Ending the dominion of pain and death.


Literal Slavery, Original Debt, and the Reality of Choice


Some have argued that slavery is defined by the ability of a slave owner to steal and sell children and that therefore wage slavery is a whiny emo term because McDonald’s can’t sell their employees children to Wendy’s. But the fact is the 1% DO buy and sell (y)our children because it saddles them with original debt and gives them a false choice every bit as loaded as the choice a slave faces: Suffer profitably for us, suffer punitively, or die.


I for example, having ethics and will power, decided while still a virgin to never have children until I could afford to have them as a free person. That means not being dependent on the whim of an employer or a public school system with regard to how that child develops. This is a freedom that actually only the very rich in today’s world have.

Virtually no one in the developed world has that freedom. And the few that potentially might, have been brain wiped by that same education system and media such that they think indenturing their children to this system is not only wise, but morally urgent. Many of the rich are keen to indoctrinate their larva, saddling them with a different kind of original debt.

Original debt is the original sin of the modern world’s church.

Children are born non-people (as proved by the facts that they can’t vote and they can legally be whipped at will virtually anywhere on earth) and they even if considered citizens would still be considered worthless because by default they are “uneducated.” Which as Frank Zappa and Ray Bradbury will tell you, just means mostly unburdened by student loan debt.

People of the bootlicking variety are keen to point out how awesome compulsory education is simply because it’s costly to impose but free for the victim. But that’s the first step of original debt. It’s the collective version of the cliche abusive guardian railing about how hard it is to feed/cloth a child, therefore they should be grateful and obedient.

Which would make sense to some degree if it was an actual choice for the ward. That lack of choice is the essence of slavery.

This concept of owing a debt to your owners flies in the face of any objective non-arbitrary definition of human rights because it attaches a price tag to being born as if it was a choice.

In a sense a pet literally has more choice because a dog or a cat actually can choose to leave and the result doesn’t necessarily mean torture and death, though for a pet deep in human controlled territory or a harsh setting it could mean that.

Put simply, I didn’t ask to be born. There are two ways generally you can parse that. You can either kill me when I don’t comply. (Amusingly acknowledged with the cliche threat, I brought you into this world I can take you out.) Or you can recognize that my being alive is a debt to be paid by someone other than me. In my case the debt is paid by my parents but this isn’t fair for several reasons. Firstly, all three of us live under government rule. They ultimately have authority over every aspect of our lives. I am not allowed to so much as build a fire in my front yard or dig a well without a permit. (They have literally gone so far as to demand I paint my house a certain color.) Thus I have been utterly stripped of any real ability to provide for myself independently.

Both for ethical reasons and for diversity reasons participation in the “job” market needs to be a real choice between two or more viable alternatives.

It is morally urgent for society to accept responsibility and allow for the choice to opt out. Anything else is by definition true slavery. I should as a human by default own a share of the planet’s value equal to it’s total value divided by it’s population. “The per capita PPP GWP was approximately US$12,400.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

If I were given that by default in exchange for playing by the rules, then we could talk about employment being a choice. We could then talk about capitalism in Horatio Alger pluck and determination terms. All the self improvement and ambition rhetoric would apply.

But it doesn’t so long as the choice is dental torture and slow starvation, or being a wage/debt slave.

If my “choice” is choose an owner, be it corporate, clerical, or government, or be homeless, excommunicated, or imprisoned, then I had about as much choice as the slave who could at best choose who caused their death, or which form of torture to endure.

Until it’s actually possible for someone to live in society at the expense of society as a kind of collective inheritance, then “citizens” are nothing but slaves, with varying degrees of perks.


What did you expect?

We make irrational demands and reject anyone that tells us what we don’t want to hear, thus we are stuck with alpha liars.

Sure, the government is a captured 1% puppet now, but we allowed it to get that way. And until we start making rational demands we’ll keep getting irrational representatives. And I’m not talking about a new round of punish thy enemy. I’m not talking about tough love for other people but magically you’re just fine.

I’m talking about giving up some shit you’re straight up addicted to.

The right in particular rose to power by telling people what they wanted to hear no matter how incorrect or cruel or narcissistic it was, and it still is that way. How many assholes get elected basically saying “I’ll make sure you can do whatever you want and force only other people to change/suffer.” All of them as far as I can tell. Right and left. Like the man said, you can always hire half the poor to kill the other half.

“Tough on crime” for example still gets votes. It’s basically just socially sanctioned sadism/racism/etc. The organized conflation of crime with criminals so that you can jerk off to all the modern equivalents of public flogging. (Crime shows and court TV much?)

