Alabama Bans Abortion: August Caesar Also Threw the Baby Out with the Bath Water

I have a bust of Augustus Caesar in my office. It’s not because I want to emulate him. It’s because he is a reminder of the limitations of power even with all of the wealth and lethal command in the world. As the first Keynesian, he is a reminder of the tyranny and failure of economic central planning, which modern day dirigistes are too corrupt and/or unintelligent to acknowledge.

While the statement “you can’t legislate morality” is an oversimplified falsehood that fails to appreciate the intersection of laws and morals, the truth is that law cannot quickly overturn prevailing morals without great social upheaval. Augustus Caesar is a reminder of the futility of such aggressive moral imposition with state power.

In my personal life, he is an image of the pathetic futility of democrats, leftists, and socialists who have dominated my life since childhood, preaching their values and visions of society in school, on television, in the governance halls of the progressive metropolis, and on the news.

He is also an image of the foolish futility of Catholic priests who have dominated my religious life since childhood, thinking that their seven-minute homilies, and brochures-for-adults can effectively persuade fully-matured thieves, harlots, adulterers, drunkards, profligates, and sloths to become more like Christ.

Our core belief systems and values are formed powerfully in childhood by our parents, teachers, entertainers, and churches. I enjoyed a scholarly and tradition-intact Catholic Church teaching experience in childhood. I owe nearly half of my moral foundation to that blessing. But adult experience in the church is maintenance – not reformative or formitive. Augustus Caesar’s rejuvenation of the Roman State Church would not appreciate this anthropological fact. The concepts of moral formation apply to other religions, and irreligious substitutions (i.e. Secular Humanism), as much as Catholicism.

And so Augustus Caesar sits in my office as a constant reminder of what not to do with power – intellectual, relational (reputation/fame), psychological, and martial.

Like Caesar, we will turn to dust, and if we are as foolish as he was, our lives will be futile instead of enduring. We will lament the old woman, who looks upon the corrupt children she raised, lying to herself in pure delusion. She spends her last days denying what she once knew as eternal and true, just so that she does not have to scream herself to sleep every night.

In rare moments of honesty, she will ask herself, “Where did I go wrong? How are my children so corrupt, dishonest, ignorant, trivial, immoral, and inconsequential to the world I leave behind? Why are they destroyers of prosperity and continuity? Why do they consume more than they produce?”

Many-a-Roman was cursed with this terrible consequence of their failures at the end of the Roman Empire. I wonder sometimes if Augustus Caesar was prescient enough to understand his folly, or if he died in delusion like so many “hope-filled,” “positive,” neurotic, and manic “globally-minded” citizens in the modern day.

Ancient Rome has much to teach the Republicans in Alabama. Their recent Alabama abortion ban is a terrible thing for pro-life citizens, and a gift to pro-choice citizens. To understand this counterintuitive impact, we must appreciate the censorship employed by terrified elites in Hollywood, the judiciary, Silicon Valley, and academia. We must also consider public opinion on abortion, and the history of using centralized power for moral imposition.

Pro-Abortion Elites are Terrified and Dishonest

A person who is confident in their position fears no opposition. They state the facts, and they welcome honest criticism that is void of dysfunctional argumentation such as ad-hominem, name-calling, arguing “tone,” fallacies, and propaganda techniques:

A person who is terrified and dishonest uses these dysfunctional arguments. They also use propaganda techniques, fallacies, and emotive language backed up by no hard evidence and no logic. They silence, censor, disinvite, deplatform, intimidate, and ostracize those who contradict them. They care more about spreading their agenda than what is true.

These basic inferences indicate that pro-choice, pro-abortion elites are terrified and dishonest.

Even the most liberal democrats in our universities do not honestly support unregulated abortion. I say “honestly” because if they were not lying to themselves, they would actually encourage the scientific and medical exposure of abortion, which they have suppressed like Goebbels whitewashed Nazi concentration camps. They silence speakers who share the medical science of abortion. They disinvite speakers from campus for sharing abortion science.

Which journalistic outfits show the reality of abortion from a medical and scientific perspective? Which documentarians do so on educational TV? The Washington Post considers whether it is rude to share such realities. Why do journalists operate nearly entirely on euphemisms with no medical or scientific images and descriptors?

Why did the Supreme Court justify censorship of science? Some people are baffled that the Supreme Court tacitly upheld laws banning scientific truth of abortion. I am not baffled. The lying elites of mob-rule ochlocracy do not want free speech and proliferation of hard evidence. They like people to remain ignorant and emotive, with no knowledge, and inaccurate understanding of the world in which they live. One look at a social media comment feed, twitter, and instagram, is all that is required to understand that we live in ochlocracy.

Universities, journalists, and the judiciary are not alone in their terrified dishonesty about abortion – entertainers lead the way. The most liberal democrats in Hollywood do not honestly support abortion. Their delusion is so powerful that they even tried to stomp out a movie exposing an abortion slaughterhouse that We The People employed FBI and criminal courts to rectify:

And lastly, the most liberal democrats in the humanities-deprived Silicon Valley do not honestly support abortion. They are so terrified of reality that Twitter went full-totalitarian censorship on Unplanned – a movie about the hardships that abortion workers encounter. Google’s “machine learning” artificial intelligence must have been learning from pro-abortion activists, because it treated Unplanned like the Nazi flick Triumph of the Will – rote propaganda. I wonder why their artificial intelligence does not flag interpersonal stories of feminism and black civil rights history as “propaganda.”

