Paradise Stolen – Episode 1 – DON’T SHOW YOUR CHILDREN!

Posted in economics, philosophy/science, propaganda/sophism, videos | Leave a comment

Heroes and Villains: The Word “Capitalism” Clarified in Seven Short Paragraphs

(Revision One, copyleft 3-26-2016 by Peter Voluntaryist Walker)

The word “capitalism” means so many different things to so many different people that to say it without specifying which version is the logical equivalent of saying “Those bad guys are really bad” for some and “Those good guys are really good” for others. This is because capitalism is a social institution the same way the family is: Both institutions go back to when our ancestors were covered with fur and first bartered food for sex as do our close relatives the bonobos. There are voluntary and involuntary versions of capitalism just as there are for marriage, so one way to make sense of the word is to say “voluntary capitalism” (called by some “free market”) or “involuntary capitalism” (called by some “crony capitalism”, where justice is just-us; for instance corporatism):

– An example of voluntary-versus-involuntary is the marriage contract. As it presently exists in most of the first-world, it’s voluntary capitalism because it’s a voluntary economic contract. Within most reasonably functioning marriages and especially with children, the internal workings are a form of socialism or communism; but the marriage contract between the partners/parents (two or more, after all I am anarchistic) remains voluntary capitalism. If they get divorced through the social institution of The State, it often changes from free market capitalism to crony capitalism because representatives of The State get at the least a cut of the loot.

– Add “ism” to the end of a root word, and you’re in sophist heaven because unspecified isms are so spinnable. Despite the sophist slants, “capital” simply means a resource that can be invested into the future; logically it ranges from the small to large:

— Small: Seemingly insignificant instances of delayed gratification that when made habitual greatly determine who does and doesn’t become economically successful.

— Mid-Range: An economically modest but cooperative extended family intelligently investing in their next generation.

— Large: Multi-million dollar speculation in commodities such as land or pseudo-legal crime such as buying politicians.


Voluntary capitalism isn’t limited to economic exchanges seen as roughly commensurate advantageous (like if I’m willing to pay $50 for a cell phone and the store is willing to sell it for $50) to those involved. Voluntary capitalism (VC) can be I give the cell phone to a friend for free and tell him to “pass it forward” — which I know he may never do. VC can be the 100% no charge (to the best of my knowledge) Ubuntu Linux running on my computer as I write this competing with Microsoft, Apple, and others.

– VC simply means there’s capital involved and it’s being used in a voluntary way.

– Persons disagreeing with the above, and I welcome them when they do so logically rather than through sophism or other forms of escalation, often argue nothing is voluntary because we live in a society where you either play by the rules or starve, and that’s coercion. I agree about human society in general because as a species we’re exiting out of the superstitious phase of our evolution, and our nonsuperstitious phase is just a speck on our timeline; but discussions such as this are a part of the progress and as with my above marriage example, there are pockets of voluntary actions/organizations in society.
Posted in economics, essay/mini-essay, philosophy/science, propaganda/sophism | Leave a comment

Public School Students Are the New Inmates in the American Police State

Posted in article/link/reference, videos | Leave a comment

Marx Part 1: Labour & Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

This is like the CliffsNotes of the CliffsNotes.

Posted in article/link/reference, economics, philosophy/science, videos | Leave a comment

The Deep State

What your “social studies” or whatever teacher didn’t know or was afraid to tell you. There’s lots of other material, even Chris Hedges and Bill Moyers, on the subject.

Posted in article/link/reference, videos | Leave a comment

What Pisses Me Off About The Brussels Terrorist Attack

Posted in article/link/reference, videos | Leave a comment

Ep. 623 The End of School: Reclaiming Education from the Classroom

Posted in podcast, videos | Leave a comment

The Five Core Social Classes of Mainstream Cultures

(Nine short paragraphs plus endnotes, Revision One copyleft 3-21-2016 Peter Voluntaryistic Walker.)

By “mainstream cultures” in this context, I mean most cultures at the ethnic or country level include the ruler-ruled paradigm. It’s usually covert because it’s easier and cheaper to rule people who believe they’re free.

The five classes are owners, enforcers, maintainers, producers, and escapees. The enforcers and maintainers include but aren’t limited limited to professional members of the social institution of The State; what I call capital-G “Government” to differentiate it from self-government and other win-win solutions for social cooperation.