What do we expect when we vote for those people? Unconditional compassion, patience, tolerance, these things are hard and require helping people we don’t always like. When you demand someone else have less freedom/compassion, don’t get all bitchy when suddenly yours gets taken away.

We love prison because we can imagine our enemies being beaten and raped. Then we get a police state.

We love school because we imagine our children turning out EXACTLY like we want them. Then we get teen pregnancy, school shootings, and bullying unto suicide.

We love “defense” spending because we imagine a death machine enforcing that will on all who disagree. Then we get drone wars and the NSA reading this post as I type it.

We love ignorant energy policy because we think windmills and solar panels are fashionable and we’re terrified of the dark magic of radiation. Then we get pipelines and coal inspired lung cancer.

We love the hope of patenting the letter E and dying a multi-billionaire and so we get the TPP and walmart on track to owning half of everything and Monsanto being handed a food monopoly.

We love marriage law because we damn sure want our ex girl/boyfriend fiscally and socially punished for breaking our hearts and we can’t possibly learn to share. Then we get domestic violence, atrocious music, sexual objectification, and the all too common homicide in a desperate attempt to avoid a costly divorce.

Bottom line, 99% of people are hypocrites and are merely experiencing the natural and logical consequences of their demands.

When you want to play with fire in the living room, sometimes the house goes up. Is it really the fault of the fire marshal with the nice smile you elected to tell you it was ok to do? Or was it your vault for handing power to someone who told you what you wanted to hear?

Why we’ll always need currency.

Where does currency come from? Ultimately it comes from the need to exchange items indirectly. Why indirectly? Because direct exchange is barter and has limitations which create (or are) resistance. Money comes from the needs created by the weaknesses of direct barter. Barter in turn comes from the mammalian strategy of communication and socialization. Organization itself is a step towards diversity because that’s where advantage is found.


Organizational life implies interaction. Interaction is always an exchange. Even a hug or a hand shake has a cost. There will always be supply and demand, since not all demands are material there will always be diversity of supply which means a basis for trade, the long term intolerable weaknesses of barter can only be overcome by currency of some sort or by stasis/homogeneity.

Any optimal society has money/currency. A way to render an abstraction as tangible. A way to externalize commitment and desire. A contract for example is a form of barter. Sure you could try to tolerate the weaknesses of barter but you’re only setting yourself up for either universal stagnation (as a result of trying to prevent…) or re-capture by covert capitalists. (What do you think the mafia/yakuza/triads are? They are competing governments.)

Economy is just an abstracted way of saying movement. Typically expressed physically as matter or energy traveling from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration along the path of least resistance.

Creating these paths in advance and waiting for reality to take them according to an imagined superior state, leading to an objective, leading to a plan for accomplishing that objective, is how one controls and shapes reality. Each of these steps can be debated forever. That’s why we have to actually try stuff.

Societies without money have been tried. They were first after all. It only works in conditions of extreme homogeneity, because only at the simplest levels can barter suffice because of a lack of diversity among goods/services/demand. Simple of course need not mean small, or boring. You can have simple and entertaining huge things. There have been massive barter economies. But they were intrinsically disadvantaged and quickly trumped by the greater diversity tolerance/exploitation of competing systems. Systems which developed from within the older systems. Even the church was forced to adapt or die.

History can be seen as a constant war and progression. A war between social inertia and innovation created diversity. A progression of capabilities growing out of growing tolerance for diversity. Progressiveness vs conservatism. Diversity will always win over the long term because it produces new opportunity/ability or exploits previously unexploitable opportunity.


But of course one can reject the earth as it is or ever has been as an argument. One can have faith in imagined superior alternatives because being an imaginative construct it is flawless and infinitely malleable.

So instead of going up in scale, let’s go down. To start with, life is activity. And activity is movement. Like movement explained above. A rock is lifeless because no part of it changes or moves “on its own” (whatever that ultimately means philosophically.) I can’t sit on a rock and get it to hatch, I can’t plant a rock and get a tree. If I could, then it wasn’t a rock, it was an egg or a seed.

The moment it sprouted roots or started to hatch it, by definition had to have an economy.

But let’s go a little lower. If it moved/reacted at all it still had an economy, even if it wasn’t alive. Like if it was made of dry ice and I dropped it in water. Now you have a temperature exchange and phase/material/chemical economy. Go lower and everything has an economy, because it’s all moving.

The lack of economy is a perceptual limitation or an illusion. Like when a tree appears to not be growing because it’s not happening fast enough for you to register. Or when pitch appears to be a solid because of its rate of flow.


or lower…


It can be argued that existence itself is movement, or vibration.