Unfortunately for the Stalin-emulating technocrats, Unplanned succeeded despite their attempts to destroy it.

Meanwhile, people like Ben Shapiro are having none of the dishonesty:

Laws that are not reflected by the values of the populace do not stand

When the elites who promote abortion are so terrified and dishonest, why do Republicans pass laws that have no chance at succeeding? Conservative venue Breitbart indicates that the Republicans of Alabama realize that the law is not enforceable. They passed the bill in order to challenge Roe v. Wade.

But they have not learned from history.

Shortly after the golden age in Rome, social retrogression was acknowledged from patrician to plebe, from scholar to entertainer. One such entertainer was Petronius, a satirical “South Park” creator of his era. Victor Davis Hanson recently recalled modern American parallels:

“Petronius seems to mock the very world in which he indulged. His novel’s accepted norms [in Ancient Rome] are pornography, gratuitous violence, sexual promiscuity, transgenderism, delayed marriage, childlessness, fear of aging, homelessness, social climbing, ostentatious materialism, prolonged adolescence, and scamming and conning in lieu of working…Never in the history of civilization had a generation become so wealthy and leisured, so eager to gratify every conceivable appetite — and yet so bored and unhappy.

One online encyclopedia accurately describes Augustus Caesar’s moral reforms, but misleads the reader with its exclusions. In order for such sweeping moralizing laws to be inspired, Senātus Populusque Rōmānus must have already identified moral squalor that begs for correction. Based upon the social retrogression that Augustus Caesar left in his wake, chronicled by men like Petronius and hundreds more, his moralizing laws were abject failures.

Why are laws that tell people how to live so ineffective? In our day-to-day activities, civic power is an afterthought. The specter of punishment is ultimately dismissed because rational people realize that government enforcers are not omnipresent. Soft Power is what influences morals and behavior. This is why China, Russia, the EU, the USA, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamic autocrats of the modern day employ intelligence agency influence operations to sway hearts and minds.

Will somebody please teach these truths to pro-life Republicans? For those who claim command over tradition and history, such oversights are unforgivable. The application of soft power is not rocket science. It’s a very basic skill set, which is one part cerebral, one part heart, and one part empathy.

Because conservatives lack the empathy component, leftists have buried them in the dust using soft power in the culture wars.

The Abortion Ban Is a Gift to Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion Advocates

This article does not intend on adjudicating abortion, and all perspectives on it. The fact is simple – American moral disposition towards abortion will not accept a total ban. They want abortion to be legal if:

  • The woman’s life is endangered (83%)
  • The woman was raped or abused by incest (77%)
  • The child would be deformed physically or mentally (49-67%)

Americans do not want abortion to be legal because the woman is inconvenienced and chose sexual activities she regrets (only 45% of voters support abortion for any reason).

The consequence of imposing moralizing laws on a populace whose values and visions do not align is that the laws will not succeed. Black markets will arise. Unqualified politicians will get elected simply by promising to overturn the law that most people do not want. The elected official who promises to overturn the abortion ban will enact many laws outside of the issue of abortion.

In that way, unintended harm in many areas besides abortion will emerge – national security, criminal justice, economics, taxation, research and development. Should I mention again that the abortion law itself will not prevail in the long term?

Republicans have a chance at passing a law that permits abortion when women’s lives are in jeopardy, when they are raped, or victims of incest, and when the child is deformed. If they understood soft power, they would use it to advance their moral causes (despite elite technocratic censorship of their soft power access), while aiming for laws that the voter will actually sustain.

Pregnancies from rape and incest are estimated at 1.5-3% of rapes, considering oral contraception ratios, along with the rape studies. That is around 800 – 1,600 pregnancies per year. If all of those pregnancies were aborted, it would rape/incest abortions would constitute 8 in 10,000 of the nearly one-million abortions per year.

If Republicans are willing to fail completely in order to insist that 8 in 10,000 abortions must be forbidden, they are not just in need of history lessons, but also lessons in kindergarten arithmetic.

Not only are they throwing the aborted baby out with the bath water, but Republicans who are willing to cede power over national security, criminal justice, economics, tax, and research, while temporarily restricting abortion, have forgotten the first rule of democratic republic – they are representatives, not kings. As much as they do not like it, they must respond to the sentiments of the citizens.

Here they stand, on the precipice of restricting 500,000 to 850,000 abortions per year, and they are going to throw it all away for a lack of compromise and wisdom. The folly will also lose ground in the culture wars, if Republicans truly wish to move the hearts and minds of Americans towards broader laws.

And so the centrist voters will see Republicans as extremists, and refrain from electing them. Perhaps I should gift busts of Augustus Caesar to the Republican officials I know, along with a copy of this article. When Dirty Harry said “a man’s gotta know his limitations,” it applied equally to his personhood and profession. Will politicians of both parties learn the limitations of legislation in the real world, rather than the limitless visions they write on paper and imagine in their heads?