There are subclasses of the core five who prima facie don’t appear to fit. For instance, the incarcerated and the multi-generationally Government dependent are trapped maintainers because their status justifies ever bigger Government to indoctrinated producers and provide examples of Government power/terror to keep producers in line.

The only 100% escapees (if any) are those truly off the grid, which means not you if you’re reading this. I consider myself a partial escapee because of my escapee brain/mind; but physically I’m involuntarily on the grid. Unless your parents never put you on the grid, probably the only way to 100% escape is to perfectly fake your own death.

Conclusion: The point isn’t whether or not morality *has* an objective truth, but whether or not it *can*:

– As of this writing I’m 64 and merely within the last year I profoundly as opposed to superficially asked myself about the difference between objective and subjective.

– I’ve been economically productive enough to have raised two families, so I’m a case study of how everyday people are dumbed-down to be producers but not critical thinkers.

– Through both conspiracy and social inertia, the owners socially engineer everyday people to use critical thinking in a narrow area of our minds/brains, but only within the area that allows us to be productive and thus easily sheared and butchered — unlike other forms of livestock, we shear and butcher each other to save our owners the trouble.


One of countless case studies from…:
“There is a dubious new addition to the Forbes 2015 America’s Richest Families list. The Sackler family, which owns 100 percent of Purdue Pharma, amassed the 16th largest family fortune in the U.S., estimated to be worth $14 billion dollars.
What makes this distinction dubious is the fact that the Sackler’s built their fortune by peddling the highly addictive, and often deadly, opiate painkiller OxyContin as a supposedly non-addictive version of oxycodone, labeling it as “abuse resistant.”
Purdue Pharma has generated estimated sales of over $35 billion dollars since releasing OxyContin in 1996. That first year the drug accounted for about $45 million in sales, by 2000 that number had skyrocketed to $1.1 billion, an increase of over 2,000 percent in just four years.
By 2010, OxyContin would account for annual profits of $3.1 billion. Simply put this family controlled almost one-third of the U.S. prescription pain business in America.
In a seemingly methodical manner, Purdue Pharma, under the guidance of brothers Arthur, Raymond, and Mortimer Sackler, began a propaganda campaign to push their new drug, as described in The American Journal of Public Health, “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy.”
One of the primary missions of Purdue Pharma was to identify the doctors across America prescribing the most pain medication and strategically marketed the drug directly to them as a safe alternative to other pain medications.
According to The Week:
“During its rise in popularity, there was a suspicious undercurrent to the drug’s spectrum of approved uses and Purdue Pharma’s relationship to the physicians that were suddenly privileging OxyContin over other meds to combat everything from back pain to arthritis to post-operative discomfort. It would take years to discover that there was much more to the story than the benign introduction of a new, highly effective painkiller…
“This was indeed one of OxyContin’s greatest tactical successes. According to “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin,” from 1997 to 2002 prescriptions of OxyContin for non-cancer pain increased almost tenfold. Meanwhile, in 1996 the FDA approved an 80mg version of the pill; four years later it approved a 160mg tablet. According to the FDA’s “History of OxyContin: Labeling and Risk Management Program,” higher dosages were approved specifically for opioid-tolerant patients…
“Perhaps knowing that doctors would be vigilant against prescribing drugs with the potential for abuse, Purdue set out to distinguish OxyContin from rivals as soon as it dropped. The cornerstone of its marketing campaign was the drug’s incredibly low risk of addiction, an enviable characteristic made possible by its patented time-release formula. Through an array of promotional materials, including literature, brochures, videotapes, and Web content, Purdue proudly asserted that the potential for addiction was very small, at one point stating it to be “less than 1 percent.”
As doctors began to readily hand out this new drug, these high dose pills became a scourge across main street America. Drug users increasingly turned to OxyContin for the powerful high and euphoric effects, comparable to heroin, but which can reportedly last for over eight hours.
But what about the claims that the drug was “abuse resistant?”
Drug abusers quickly figured out that all it took to usurp the time release of the pill was to crush it, and so began a deadly story of snorting and injecting this powerful opiate, which has led to the deaths of thousands of people per year.
It’s ironic that this family is celebrated for amassing a fortune from selling a drug, which has killed tens of thousands, while good people rot in prison for life for selling a plant that grows naturally and has never killed a single person.
To add insult to injury, in 2007, in United States of America v. The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the company plead guilty to misleading patients and doctors about the addictive nature of the drug. Prosecutors cited a “corporate culture that allowed this product to be misbranded with the intent to defraud and mislead.”
None of the Sackler family was charged.
Purdue was given a $600 million dollar fine, a very minor slap on the wrist for a company that has generated over $35 billion since 1996 by lying about the deadly dangers of their drug. The company still faces a lawsuit from the State of Kentucky, the place worst hit by the drug epidemic, for false marketing, with damages potentially exceeding $1 billion dollars. The company denies any wrong-doing in the case.
From 1999 to 2010, the sale of prescription painkillers to pharmacies and doctors’ offices quadrupled. In the exact same time span, the number of overdose deaths from prescription painkillers also quadrupled, rising to almost 17,000, according to the Center for Disease Control.
The number of deaths caused by the use of OxyContin dwarfs the number of people killed during the deadly Mexican drug war, while overdose deaths, from prescription pills, have now surpassed that of cocaine and heroin combined.
In an entirely irresponsible and hypocritical move, the FDA just approved a measure to give OxyContin to children!
The fact that some people are freely allowed to market potentially deadly drugs, while others are thrown in a cage for the same activity, seems to highlight that not all people are equal in the eyes of the state or the law.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has been published on Ben Swann’s Truth in Media, Chris Hedges’ truth-out, AlterNet and many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.”
Posted in essay/mini-essay | Leave a comment