Are you hearing me yet? If you eliminate movement at any point you merely create an insulator around which movement must occur. This is the base reason why external discipline is always doomed to fail and why prohibition creates black markets and why it takes more voltage to get around, or through resistance, etc etc etc, including why you can never dispense with economy/movement/money without hideous cost. (Like saying becoming an inert chunk of rock.)

http://www.lifegem.com/ Ironic really, the only way to mostly escape the economy is to become something often used as a form of currency. XD

Even the body has an oxygen economy. How that oxygen is distributed changes based on the needs of the market/organism as a whole.

Sure, you could make an organism that doesn’t need oxygen. Anaerobic bacteria for example, which in turn just have a simpler and far less capable/diverse economy.

The planet’s surface has a water economy, upon which I modeled my economic solution (ubt/cap) because it’s a proven system. It also has a magnetic economy powered by fission, which is great for us.


All of it is running out. This movement appears to be unidirectional.


The entirety of observable reality is the progression or movement from one state to another. The only point at which we can be free of this is the last point.


The “my yard, my rules” argument.

What follows is a modified and linked up version of an argument I had on steam which I will not link because I do not want to ever see it again. (Despite my willingness to speak, the hate does as a matter of fact hurt me. I’m no emotional masochist I just have an over developed sense of responsibility to speak up on macroscopic issues.)

I see servile pandemic myopia everywhere. Anytime someone complains about anything there seems a disproportionate and ready supply of enablers eager to make apologies for whoever is the most oppressive in the room. At first I thought it was just plants, sock puppets, and insiders, but I realize it’s much scarier than that.

So they say it’s my choice to participate and that absolves them, so therefore it’s as if I’m fair game for anything they are permitted to do by those with more power and ALL COMPLAINT must therefore be invalid. How convenient for everyone with a single scrap of power over anyone in any context eh? Awful lot of people getting screwed in this culture “by choice” by that logic. Like the homeless apparently since they “choose” to not work.


It’s like no one is permitted to speak anymore unless it is to kiss the ring. Spineless wretches.

Let me be clear about something. Yes I personally hate try hard masochists and other variants of the “hardcore” gamer. I emotionally wish they’d change or vanish, but again, the point, which I was taught as a child and apparently no one else was, is that my freedom should end where yours begins. While I may desire X from them I will not force X from them nor will I argue that others with more power should force X from them on my behalf unless that force is required to protect freedom at the larger scales.

That is the core difference between every argument I make in most any context and its clash with the obsequious mob. Every argument I make is in favor of either adding freedom, or opposing the removal of a freedom. The only exceptions are those cases where a given freedom on balance leads to less freedom at the larger scale. Like for example the freedom to acquire infinite wealth.


To oppose me therefore is by definition to oppose someone else’s freedom because that is how I formulate my positions and arguments. The only possible exception is if I were in error and X argument I am making actually leads to less freedom, in which case the only counter argument is to show/explain how Y argument is superior in the net freedom context thus exposing my error or offering a superior (greater net freedom at one or more scales) alternative.

Most importantly I am always willing to give counter evidence and logic a reasonable hearing.

Apologists are constantly finding new ways to say that freedom is worthless and I should be happy to have less of it.

Games are thought experiments. Hypothetical worlds from which we can learn and through which we can teach. So far the vast majority of lessons taught are subsets of might makes right, at both the direct and meta level.

You can most clearly see this trend of volition manipulation as expressed by preemptive surrender and corporate exploitation apologism in the gaming community because being a “trivial” or “non” issue that trend is allowed full freedom to bloom under IPL’s monopolistic glow. They are exceptionally good at making principled arguments on the net seem futile, especially in gaming contexts because they are monopolistic autocracies all. For profit, and interestingly filled with school attending children.

Arguments in gaming contexts are a window into what the future will look like when this more servile crowd is finally released into the world to use these same arguments to defend corporate and government behavior outside the world of games.

The direct level of game world argument is not so important. The game world can after all be changed at the whim of the coder.

The meta level however is the real world. Game aren’t typically a diary or a private garden, they’re a public park. Into which they invite the public in exchange for the opportunity to make a sale or to which they have sold a ticket. The rights you grant them get you into the habit of thinking a certain way about what is legitimate business practice and how it interacts with your human rights and everything built on those rights, such as your rights as a paying customer, your access or lack of, to recourse, and how disputes should be handled.

Since these people are often young, being gamers, this mental habit is all the more important.