The White Nationalism Diversion Pt 1: The Fiction Exposed

The current fixation on white nationalism is a deluded product of political opportunists and journalists with civil rights movies playing on repeat in their heads.

The white nationalist diversion is easily exposed with a simple question: what’s the body count?

We don’t accept speculation about ideas in a brooding kid’s head, or even a kid who punches a target in the face. Where terrorism is concerned – show us the blood or show yourself the door. While injuries and anger are useful to the criminologist, the body count indicates the real threat of terror groups, the measure of their lethality, and the item in which all doubt is removed as to their level of danger.

Terrorists motivated by white nationalism (or any white racist cause) have killed only 27 people in the USA since the Islamist terror attack of 9/11. I base this on the years 2001 through 2017, for which the available data is currently reliable. You must want to hide under your bed from the white nationalist terror threat, knowing that fact!

In the same duration, terrorists motivated by Islamic nationalism and anti-white causes have killed 134 people in the USA. Why do activists and journalists spread fear of white nationalism when it produced a body count that is only ~20% of Islamic and anti-white terrorism? Meanwhile, 720 people died from lightning strikes, and there were around 272,000 homicides at the hands of cold-blooded criminals.

Speaking of race and violence, blacks, native Americans, and Hispanics exceed whites as well. Based on murder arrests in 2013, black people were 730% more murderous than white people, while Native Americans were almost twice as murderous, and Hispanics were 30% more murderous than whites. Year after year, and by conviction as well as arrest data, similar racial ratios of violence occur. White people seem to be as ineffective at homicide as they are at terrorism.

Call me a numbers guy, but I’m about 27-times more fearful of getting electrocuted to death by a Zeus bolt from the sky, and about 10,074-times more fearful of getting shot by a criminal, as I am fearful of white nationalist terror. Except in the event of a lightning strike, my most effective insurance policy is the spectacularly accurate and lethal .45 caliber pistol depicted above.

While the racial fearmongers may lack the intelligence and knowledge to justify their beliefs with hard evidence, their fiction has destructive results.

Fear of effectively non-existent white nationalism feeds the power of identitarian manipulators in culture, business, and governance. It feeds overblown security budgets. The resultant anti-white racial paranoia also impacts social cohesion on an interpersonal level. It also produces the kind of fear about legal gun ownership that helps anti-self-defense activists who ultimately aim to repeal our constitutional right to defend ourselves with weapons.

In short, the pragmatic drivers of this fearmongering are:

  • Identity politics, fear-journalism, and diversity zealotry
  • Government employment largesse
  • Cultural segregation
  • Gun control

There are fascists across the globe. Nations in the present day employ some key aspects of fascism under the name of “democracy.” And the global ignorance of fascism was never more apparent than the international reaction to prolific Islamic violence and the few white nationalist anomalies we can count on one hand.

Understanding fascism is critical when celebrities, congressional hearings, and low IQ news shows incite fiction about white nationalism. There are fascist threats across the globe. How will a good citizen identify them if they’re cowering from imaginary enemies?

In the next article, we will explore the gory details about fascism that are extirpated from news media and public education, but cannot hide from the erudite scholar.

Angry Women: You Do Not Have Sexual Power Over Politics

On this Mother’s Day, I wrote a short and sentimental letter to some incredible mothers I have known. For those whose email addresses were not on hand, I will repeat it here:

Ladies of consummate devotion in Mother Mary’s example, 

I honor you today as I recall what special celebration I enjoyed with my mother each year on this day. Thank you for the joy to observe such inspirational motherhood; with your grace and love for your families, my hope for humanity is encouraged. The good you do for your families extends far beyond the walls of your home.


I then thought of a way I would have made my mother laugh if she were still with us. I would bring her bean sprouts and veggie bagels, and tell her “I want you to live a long and healthy life, so for Mother’s Day, I bring you the gift of optimal nutrition!”

She would have said something like, “You little bastard, where’s my real breakfast?”

We would laugh and I would take her to a place like The Blue Duck Tavern, which was her favorite Mother’s Day treat of all time, with wild mushrooms that she claimed were only matched by those her father picked freshly from the forest when she was a child.

Then my reflection upon these honorable women was once again shattered by the priestesses of cultural squalor from their unholy land of fiction-worship, Hollywood. They shrieked bravely from their smart phones, encouraging women to stop having sex until 3% of America (the state of Georgia) democratically passes abortion laws with which they agree.

While there are few things that could improve the gene pool more than women like Bette Middler and Alyssa Milano withholding their contribution to it, their stain on the dignity of women is an unhappy advent.

Social Conservatives Rejoice

People who use sex for ulterior motives, transactions, and power are sexually permissive. Social conservatives believe those behaviors create pervasive problems in communities. Consequently, sex strikes only affect people who should not be having sex anyway. Fewer sexually transmitted diseases, reduced social dysfunction, reduced perversion of romance, reduced objectification of men and women, less procreation by people who would be awful parents? The politically motivated sex strike is a massive score for those who accept nothing less than genuine love and romance.

A social conservative treats sex as subordinate to romance – a sacred devotion. If a lover told a social conservative, “I will not have sex with you because I want to coerce you to share my ulterior motive,” the social conservative would say, “if you are willing to use our love and devotion to each other for ulterior motives, you are then not worthy of my love and devotion, making a mockery of it and subordinating it to third party events. Goodbye.”