The Social Institution of The Dictionary (six paragraphs)

(Revision Three copyleft by Peter Voluntaryistic Walker, 5-31-2016)

The word define means to describe and equally important, to differentiate from similar other things. For instance the academic field of zoology differentiates similar animals, say horses and zebras, as separate species if they can’t routinely successfully interbreed. Definitions are among the most powerful of language tools and without agreed-upon definitions for key words used in problem solving, win-win solutions are almost impossible if not impossible to arrive at.

– Science-based definitions are much more objective and easier to agree on than definitions concerning human social interactions. Here indoctrination confuses word meanings. For instance to some, the word capitalism represents voluntary transactions; to others the very same word represents involuntary transactions such as corporate welfare. In such cases, if two people discussing an issue can’t agree on a definition, they can come up with an agreeable substitute word. Scientists do this all the time, and if it can work for them it can work for anybody who doesn’t have a sophist agenda. Where there’s sophism, there’s pseudo-discussion.

– I choose to have two or more definitions for social-interaction type words: What the word means to me, what the word means to most people, and what the word probably means to whomever I’m attempting to communicate with. This helps me communicate better, think better, and better recognize sophism.

The dictionary is a social institution the same way the family is. Googling “TED talks dictionary” leads to an unconventional but true perspective of how the dictionary institution works — almost like circular logic, where people writing dictionaries try to figure out what the general population means when they say certain words; and the general population trying to figure out what “the dictionary” says.

– TED Talks are examples of informative but incomplete information. Just as politicians are a special interest group, so are at least some of the people behind TED Talks. They and other powerfully entrenched special interest groups know they can’t stop social change; and there’s parts of social change they don’t want to stop, because some but not all new things benefit them. Such groups seek to manage social change in a way that preserves the parts of the status-quo that benefit some at the expense of others. For instance, TED Talks won’t publicize most dictionaries’ customers being schools funded through governments, in-turn funded through managed illogic.

Thus the overall social institution of the dictionary supports euphemisms, ambiguity, and mal-definitions in social interaction related concepts as one small part of a much wider scope of using illogic to help the powerfully entrenched special interests manage social change in their favor. It’s also a part of the dumbing-down process, because almost all of us humans are born logic and emotionally healthy but become easily manipulated if dumbed-down; and almost all of us are by forced tribal conformity; aka indoctrination, aka social engineering, aka human domestication (separate essays).

This mini-essay posted at and

Posted in essay/mini-essay | Leave a comment

The Deep Government Group(s) – Books by Peter Dale Scott

Posted in article/link/reference | Leave a comment