Clearly many are of the disturbingly large camp that is of the opinion that no one above them can do wrong, ever. That simply because we can leave, or because pay is not being extorted (if not then as well) they are therefore ethically unencumbered and ALL complaint is therefore evidence of a personal flaw in the complainer. (This is the function of bullies. To enforce meta-rules and punish free thinkers and anyone else not in line.)

This is a question of social faith ultimately. It’s a kind of prosperity doctrine which they implicitly accept because it is hammered into their minds by virtually every piece of media on earth produced during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Especially the entrepreneurial media, which accounts for the vast majority of all media you see.


That freedom is only exclusive to the coders of a given game is because of a rifle. (Actually a whole army ultimately.) In a sane world, not populated by boot licking drones, publicly exposed code would have to be open for the same reason ingredients must be displayed on the food boxes and cans. And in that world I would be able to fork their project if I didn’t like what they were doing with it and all who agreed with me could use that fork and all who didn’t could do as they individually pleased.

But as it stands they have a monopoly, and in the apologists mind those monopoly powers somehow absolve monopolists of responsibility instead of creating it. Trying to parse the psychological alchemy required to arrive at this perverse conclusion makes my spine ache.

In a gaming context silence is best obtained by pretending or asserting that any issue is a trivial issue, expressly because it’s “just a game” when it only is trivial in the sense that it’s the tip of a very large iceberg. It’s far more comfortable for apologists to try and dismiss the messenger because the message is pretty horrifying, and to be honest disastrous at the personal immediate level to internalize. Every day children are spanked/beaten/tortured or worse and men are beaten and raped for allowing their thinking to conflict with their masters’. For daring to ask the dangerous questions like “what gives you the right?” and “why should I?”

I don’t blame them really. Who wants to face the fact that they are totally captured? Who wants to face that a cartel of media companies and a generation of corrupt politicians have custom written large parts of their subconscious expressly to keep them working/primping, obeying, and spending without complaint?

I don’t expect you to consciously respond. In a sense I’m not even talking to you. I’m talking to your amygdala. And it won’t get the message for at least 48 hours due to the interaction between memory and sleep cycles, if the message gets through the noise at all.

Don’t think that just because you’re blind, the world is dark. Try hards ruin just about every game in the long term and they utterly dominate the thinking of modern era developers who because of the IPL social flaw mentioned before, are sickeningly profit motivated. We perversely even equate income with legitimacy. Never mind that that income has exactly nothing to do with skill, but rather perception which is almost entirely based on context.


And if there is a group that’s easy to squeeze money out of it’s insecure male try hards and their legion of enablers and thetas. The ones that eventually sign up to be cops and soldiers and are eager to hurt others to achieve better standing within the hive hierarchy, to win the girl and to pay the bill. Hence the staggering success of COD/WOW. If you can make a place for try hards to dick race, they will pay (preferably per month) to use it. And anything you do to create the impression of seriousness and accomplishment (need I say prestige?) will be rewarded with praise and cash.

Meanwhile back in the real world, an entire generation of kids is covertly trained to never question the rules and to mock and humiliate any who attempt to persuade them to think like leaders for 30 seconds. Kids who literally don’t even know what freedom is, let alone how to acquire or defend it, even in contexts where they collectively have absolute power, near immortality, and an immunity to pain. The game world.

And we wonder why back in the real world, where you can be ritually or spontaneously beaten, tear gassed, and raped for standing up and speaking truth to power, that barring the rare and transient protest, that same generation can’t/won’t be bothered to vote, and couldn’t name a single congressional figure from their state with a shotgun pointed at their heart.

If begging for more content was all I was doing, here or anywhere else, I wouldn’t get the hate that I get from random drones eager to protect the hive mentality. Educators just to cope with the ever expanding ratio of students to teachers, and society’s refusal to revisit the idea of communal education generally, have forced said educators to become extremely adept at manipulating students to internalize the rules they wish to enforce, since they haven’t a prayer of directly enforcing them themselves when they are outnumbered 30 to 1. The problem is, that mode of thinking never stops, and kids walk around well after school and college enforcing hierarchical, bell-slave, class stratified behavioral standards without even being aware of it.

The number one function of school today is to make kids conclude that obedience is their good idea and that anyone who encourages them to be a true threat ideologically or otherwise is to be ignored or mocked, at best. Beaten, murdered, or driven to suicide at worst.

It was not like this on the net, even 10 years ago, let alone 20. But of course 10 years ago, what and who moderated their contact with the world? School administrators? Collaborator parents too scared of lower pay to stand up to people they themselves were beaten/conditioned to apologize for and to?