Collective Punishment Meets Armchair Altruism

The socialists made collective punishment infamous. Decimation in Rome was a tactic of intimidation for the survival of an empire in dark days. Socialists slaughtered entire communities with forced marches, racial shaming, class shaming, executions, slavery, struggle sessions, ridicule and ostracism for disagreeing with their politics.

While institutionalists in the USA do not currently have the power to enslave their opposition in “labor reeducation,” they use industrial power to crush careers and businesses of ideological opponents. They also indoctrinate children with some of the most wicked attitudes and values imaginable. They follow Karl Marx’s invocation, that truth does not matter – only defeating the opposition and striking them in discourse:

Its [criticism’s] essential feeling is indignation, its essential task denunciation… It is not a matter of knowing whether the opponent is a noble, equal-born, or interesting opponent; what matters is to strike him.

They think in abstractions of groups of people. To understand the psychology of the sex strike, a person must understand the collectivist visions of socialism. As Marx commanded their teachers’ ideology, the individuality and personal value of the people they engage is meaningless to them. They are the enlightened, and they must strike the “racists, misogynists, wealthy, Christians, conservatives, heterosexuals, cisgenders, teetotalers, and traditional family.”

Following the collective punishment mentality of the socialists, seeing only abstractions of people instead of their humanity – the sex strikers demand coercive punishment of all men, for laws that affect less than a fraction of a percent of Americans, who live far away from them in the state of Georgia.

Think about that for a moment. These wealthy and privileged women in Hollywood, who cannot even think critically, and lack the basic zeal and diligence to spend time thoroughly researching their interests, use their undeserved national platform to instigate collective punishment.

Imagine if a national masculinist movement stopped paying women’s bills (in aggregate, men still pay 3x as much as women). Is that female privilege? Is it a privilege for other people and the government to pay for most of your living expenses, considering feminists call it “male privilege” to choose dangerous and challenging jobs that make you drop dead ten years earlier, for higher pay? Is it “male privilege” to earn that extra pay from working longer hours as well? Was it “male privilege” for me to devote decades of my life encoding entire libraries of knowledge into my brain, while others socialized and enjoyed leisure?

How infinitesimally shall we atomize the advantages and disadvantages of male and female biology and consequent social roles? The masculinist movement would say that metropolitan women earn more money than men, and demand that they start using it for communal expenses in marriage and romance. That would be just as foolish as the sex strike for the Georgia heartbeat bill.

Women who have nothing to do with these conflicts of greed and charity would then be paying the price of their activist men’s angry and egotistical god-complex, where they punish people they know personally for political affairs in distant lands. Thus are these tyrannical Hollywood wenches. Courageous to a fault, they set up their political warfare command-and-control centers from their beach house armchairs as they suckle fruity cocktails.

If demographers were looking for depopulation and sub-fertility replacement rate contributors for white and Japanese people, a thorough inspection of how socialist ideology replaced traditional romance, which aims for value-exchange and quality delineation and deference, with sexual expression based upon power-exchange, egotism, and pragmatism.

Those who employ collective punishment in sexual relations can be assured that their attitudes and values towards sex were indoctrinated by the socialists. Remaking the human being was the dream of utopian socialists like Charles Fourier (the one who coined the term “feminism”), eugenicist progressives and guild socialists (fascists), transhumanists, and present-day institutionalists.

Sex Strikes Do Not Work

Despite their unjustified claims to the contrary, sex strikes are predictably ineffective. It has the opposite effect of the desired intimidation. The innocent victims of collective punishment eventually revolt and resent those who punished them for things out of their control. This is why in Ancient Rome, decimation was rarely practiced. Obliterating morale of the troops was not worth the deterring impact of the tyranny.

In an era where the most powerful transnational tech corporations implicitly censor knowledge with tyrannical products like “NewsGuard,” it is more important than ever for our readers to spread Alvarism as a basis for learning and analysis. A successful student of Alvarism would be able to instantly repudiate the claims of efficacious sex strikes.

Our rationalist perspective: sex strikes are collective punishment. Collective punishment is ineffective throughout history, for very logical reasons, already stated.

Our empirical perspective: sociology 101 indicates that correlation is not causation. Wouldn’t it be amazing if any of these “professional” frauds with useless graduate degrees actually employed the basic concepts they were taught during the most extravagantly costly and wasteful eight years of their lives at the university?

The AFP, a self-proclaimed “hard news” wire syndication service justified a claim that sex strikes are effective by citing an ancient fictitious comedy. Yes, “hard news” now cites fiction as evidence. Microsoft NewsGuard considers AFP “reliable.”

Wikipedia cites instances in Latin America involving warfare in which the sex strike began and the war ended four years later. In all of the cases they mention, they present no context for the conflict, nor additional motivators and factors. No empirical evidence is given as to the contributing impact of the sex strikes compared to all other factors involved. An uncritical reader would come to the conclusion that the sex strikes were effective in achieving their intentions. A thinking reader would toss the Wikipedia article into the trash. Microsoft NewsGuard considers Wikipedia so reliable that they collaborated with its founder.

