this kind of alliance apart from a Stable alliance in today’s foreign policy topics?

Should libertarians set a standard of Stable Alliance?

Yes, absolutely! We the libertarians should totally base our standard of a stable alliance on our top political priority: freedom

Much to both my surprise and my enjoyment; CATO Institute has come up with the Human Freedom Index, something that measures how much individual liberty and minimized government is the norm in all manner of different nations world wide.

Looking at the Human Freedom Index, I would say that any nation in the world with a HFI score of 6.90 or more is fair game for “stable alliance”.

But we should also have more to this libertarian standard, specifically we need to look at a nation’s record to make sure they have never sponsored terrorism and also never conducted a post-WW2 genocide.

Does this decide which countries to drop alliances with?

Of course it does. Israel is the only alliance we have in the Greater Middle East that is not an unstable alliance; all three stable alliances we have in the Islamic world are in southeast Europe; the five stable alliances we have in East Asia are with Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan; the only unstable alliances we have in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe are with Russia and Central Asia; India is our one stable alliance in South Asia; South Africa is the nation in Africa that our alliance with is a stable one.


So, yes, Jefferson was referring to unstable alliances. But from what I can gather from him and from the other Founders, many of them including Jefferson favored stable alliances.

Thank you all for reading,



Vote Gary Johnson or Write In Austin Petersen?


Knowing that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should not be president, there is quite a question I propose to my fellow Libertarian Partiers: vote Gary Johnson or Write-in Austin Petersen?

Voting Gary Johnson

So, the benefit of voting Gary Johnson is that is simpler and more straight to the point and its the option that Austin Petersen has often made clear he wants us to utilize. But the drawback is he a little too similar to the mainstream LP platform for most voters, especially Independents, to take seriously.

Writing Austin Petersen In

The benefit of writing in Austin Petersen is it will make a clear statement to the LP that he best represents American values of any candidates offered by them. Another benefit is you will be restoring the American Dream by doing so. But the drawback is that Austin Petersen has less name recognition than Johnson has.

The Answer

You pick. I am going to write in Austin Petersen, and I want you voters reading this to vote your principles but I would like to suggest writing in Austin Petersen, but those of you who look to vote Gary Johnson are free to do so as far as I am concerned.


Very brief, I know. I post here rather rarely lately. But I promise I will come out with more. Thank you readers,


A Thought On American Political Issues Domestically


Taking a break from foreign policy to talk about what I believe to be right for America, or any nation in general, domestically.

To sum it up before explanation though, I think that on every level ~ national, state, local and even overseas territorial ~ government should only have a small number of things to do, the national to-do list being even shorter than the state/local/territorial to-do list. And on top of this I think everything else should not be matters of government control of legality but rather the free market should grow and shrink the pragmatism of decisions according to the laws of supply and demand.

And one more thing before we begin: I don’t think I am the only one who thinks this, most Americans are libertarians but don’t know it yet, the Founding Fathers were libertarians! The Founders agreed with, and recorded in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the idea that human rights belong to everyone and that government only exists to uphold human rights, that We The People give government a small list of things to do locally and an even smaller list of things to do nationally and almost every issue in economy, society and culture should be left to the free market. That’s how America was started, that’s how other Western countries were incentivized to reform themselves to be after America’s founding, and I trust that is how a middle 60’s percentage of Americans, including a low 70’s percentage of U.S. millennials like me, honestly feel when they analyze politics factually and spend about a dozen minutes per day on Wikipedia educating oneself about public policy ideas.

Okay then, onto the fine details.

National Government Powers

I believe in a minimal state on every level of government, which means in the national case there is a very short list of things to do:

  1. Print cash according to volume of Gold Reserves
  2. Mint coins according to volume of Silver Reserves
  3. Assimilate immigrants into Western culture
  4. Build a volunteer military
  5. Formally declare war on foreign aggressors
  6. Issue Bounty letters against foreign aggressors

That’s it.

Government Powers on the State, Local, and Territorial levels

Let me cut right to the list:

  1. Maintain a Police department
  2. Sponsor traffic direction
  3. Build up roads
  4. Retain a fire department
  5. Have ambulances ready to go
  6. Sponsor the courts and trials
  7. Facilitate the Prisons
  8. Make the rules of the road
  9. Keep up the natural parks and monuments
  10. Finance public sector scientific progress
  11. Provide & defend copyrights to intellectual property
  12. Sponsor the postal services

Nothing else.

What about everything else?

