Why I Wrote EconSov Part 1: The Tyranny of the Davos Clique

It’s a common question in my briefings: “Why did you choose to conduct thousands of hours of postgraduate research presented in Economic Sovereignty?”

In a phrase – to improve the human condition and because nobody else was willing or able to do it.

More specifically – the Tyranny of the Davos Clique, my obsession with innovation and entrepreneurship, and educating virtuous philanthropists, executives, elected officials, and the general public since their command of Economic Sovereignty and cooperation is the only remedy to economic malaise and collapse. In this, part one, we’ll address the Davos Clique.

The Tyranny of the Davos Clique

The rationale of economists deriving from the Austrian school is unassailable – including Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell while excluding Murray Rothbard. But where are their numbers? Thorough data-driven analyses of their claims are scant if present at all. Who would finance such research? I chose to do it myself at great expense.

It has not been financed in the main because of very practical reasons. Who would benefit from releasing control of the economy from the government and institutions back to the people? It would take an awakening of the people themselves to advance this inquiry because the losers of such research results are the most powerful people on the planet – the Davos Clique.

They are the power hordes suckling from trillions of dollars in global government and institutional contracts, alongside their millions of employees. This is why the Austrian school is still designated heterodox by transnational enterprise. The World Economic Forum and socialist economists hog institutional and academic power like a prize swine at a county fair hogs the victory grub. The Davos Clique organized the fair, financed it, and sits as judge.

Suppose you never heard of the Davos Clique. Did you wonder why powerful entertainers are making slick propaganda “thought provoking films” about dirigiste Thomas Piketty’s unjustifiable work instead of Thomas Sowell’s works? They even parade frontmen like Piketty around the globe in influential forums: Obama’s Economic Advisory, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, ticketed speaking circuits, the Harvard Business Review, New York Magazine, The Nation, and Steven Colbert to name a few.

With a prophetic tinge, Alvarism is six years ahead of this global influence operation, as evidenced by the commencement of research and briefings on Economic Sovereignty in 2013. Piketty was weaving his web of ideological lies, not yet published, while I was proving him wrong silently with my own set of data. Why would a French economist choose to publish his book on United States’ Tax Day of 2014? Is France so insignificant that he has to operate on USA marketing plans? This guy and his cohorts are schemers.

And is it extreme to insist he is a liar? I choose to, because otherwise I have to believe that all of his powerful academic, political, activist, and business cohorts are completely stupid with college degrees that might as well be made from toilet paper. The India Times rebuttal only focuses on one of Piketty’s magic tricks to manipulate the data. Piketty calculated inequality without cost of living adjustments, after-tax income, all welfare and charity counted, purchase power parity, and household-to-individual normalization to name a few. I was doing the same thing that he was in 2013, prior to the release of his book, except I was doing it honestly and accurately.

And didn’t you find it to be an oddity when you saw Piketty on Steven Colbert? How many economists dazzle the late-night masses on average? Have they ever invited Thomas Sowell to such forums? Was Milton Friedman’s appearances on Donahue over 30 years ago the last time they even treated a sovereign economist with an ounce of respect? Granted, Donahue assailed Friedman with respectful skepticism and disdain, while Steven Colbert juggled balls in front of Piketty like a court jester desperate to amuse his king.

A totalitarian requires more than compliance – they require affirmation. If your thoughts and words are not inline with their edicts, you are in violation. Disagree? You will be punished with ostracism, job market intimidation, advertiser boycott, deplatforming on social media, shadow bans on social media, sexual rejection, violence, imprisonment with hypocritical hate speech laws, or even death.

The economic totalitarians tried to turn men like Milton Friedman into straw men back in the 1970s. But when the real man covered in straw fights back and defeats the totalitarian and their hordes of sycophants, he becomes the name that shall not be named in an amoral society where truth is subordinate to influence and power. This is why you will never see a debate styled like Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose, with Thomas Sowell, Thomas Piketty, Stiglitz, and myself. They know they would lose, just like they did in the 1970s against Milton Friedman. They use Power Rule #36, because they value power more than truth and the human condition.

I started Economic Sovereignty before the Davos Clique dirigiste global influence operation hit the streets in 2014. The Great Recession policy response and the misguided animus of Occupy Wall Street from 2008-2010 was my wake-up call. Although unintentional, my foresight has made me feel that my uncommon intelligence and knowledge is validated for life, having disproven a cabal of people backed by the wealthiest and most powerful clique in the world.

I did my part. Having no such institutional patronage of my own, using nothing but my personal savings, sheer force of will, mind, and virtue, I beat this global monstrosity with Economic Sovereignty. I did this under threat of assassination and medical torture exceeding that of some prisoners of Unit 731. It’s pretty cool. I’m a man with plenty of testosterone to spare and I get off on this kind of competition. David beats Goliath is the best kind of fight to win.

If you see the Davos Clique for what it is, you won’t ever be fooled by their lame mask of David thinly veiling their face atop their grotesque corps de Goliath. That cheap latex mask Piketty molded from poverty hustling, envy, guilt-baiting, and statistical deception is the most sophisticated attempt at covering up the global implosion of dirigisme, and the worst of it yet to come, with the social insurance Ponzi scheme of the United States careening towards the concrete.