Similarly in the case of the Georgia heartbeat abortion legislation, the sex strike activism is concurrent with business boycotts that threaten $2.7 billion and legions of jobs, political pressure, academic pressure, medical industry pressure, and nonprofit activism. Explain how an honest person would measure the efficacy of collective sex punishment by a handful of sexually corrupt women, compared with all of those other factors? My belief is in the economic, medical, and political pressure. Money talks, and sex with someone who uses you for ulterior motives is disposable.

Our perennial perspective: with the history of collective punishment proving counterproductive in the whole, we deem the sex strike to actually serve opposite outcomes to the intentions. Those Roman troops forced to participate in decimation lost morale and devotion to the empire. Those victims of socialist collective punishment became the most vociferous dissidents.

Microsoft NewsGuard, would you kindly employ human beings with functional literacy and critical brains to consider these methods of evaluation? Your thought control censorship service is looking like the king of unreliable sources at this point.

Abortion Advocates Engage the Futile Yet Again

The heartbeat bill is a futile endeavor to oppose, even with moronic activism like the sex strike. The heartbeat bill is, to abortion, what Democrats in blue states (New York) are doing to the right of self-defense. They want to force gun owners to buy million dollar liability insurance to subsidize consequences of criminals, and they want to make ammunition unaffordable.

Ultimately, these stopgap laws which seek to erode the scope of legally permitted activity, will be challenged at the bench. There is indication that the heartbeat bill could be deemed unconstitutional when judged against prevailing interpretations of Roe v. Wade.

That is the where the ultimate ruling will occur – in federal court. It would be honorable for the mob of activists to read this article, educate themselves, and redirect their energies towards admirable civic engagement. As it stands, they are making fools of themselves and misleading hordes of the most impressionable and vulnerable of our neighbors.

Social conservatives are rejoicing and laughing at the prospect of sexual utilitarians collectively punishing themselves in utter futility, but it is quite embarrassing for a dignified Constitutional Republic that spends over $1.5 trillion on education and training each year.

Unless we are talking about corrupt sexual utilitarians like Monica Lewinsky seducing king Democrat Bill Clinton, women do not have sexual power over politics.

Then again, the noble women I referred to in the beginning of the article expressed their sexuality romantically in a beautiful way. As mothers of good morals, wise tradition, and beautiful hearts, they have more power over politics in the upbringing of their children, than any promiscuous woman in heat. Those who claimed that “male patriarchy” has ever ruled the world are too stupid to even remember who it was putting every single idea in their head during their most impressionable years. We have Mother’s Day to remember and give thanks for the women who have always ruled the world through their children.

“-Phobic” is a Mind Rape of Epic Proportions

The term “phobic” in sociopolitical discourse is an idiot’s lollipop. Look up any of the popular flavors – homophobe, islamophobe, transphobe, francophobe, xenophobe, fatphobe, whorephobe, etc. You’ll find plenty of mindless chatter amongst the bottom feeders of civil rights enthusiasts who couldn’t emulate Atticus Finch even with the blessings of a fairy godmother’s magic wand.

The medically correct term phobia, derived from Latin, indicates fear so crippling that the patient has an overt physiological reaction such as fight-or-flight, fainting, or a panic attack.

Phobic does not even aptly describe violent socialist demonstrators, who exhibit anger instead of fear. Those who engage in nonviolent conflict show emotions related to anger – disdain, contempt, disgust, or resentment. If those emotions constitute extreme physiological reaction to unreasonable fear, then every human being on the planet is “phobic” because everyone has experienced those gradations of anger.

The sinister result of accusing sociopolitical opposition of “phobia” is that the target becomes a figurative mental patient. We don’t engage a crazy person as a cognitive peer – we engage them like an adult engages a child. Rather than exchanging facts and critique, they now exchange emotions and disrespect.

Neither anger, nor criticism, nor disapproval constitute pathological fear. The accused person tends to get defensive, pander, and deny “phobia.” They say, “But I have gay friends! But Muslims like me!” This is playing into the mind rape and should never be done. It tacitly admits that irrational emotions towards groups of people could even be a motivator, rather than criticism of undeniable events and trends within that collective.

The correct reaction is to expose how the accuser is the fearful one – hiding their own fear of respectful and factual debate that could challenge their identity, beliefs, and values. The users of “phobia” language have dehumanized their opposition, while advancing their own agenda with dishonesty, and should thus be treated as aggressors.

Where did this dysfunctional sociopolitical dynamic begin? If you’ve noticed that homophobic is the most common “phobic” mind rape, you are perceptive. George Weinberg, a psychotherapist and homosexual activist, promulgated the dishonest tactic in his 1972 book “Society and the Healthy Homosexual.”

Borrowing from the primitive value system of socialism, where “the ends justify the means,” he did not have remorse for spreading the idiot’s lollipop. In 2012, he wrote in reflection, “As it turned out, the word ‘homophobia’ was exactly the concept that gay men and lesbians needed to achieve liberation.” What a shame that he credited rhetoric instead of something eternal like empiricism. A disgrace to LGBT history.

Semantic deception is not limited to pejorative “phobia.” It turned prostitutes to sex workers, swamp to wetlands, trolleys to light rail, and illegal aliens to migrants. With the flip of a tongue, centuries of human experience captured in vocabulary can be erased and replaced with modern agendas.