I believe that abortion, gay marriage, voluntary euthanasia, healthcare, education, medical marijuana, recreational drugs, non-nutritious foods, revealing fashions, gun ownership, green energy, pornography, welfare, wage standards, birth controls, pension plans, offshore banking, labor unions, immigrant labor, the 180+ different gender pay gaps (80+ of which pay women more than men by the way), Planned Parenthood, overseas trade, overtime pay, paid sick leave, paid family leave, paid vacation leave;

All of these things that government makes laws for or against they should not be dictating the status quo of or even have the status quo of them at the mercy of absolute majority rule. Instead all of these things should have the status quo of them altered by the free market, within the laws of supply and demand.

I have my own stances I take out of seeing the world through a paleontological view on these issues, but I have no problem with the implication I’m sure this idea comes with:

That some norms I support might be more expensive to live by than the alternatives that I oppose for scientific, historical and logical reasons; as a result of the law of supply and demand being the only law addressing these issues I mentioned above.

And the golden rule, that’s the only social norm that I think should guide how people treat each other. The golden rule should in fact be the only norm government enforces, and even the only against physical coercion occurring in real life against people or their property.

I believe that domestic policy should just be for government to let the free market decide the norms based on the law of supply and demand paired with the golden rule, both economically and in terms of social issues. The government should only interfere to enforce the golden rule against behaviors which are malum in se.

Under this kind of system, people would be able to decide what is right and wrong for themselves individually more naturally then even they do now, including not needing to change who they are or what principles they personally abide by.


Perhaps people were expecting another lecture on foreign affairs and defense, but I will get to that later. Thanks all for understanding my view,


Precisely Naming Our Enemies In The MENA: “Salafi Movement” And “Iranian Revolution”


Yes, this is something I am writing to the world today. Before I go into this though, let me clarify: MENA refers to the Middle East & North Africa region. Now that this is clear, I will explain myself and how I am not being politically correct by calling for us to name our enemies in the region Salafi Movement and Iranian Revolution, but how I am instead being factually precise.

On A Human Civilization History Level

The Salafi movement is all about ultra-conservative, strict, literalist, and puritanical approaches to espousing Islam, for those who still don’t know. The Salafis first called themselves the “Salafiyya” during the Rashidun era of Middle Eastern & North African history. This movement is not exactly what I would call “new” or even “19th century” as many Western scholars suggest it is. This movement is much more likely to have started a few decades after the passing of the prophet Muhammad, I believe.

Not to mention, Khomeinism is named after this guy Ruhollah Khomeini (rue-ho-la Ho-main-nee; the K is silent believe it or not) who started the Iranian Revolution, which corrupted Iran in 1979.

On An American Self-Defense Level

During World War II; America, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia correctly identified the enemy as The Nazi Party, not as Radical Christianity and not at all as Radical Catholicism. Likewise, it is absurd to try to pass off calling today’s biggest threat to Western culture “Radical Islam” as some kind of good idea; there is an obviously better idea: Referring to the current enemies of Western Civilization as “The Salafi Movement”. As for the Iranian Revolution, the ideology of whom is officially called Khomeinism, they are more like the present-day equal to the Japanese Empire of World War II.

But World War II is not the only example of America having correctly defined enemies in the past:

  • During the American Civil War; instead of calling the enemy Radical Whiteness, we called the enemy ideology White Nationalism
  • During the Cold War between America vs the Soviet Union; instead of calling the enemy something similarly absurd like Radical Socialism, we called it Marxist-Leninism and/or Communism interchangeably.

Generally, it makes no sense to try to pin together a term like ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ to the name of a race or a religion due to the lack of accuracy in doing so – call the ideology what its creators and subscribers call it; whether its Nazism, Communism, or in today’s events – Salafism.


Well, another short one. I have been trying to get myself doing shorter posts of late, and the point of this one is that we need to refer to the foreign aggression from the Greater Middle East not as Radical Islam but rather as the Salafi Movement and the Iranian Revolution. Keep in mind, I have absolutely no time for being politically correct, everything I say about every passionate interest of mine is about being factually precise. That’s why I prefer calling ISIS a product of “the Salafi Movement” instead of calling ISIS a product of “Radical Islam”, for example. Not to mention, when you type “radical islam” into Wikipedia, you get redirected to Islamic Fundamentalism, which I think many will find to lengthy a term to use, but I still refuse to call the enemy’s motivating philosophies anything apart from these two terms:

  • Salafi Movement (Salafism)
  • Iranian Revolution (Khomeinism)

One more thing: Iranian Revolution pushes to make the entire globe a theocracy like the one Iran is, while the Salafi movement is about making the globe a theocracy like what Saudi Arabia is. Thanks all in all,


Austin Petersen Changed My Mind On Monetary Policy


Hello, people! I watched an Austin Petersen YouTube video from back when he was running for president and he explained this thing free banking.