They falsely call it capitalism, because they know they are the ones who made this mess to begin with. You must do your part, and educate yourself with the book Economic Sovereignty, and spread the knowledge to your neighbors. It will mean the difference between a turbulent landing or a nosedive crash, in the next twenty-five years. I will continue to supplement the book with video, briefings, and articles. I never rest until I finish what I started. Humanity needs you to take this knowledge seriously. Without your participation, the Davos Clique will proceed and apply Power Rule #36 to free people who know they can choose to use their money and labor towards righteous goals better than an overlord can dictate on their supposed behalf.

While I could go to my grave feeling legendary pride, for fulfilling my role, it won’t be a rosy picture for those left behind if the general public fails to fulfill theirs. Communism and National Socialism was the slaughter axe of the 20th century. Dirigisme is the euphoric inert gas asphyxiation death chamber of the 21st. The Davos Clique are the executioners. That is one gigantic dung pile of motivation, if your nose is good enough to smell it.

7 thoughts on “Why I Wrote EconSov Part 1: The Tyranny of the Davos Clique

  1. I’m not an educated economist, other than managing my family’s budget, so it would be helpful to know some common Davos Clique words to alert one that trickery’s afoot. A short list of their most common shell game deceits would be useful too.

    Milton Friedman was a frequent t.v. guest, even had video primers such as ‘The Four Ways to Spend Money.’ I didn’t realize til now how extraordinary that was until you cited Piketty on Colbert’s show.


    1. I would recommend sections 1.2 and 3.1 of EconSov – they review buzzwords that trick people and common conceptual fallacies that lead people astray. Luckily, one does not need to have a degree in mathematics, or economics to apply this knowledge. For instance, wealth is not income – it is surplus. And income is what a person consumed in one year plus their change in net worth (HSH income). This has incredible implications. There are many unaccounted resources such as non-cash subsidies, access to durable goods, and other items that Piketty ignored.

      There is industrial inequality – if we drove more capital to personal hygiene than we did to energy production, we would find out quickly that we have no electricity to power our hair dryers. People who work the oil rigs get paid more than make-up artists for good reasons.

      Age income inequality is enormous. Are people more productive at the beginning or end of their careers? What happens when people live longer, retire later, and young adults stop working and spend longer in college? Are they still consuming? Yes, they are consuming their parents money, scholarships, and also $1.5T in debt as well. They skew “inequality” stats because it looks like they are “poor” until they are 25. Are they really poor though? If HSH income was the measure – no. Conversely, highly paid elders who are keeping their end-of-career salaries for longer further skew income inequality. Did Piketty consider that dynamic? No.

      Counting household income instead of the income of actual earners is one of Piketty’s greatest tricks to skew inequality. A house with one person does not need the same income as a house with six people. A house with 2.5 earners makes more than a house with 0.5 earners (1 earner for two households).

      The variation of the actual value of money over time and space is a huge distorting factor – a dollar in New York City does not go as far as a dollar in Buffalo, NY. Piketty corrected for none of these realities.

      As for terms, “Leveling the playing field,” “inequality,” “disparity,” “haves & have-nots,” “fair share,” “inclusion,” “distribution,” “capitalism,” and “underserved” are just a few terms that should trigger skepticism. Pope Francis has used even more beguiling rhetoric like “marketplace autonomy,” and “idolatry of money.”

      Common shell games are described in section 3.1, and too nuanced for blog comments!

      It’s delightful to hear about your experience with Milton Friedman’s exposure! I’ve collected all of Milton Friedman’s major lectures and the Free to Choose series. It is wonderful to see a time when people who disagree could debate and engage each other with dignity and respect. Once participants value power over truth and the human condition, it becomes impossible to engage without some form of aggression. I can’t advocate turning the other cheek to people who have had us in a headlock for two decades.


  2. I have been amiss in my reading of Economic Sovereignty, perusing, rather than chronological reading- mea culpa!

    Looking at Sec. 1.2 and I see instantly what you mean. Very logical, easy to follow, thank you! I understand more clearly now why counting individual earners-vs. household earnings is a far more accurate reflection of our economic output, and how useful it is for someone like Piketty not to so.

    You touched upon the elephant in the room, appreciating how vital it is to value truth and facts, specially vs. power. Intellectually I understand how peer pressure, learning propaganda in school instead of facts, materialism over spirituality all contribute to the inability to see power politics for what it is. But I must constantly remind myself how it’s working for it’s so foreign to me. It’s like the old Polish joke (I’m 1/2 Polish) of the landscaper who hired several Poles to lay sod. He had to constantly remind them, “Green side up!”

    If only there were a medical test to determine one’s tendency to succumb to propaganda, haha. An old fashioned I.Q. test doesn’t work, alas.


    1. Ha ha! The 25% Pole in me is trying to laugh, but the humorless 25% Deutsche in me is calling him a dumpkoff 🙂 Speaking of dialectical materialism – do you know why Stalin wrote everything in lowercase letters? Because he hated capitalism! With such diligence in the stewardship of your family’s finances, I’m sure that EconSov is less of a revelation for you than most! I am glad the information is clear and helpful.

      The study of fallacy and propaganda would have to rest upon a moral foundation to begin with. It seems that often, their study of fallacy and rhetoric simply makes a lawyer more skilled at arguing that the ocean is shallow. If absolutes do not exist, as many of them wrongly believe, then only the will to power remains.

      I know some people who are terrifyingly accurate at obtaining moral and cognitive disposition. Tests for intelligence would never have precluded the evil geniuses at Unit 731 from believing in Hirohito’s nightmare. An authority that valued power would never want to assist people with introspection on their weaknesses to begin with, because they exploit their weaknesses for their own agenda.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s