Semantic deception of any sort should be the first sign to an intelligent and dignified citizen that the manipulative speaker is unjustified. George Weinberg soiled the LGBT movement with these dishonest tactics, in tacit admission that the cultural truths were not so axiomatic. People with confidence in the veracity of their position do not choose such subversion.

In 1973, the APA voted to depathologize homosexuality. But sociopolitical tactics like semantic deception, buying APA mailing lists for anonymous propaganda before the vote, rioting, and disrupting professional meetings make such policy changes Pyrrhic victories to anyone with a sense of decency. They can try to erase history, and bury the skeleton in their political closet, but truth seekers will always hold them accountable in the hopes that future activists adopt civilized methods.

So the spineless social tyrants continue to use these methods to win without merit. But they can only do so if you let them.

People who recognize the catastrophic impact of illegal immigration on social insurance, public services, and cultural continuity are not xenophobic – in fact, by speaking up, they are courageous. There are many stupid and emotional people who will ostracize or punish them for criticizing illegal immigration.

People who criticized France for abstaining from the Iraq War are not Francophobes, they are people with an opinion on warfare.

People who point out the negative impact of promiscuity and gluttony are not “whorephobes” and “fatphobes,” they are people who think critically about sexual behavior and nutrition.

People who criticize Islamic culture for security, crime, and civil rights are not fearful of Islam – in fact, they are courageous to even speak out in a time where violence is threatened against those who oppose Islamic sociopolitical norms.

I have a friend who called me Tron for my cutting edge technology implementation in my lifestyle, elite knowledge of science and engineering, and overall empirical approach to the world. It is funny. It caricatures me as some kind of digital being who has lost a part of his humanity. We laugh about it. I call her Trog (for troglodyte, cave dweller) in response, for her pining of a future in Walden alongside Henry David Thoreau. We laugh about that too.

Imagine if I was an insecure person. Imagine that when she first called me Tron, my reaction was, “YOU TECHNOPHOBE!” In one fell swoop I would have intimidated her free expression of distinction, mystique, and deference to features she does not share in common. Would that have been positive for our relationship? The wicked drive behind semantic deception and “phobic” mind rape is fearful in and of itself – a grand irony. They fear having to justify themselves, so they turn their opponents into mental patients.

Call me an improbophobe. In the small-minded conception of people who casually use the term “phobia” to malign their sociopolitical opposition, improbophobe (fear of the wickedly dishonest) is the only term that could inaccurately and lazily describe the confrontations I choose. To be sure, any person accusing me of a figurative “phobia” will get nothing out of me but disrespect and derision, and a consummate doubling-down of my criticism towards whatever they are scared to justify.

Big Tech Indictment Updated: Facebook Cofounder Points to FTC and antitrust

The recent essay on STEM’s dearth of masterminds has been updated with new information and connections. The sophistication of that article is abnormally high, due to the number of concepts addressed. With great effort comes big rewards. I am certain that readers will never conflate wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence again, even if they are not as concerned about Big Tech’s violation of their civil rights.

The Dread Burden of a Mastermind: We Will Destroy Facebook, Google, and the Technocrats

Wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence are related but distinct. Exceptional intelligence can allow a person to comprehend complexity that most people could never understand. It also allows them to acquire and synthesize knowledge and skills more rapidly than those of lower intelligence.

But a high IQ does not make a person omniscient. They are constrained by 24-7-365 like everyone else. They are also constrained by their morality. An intelligent person of low morality will not spend their time acquiring knowledge and skills, lacking zeal, humility, and patience.

Wisdom is rare. It requires intelligence, knowledge, and high virtue. A wise person is able to choose correctly when there is uncertainty – they are masterful at abductive and inductive thinking. They choose the optimal cognitive approach to inquiries. A wise person can discern the right path to acquire additional clarifying information. It’s only in retrospect that we can know whether we were wise or foolish. A wise person is not necessarily a prosperous person. The wisest person in the world may have been dealt the most outrageously impossible circumstances in which to live. And with maximum chaos, they make the most out of it with wise choices.

I was born with an IQ that is nearly double the average. It made school fun and easy. But in school, everything is artificial – just banal exercise and training to do something useful in the future, like a karate acolyte throwing their fist into the empty air. In the real world, fools with credentials, wealth, or immorality exercise their power over others despite the intelligence of their targets. The IQ of a person does not matter at the receiving end of a fist, knife, gun, or wicked tongue of a corrupt businesswoman with institutional power. Their will is exercised with aggression – physical, psychological, or relational.

The asset of technocrats with high IQs is not their intelligence. It’s not even their incredible money they hoard while voting for taxation and dirigisme upon the middle class – armchair altruists influencing tyranny from castles. Their asset is their power. We let them have it, because we do not understand them as enemies, and we do not understand our own power to change the status quo. We see them as masterminds, but there are very few amongst there ranks.