I used to favor a return to the Gold Standard, but then Petersen explained something I think I should have figured out on my own:

  • Government cannot be trusted to uphold the Gold Standard, and that was proven to some extent under FDR and in full under Nixon.

My Support for Gold Standard

I first learned about the Gold Standard in 2012 from the site iSideWith and their question on Financial Regulation. I asked “What’s this Gold Standard?” and looked into it and found out that it is the idea that government cannot print more money, or less money, than it has in gold reserves. It made mathematical sense to me and thus my support for it began.

Free Banking

From what I learned this morning, free banking refers to a system wherein the force of Supply And Demand controls what amount of banknotes and deposits can be sustained by any stock of cash revenues. And there is some compatibility with the Gold Standard I hear, which I consider a good thing as the Gold Standard has proven to keep inflation under control.

However, pure free banking means that there is no role for a central bank. Instead banks can print their own banknotes and be subservient only to the nature of Supply and Demand.

Believe it or not, the big banks despise this idea of free banking (and many might lie about why) because then they know that means they can go out of business if they do something fraudulent or coercive. Free banking also means they can go out of business by extending themselves outside of their supply stock.

National corporations also despise anything  free market, including free banking. Because then that means banks and businesses can and will rise and fall accordingly with the most organic economic force on Earth: Supply & Demand.

What Causes Economic Fail?

Corporate Welfare and centralized banking, these are the elements making big banks and big businesses to big to fail, what economic hardships people are suffering is a result of Keynesian economics, which is all wrong – this economic field says for government to keep on spending, spending, and spending money it may or may not have to prevent any banks or businesses from failing. I do hope everyone reading this can see the fallacy with Keynesian economic policy.


Well, folks. That is all I have this morning, and thank you Mr. Petersen for expanding my monetary policy view to include addressing all banking problems and not just addressing inflation alone. Thanks all around,


Would ISIS Not Exist If We Let Saddam Stay In Place?


A lot of people see the above question and instantly say “yes”. However, I as an individual tend to be very science-and-atheism headed in that I ask myself about the factors. And there are several factors that lead me to once again doubt the popular narrative of regular society.

Factor 1; Salafi Movement allies of Saddam

Yes, believe it or not Saddam Hussein was actually a state sponsor of Salafi jihadist militias. In particular, he often allied with this group called Ansar al-Islam from their founding in 2001 until the Saddam regime’s collapse in 2003, in which this group Ansar failed to defend Saddam’s regime as they were hired as mercenaries to do.

Also in 1999, there was this other group Jamaat al-Tawhid; who Saddam seemed to be hotly against, according to intel reports from 2006. So in the case of Jamaat, Saddam Hussein was against that faction of the Salafi movement. But in the case of Ansar, he was a consistent state sponsor of that other faction.

So in regards to factor 1; Saddam Hussein was a sort of two-face in regards to the Salafi movement.

Factor 2; U.S. Troop Count In Iraq

During the 2003 retaliation against Saddam for his use of biochemical warfare, American military in Iraq started off at 192,000. Then in 2007 the U.S. troop count in Iraq slightly lowered to 170,000. Four years later the allegedly “full” troop withdrawal lead to there only being 10% as many troops as in 2007, all in or near the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

This means there was a 175,000 soldier withdrawal. However, this does not mean occupation was the right thing to do. It just means ISIS could have been uprooted before they grew to the 100,000 fighters or 200,000 they have grown to according to them and according to the Kurds, respectively.

Factor 3; America’s Self-Crippling Lack of Coherent Strategy

American troops in Iraq were taught all manner of cultural relativism and brainwashed into thinking it is morally not possible to fight an enemy who fights from within guarded-status buildings, so that ideas like going into such buildings to confront the enemies indoors never cross their minds. U.S. troops died all over Iraq as a result of this cultural relativist garbage. George Bush’s altruist policies of this; and of making the troops focus on nation-building instead of hyper-defensive campaigning; and of forbidding them from doing what ever is required to rid Iraq of Salafi threats to the American People like Jamaat al-Tawhid and Ansar al-Islam; also caused U.S. troops to die all over Iraq.

The right way to fight the Iraq War would have been to have a Sherman-like policy of severely destroying the enemy’s strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare. The Iraq War could have been ended in a month and a half if Iraq War U.S. general Tommy Franks recognized the moral necessity of recycling the policies of Civil War U.S. general William Sherman, and if the then president George Bush had allowed Franks to act on such recognition. But seeing as neither thing happened, and as pacifism grew more popular over time, the result was U.S. troops suffered massive casualties with minimal casualties being suffered by the Salafi movement troops who were deprived of a sponsor as a result of the U.S. deposing the Saddam regime.