Why do I even bother. I’m effectively trying to talk you out of not knowing how to ride a bike or talking a marine out of a repetition conditioned reflex. How is a handful of conversations supposed to expose, let alone compete with an expertly crafted programming regimen that costs billions a year and has been constantly refined for 200 years?


I play games to try and escape the world as it is, the specific elements I am escaping are in large part a result of pandemic preemptive submission and will of the ruler internalization. I get mad, because even in a setting where we are 100% free to dispense with all that baggage we (you) go out of our way to code it in and then spend huge amounts of effort defending it as if it’s a feature not a bug.

Maybe one day I’ll quit trying to be helpful or assuming the best and I’ll just be able to silently endure the antics of a generation eager to preemptively enslave itself, not only in the shared lucid dream of the game world, but the real world as well.

Why I Oppose the “Venus Project”

You don’t think it’s possible for me to be “smarter” than him do you :)


They want you to think that way.They want you to believe that you don’t have the right to speak against him unless you can play the education/skill/experience card.

But given his age and life focus, that’s hardly fair for a consensus friendly movement. In actuality it’s just a way to arbitrarily exclude potential opposition.

That’s why the first thing you see in “Future by Design” is Larry King telling the world what a super genius this guy is because of all his technical skill.

Since the kitchen sink approach has failed so many others, let me focus on a couple things the guy said in the 8 minute video above. Not the FAQ, not what other people say he meant, let’s focus on the leader and his words.

How is that fair? Because if you disregard the leader then you might as well name your own movement.The leader while he is alive defines the movement, and after he dies whoever can best manage the perception of being true to that vision controls the movement. (That’s why north Korea is saturated with past leader mythology and why American politics is so full of speculation and debate over what the founders meant or thought or said.)

That’s why I focus on policy fragments/elements (like the UBI) not policy collectives (like nations, parties, or ideologies).

“It has to be global.”

This has two problems.

Firstly it’s like saying “I have a great way to live but it’ll only work if you live by yourself.”

Secondly, it has a very clear “my way or the highway”  implication to it. No matter how gentle and palatable you make that highway and the journey to it.

Thirdly it betrays a deep misunderstanding of war and its causes. War isn’t about resources ultimately, war is about perception. As an example explore this little area of the planet.

TVP’s solution is the same as Cosmos in essence. He wants to destroy money because he fears what Cosmo calls _”its most powerful ability.”_ Marx and Lennon did as well but they realized more accurately what money is, what it facilitates, and why destroying it wasn’t possible, or necessary.

But they, and he, were wrong for the same reason the drug war is futile and why gun law is unenforceable. Diverse desires cannot be moderated effectively by authority. Authority itself is perception management. So is money in a sense. Control of perception can control the flow of money and the value of money, that much is obvious, but money, value itself, are just perceptions.

TVP ultimately proposes and is/would be defined by and as a command economy. the problem is that no central command (silicon or carbon) can compete with distributed parallel processing and barring totalitarian technological despotism, the collective computing power and sophistication of the group will always outstrip the computing power of any center.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…” ~Yeats

That is why communism invariably fails. It only survives to the degree that it behaviorally refutes itself. Putin’s Russia for example is doing well expressly because it no longer has to fake being communist.

The USSR only lasted as long as it did because it emulated our systemically fostered corruption. Basically we dragged them down to our level and beat them with experience. Faking democracy is a lot easier than faking communism.

“…we announce on TV what is available and what is not available at the time…”

He intends to replace money entirely with “technically competent” and “scientific” command.

That will not work. Even if you make the entire population technicians, which he clearly expects to occur as demonstrated by his back to school rhetoric.

However, freeing the population from the slavery of work is a noble goal.

“If you have a million sincere people that have no technical competence I can assure you nothing can be accomplished.”

Really, this tells me all I need to know. He doesn’t understand humanity at all. He needs to watch this show: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/

He also need to really think about the following quote:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” ~Albert Einstein

Knowledge can be systematically acquired. Indeed it’s something machines can do.


Those 1000 imaginations are far more valuable than 10,000 highly skilled but dull technicians. This isn’t a matter of opinion or doe eyed sentimental claptrap, it’s one of those ironic paradoxical but universal truths. We’ve scientifically confirmed that science isn’t all that important.

That’s why facts and reason don’t convince people. That’s why showmen are always in charge, not scientists. That’s why charisma is more powerful than reason.

It’s also why appearing irrational conveys advantage.



He fundamentally fails to parse the importance of the subjective. He makes the same mistake Nash did, he assumed a mercenary/rational base of human action. (By his own description his vision of what defined a rational player in part depended on his own mental illness.)

Underlore © 2013