A Facebook cofounder imagines that the antitrust laws and FTC will bring the harbinger of sorrow, with breakup, fines, and competition solving the problem of social media’s violation of our civil rights. He is wrong. While any industry could benefit from competition, the problem of big tech is that the labor pool for STEM has embarrassingly leftwing ideological conformity that would make Joseph Goebbels jealous. Within this cultural monopoly and monochromatic cognition, people of varied technical skills feed each other with uninspired, banal ideas. Real creation requires masterminds.

A mastermind has 99th percentile intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and skills. Some of those are hard to measure, but the record of work results cannot lie. After this essay, the reader will understand the distinction between those features.

This essay is not just an indictment of technocratic culture. There are wise masterminds in any industry, so I would beg your indulgence while considering this critique. I would also beg the indulgence of those who are not exceptionally wise, intelligent, or knowledgeable. That is not an item of shame. Exceptional cognitive ability is not the sole aspect of human value. We should not be climbing over each other in a heap like insects to project intellectual superiority.

If anything, this is an admonition that the people presented as “intellectual elites” are weak and overestimated. They are people from whom you have nothing to fear if you would just challenge them and awaken your own drives for valor.

Knowledge as Evidence of Character

After I gained expertise in so many things, I looked at my career history and education, and noticed distinction between what had interested me for all of these years, versus what interested most of the other college graduates I encountered. People can lie to themselves about who they are, but the record of how they have spent their time and energy day-by-day for their entire lives cannot lie. It’s written into their character, knowledge, and skills (or lack thereof).

It gets captured in the things they buy, the things they know, and how deeply they can speak of their past activities. One man buys a trip to France, where he obtains less culture than he could have gained from a French documentary. Another man buys the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and spends the time learning.

On the shelves in the photo above, resides the mainstay of arcane knowledge I have studied. They address items like:

  • How to succeed in warfare
  • How to design a bulletproof vest
  • How to get a rocket into orbit
  • How to keep a plane airborne
  • How an F1 race car can maximize acceleration around corners
  • How to derive the blood oxygen dissociation curve with viscosity data
  • How to get a helicopter with damaged blades back to base safely
  • How to estimate a person’s vision prescription with a machine (autorefractor)
  • How to optimize the chance of having a boy or girl based on fertilization timing
  • How to write software code like a wizard for enterprise systems (not just silly little apps)
  • How to run the entire music industry
  • How to make a transnational corporation profitable (industrial-organizational engineering and executive management)
  • How to run business operations
  • How to manage a technology department for a large company
  • The secrets of humanity

I have a few hundred cubic feet of additional books in my attic. Mostly I leave mental bookmarks in all that I read. When the need arises to employ the knowledge, I know exactly where to go in order to refresh my memory. Sir Francis Bacon first inscribed, ipsa scientia potestas est (knowledge itself is power). For those of you with STEM degrees, shame on you if you don’t know who that is. Go demand a refund from your university.

As with most mantras, Bacon’s oversimplification makes it a bit useless, and even misleading. Knowledge is to social power what potential energy is to physics. A volcanic rock on the island of La Palma has so much potential energy that it could put the US, UK, French, African, and Spanish coastal cities under 330-ft tidal waves. Whether or not that energy becomes kinetic in a cataclysmic event is uncertain.

Knowledge is similar. You can know things that cannot be acted upon, you can know things that don’t have any impact on your course of affairs in life, you can know things that might be acted upon in the future, but other constraints in life force you to not act upon them immediately. Knowledge is often impotent, contrary to Bacon’s conception.

Also, knowledge is often wasted, like the rock on La Palma that just hovers. Gigantic volcanic rocks with potential energy have no emotions, but if they were like knowledgeable people, they might loathe their knowledge as a burden as often as they delight in its creative or destructive power. Whoever promoted the cliché, “no education is ever wasted,” was either an educator who couldn’t think critically, or egotistically overselling their own services.

Worthless Information Makes the World Go Round

In academia, technology corporations, government, medicine, and law firms – there are consummately educated people of high intelligence. There are few masterminds. Mainly they lack wisdom, but they’re always crippled in that regard because their core belief structure set from birth to seven years old, contains deformed moral standards. The cultivation of virtue is out of scope for this article. Suffice to say, only extreme duress in a significant emotional event (SEE) can even give them a chance to reform their corrupt moral fiber of childhood. Coked up on happy pills from psychiatrists, we can be sure that few morally deformed people will have the benefit of those SEEs they desperately need.

For instance, a highly intelligent doctor performs surgery with near robotic precision, and then memorizes standards of care that are driven by statistics and studies. Unfortunately for the few patients who need a mastermind doctor, their foolish doctor of high intelligence treats them like another statistic, and maims them for life. In the patient history, there were clues of uncertainty, but the foolish doctor could not be bothered by those anomalies, ever-confident in his high intellect and the standards of care, devised by a consensus of other foolish doctors. His flaw was not a deficit of intellect or knowledge – it was pride, sloth, and lacking wisdom.

I must beg the indulgence of my humanities-enlightened STEM colleagues reading this essay. I know there are wise and mastermind technologists. I’ve done business with some. There are mastermind doctors. I have been treated by some.

But by observing the personal lives, corporate policies, and stagnant innovation, of the technocrats of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon, I do not think they employ many masterminds. They use their oligopoly to censor speech, influence culture, and dominate markets in degrading ways. They share an ideological conformity that is almost terrifying, for different reasons than journalists and academia.