In other words, what we are seeing in Iraq are the dangerous consequences of adopting a purist following of the self-sacrificial doctrine known as Just War Doctrine, which basically contradicts theory of self-defense by teaching free societies it is somehow morally wrong to end their attackers’ strategic, economic, and mental capacities for warfare.

Factor 4; Saddam’s Direct Aggressions

Back in 1991 Saddam Hussein was invading Kuwait and had been throwing SCUD missiles at the free-market democracy of Israel since he got into power. And in general, chaos in the region was beneficial to him until 2003 when he got deposed. He was all over the Arab-Israeli War on the side of the initial aggressors, which in that war were and still are the Arab League and its various members. So, in the case of Israel, Saddam was a threat to an honest friend of the American People. And in the case of his state sponsoring of Jamaat and of Ansar mentioned above, and also with his use of biochemical weapons, he was a threat to the human species, including the U.S. population, as well. He even tried to have the 41st president of America murdered.

In this sense, our 43rd president, son of the 41st, was retaliating both for the biochemical weapons and this murder attempt. George Jr. was not the initial aggressor, Saddam was. And no, I am not defending George W. Bush, I wish only to point out the motives for the Iraq War having happened in the first place.

Saddam did not give up his biochemical weapons and yet no biochemical weapons were found? There are numerous possibilities I can name, none of which I think are the right answer:

  • Perhaps he had them destroyed
  • Maybe he gave them up to some other Arab League member-state that he was legit at peace with
  • It’s also possible he may have given them up to the United Nations

Regardless of what Saddam did to stop us from finding the biochemical weapons, it does not change the fact that he was sometimes a state sponsor of Salafi jihadism, or the fact that he tried to assassinate one of our 1990’s presidents, or the fact that he was firing enormous rockets into a the closest nation to a free society in the entire Middle East who happens to be a friend of America with his intent being to murder ethnically Jewish individuals. Granted, our friendship with Israel is wrongly built on foreign aid and not on free trade like it should be built on, but that’s not the topic we’re speaking of.

Verdict: Not A Matter of Whether Saddam Stayed In Place Or Not

No, I do not see ISIS rising to what it is now as a matter of whether Saddam needed to be deposed or to be left in. I see the rise of ISIS as a matter of abysmal, feelings-over-facts approach to the post-Saddam Salafi insurgency. With that said, let us see what my actual verdict is:

  • ISIS Would Not Exist If We had a Savannah Campaign policy both against Saddam’s regime and against the Iraqi factions of the Salafi movement.

Yes, I know I am singling Factor 3 as the biggest factor. But this is because, according to me; if we had dealt with the Salafi movement by acting on the exact same eagerness, determination, and passion for exerting the Right to Directly Defend ourselves and/or others we’d acted on during the American Civil War and during World War II, then ISIS would not exist. And this I think is consistent with a lot of things that have gone wrong for the advancement of liberty and ‘right’ for the Salafi movement’s goals.

And finally in answer to the titular question, I say No, that the Salafis would have found some other way of replacing Saddam with themselves if we had not gone in. Because think of it this way:

  • Saddam regime = thuggish government
  • Salafi movement = thuggish imperials
  • Thuggish entities have little to no trust in each other as a general rule
  • One year one thug has common cause with another, and they are sponsoring each other’s endeavors, and the next year these thugs are violating each other.
  • Thugs fundamentally stand alone as tyrannies fundamentally stand alone
  • Free societies do not have this kind of trouble making friends with each other just as cops do not have this kind of trouble making friends with each other.

Readers, I am a dude of thinking in facts and with linear reasoning. I have looked into the history behind and of the Iraq War and of Saddam before starting to post about them, but I spent all year every year since this journal started in 2014 with abstaining from speaking of it.


Don’t dismiss what I am saying because of any personal factors about me that have nothing to do with this topic, but also don’t blindly agree with everything I say. I honestly and simply think individually that the reasons for deposing Saddam were all within our national Right of Self-Defense, for the right of self-defense also legally covers defense of another, defense of others, and defense of one or more third persons. And Saddam was definitely initial aggressor against ourselves (with his assassination attempt on our 41st president), he was initial aggressor against another (his scud missile attacks against our friend Israel who we should improve our relations with by giving up our practice of telling them how to defend themselves), he was initial aggressor against others (his poison gas attacks against Iran, Kuwait and the Kurds), he was initial aggressor against nearly 2 million third persons (his murdering and torturing of an average of 200 every day during his 24 year rule). That’s all I am getting across is America and other free societies all have a national Right of Self-Defense and this Right should be treated no differently than the individual Right of Self-Defense. In fact, that’s most of the political purpose of this journal. Thanks all & all,