The relationship of idealism to leftwing ideology is explained in Economic Sovereignty. Journalists are embarrassingly leftwing because of surface-exposure to emotive stories rather than analytics. Getting pummeled by surface information incessantly, and interpersonal affairs allows for idealistic detachment from reality. Conversely, academia is buried in analytics, but idealistic from not even having to test their assertions against reality (see scientism in Economic Sovereignty).

The reason that the technocrats have no diversity of thought, in embarrassing leftwing conformity, is because they simply have no humanity. They can’t study Aristotle, Aquinas, and Thucydides when their eight semesters of college only allow one semester of non-STEM courses. Of course, this is not their fault. The amount of technical knowledge required for STEM careers is overwhelming. They are simply constrained by 24-7-365, no matter how intelligent they may be.

Even worse, they may have gone to a technology high school, bereft of humanities in exchange for STEM classes. I was fortunate that the founder of our gifted-and-talented program for children with high IQs employed the classical education model. Some of the best educators in the nation cultivated my command of the humanities throughout my childhood.

I carried my studies of the humanities throughout each year of my life out of delight and passion. Most STEM people I know spend their free time like other normal people – socializing, bars, concerts, leisure travel, hiking, exercising, playing video games, watching TV, etc. They read sci-fi or fantasy novels for fun, instead of Thomas Sowell, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, Bertrand Russell, or Milton Friedman. They might become innovators, but they will never be creators, as discussed in a recent article.

On numerous occasions, my technocratic colleagues asked me the question: “how can a guy as smart as you believe in Christianity?” To which, I always reply, “Galileo and Isaac Newton believed as well. The world will be speaking their names long after you die and everything you have done is forgotten. What do you think they knew about the distinction between materialism and religion, that you can’t grasp? Perhaps materialism is your religion? Who do you think put it in your head?”

The technocrats operate on ego. They care about their legacy. They are envious, they are insecure, they have all of the moral deformities that fools demonstrate. This is why they can’t comprehend a mastermind’s disposition towards creation and destruction.

We create and destroy because we must. We are not satisfied unless we are doing this. We do not care about what the world has to say about us and our creations because we realize those people will be dust and bones sooner than our creations. It delights us when our fellow man benefits from our creation and destruction. But we do so without their approval, validation, or motivation. We know that even the best creations will be cinder when the sun eventually dies.

As a devout Christian of unwavering faith, I will destroy everything I have built with a KillDisk routine if this world is too stupid to finance my creations. Many a corporate parasite has tried to steal my knowledge and inventions, and each one learned too late, that copying breadcrumbs of a mastermind is as futile as collecting hieroglyphs without a Rosetta Stone. Their corporations will be dust before they can benefit from what they tried to take from me, without attribution.

Just as God saw that his creation was unworthy of some things by their own choice, and then hurled destruction as a corrective, so too, a mastermind deems his fellow man either worthy or unworthy of his creation, choosing what to disclose, what to hide, and what to destroy.

He does this, not out of spite or vengeance, but out of love and humility. When a person is unworthy of excellence, dumping it into their lap actually makes a mockery of their condition, while robbing them of the strife and pain they need to experience in order to make themselves worthy. Only in a condition of gratitude and respect can people benefit from gifts.

In the real world, masterminds are frustrated. They often feel that they are at the mercy of idiots. They drive their cars with infrequent mistakes – others endanger people frequently. Other conversationalists ramble on erratically, their thoughts disconnected and shallow, their speech inarticulate, their opinions malformed and lightly justified if at all. Masterminds respond to such conversation, and then have to explain themselves again, because those who listen to them can’t follow the logic and don’t know what to ask when they’re at a loss. It’s not that the mastermind explained it poorly – it’s that they explained it precisely, and the recipient lacks the cognition and basic knowledge to keep up.

Masterminds are precise with their lifestyle habits, making them easier housemates. Masterminds will win games more often, and then be dissatisfied with the lack of challenge, and also annoyed by the envy his defeated opponents feel. Masterminds will experience television, theater, music in ways that others do not. They see the motifs and themes immediately. They draw connections others do not. They’re not impressed with the emotive tricks of producers that most people enjoy.

Arguments occur constantly in social settings. Masterminds will most often win arguments, not just because they avoid dysfunctional cognition, but because they have the intellectual humility to not speak of things they have not already studied thoroughly. Masterminds are not bothered by being wrong, but they most often are wrong silently in their own mind before they have spread their errors to the world. Realizing that knowledge is beyond them and separated from their ego, they do not marry their opinions to their identity. To the mastermind, disagreements are an exploration, while for most people disagreements feel like a verbal punch in the brain.

Romance is challenging for a mastermind. A supermodel has similar dilemmas. She must look at the men she dates and accept that when she has children with them, in all likelihood, her own children are unlikely to be as physically beautiful as she. Scores of men would like to use her for her looks and never care about who she is inside. It can make her cynical of men who take romantic interest in her.

A mastermind likewise has to accept that he is unlikely to fall in love with a woman whose intellect matches his own, so while his genes will increase the intellect of his wive’s children, her genes will drag their intellect below his. Romantic partners and businesses use the mastermind to solve their problems, educate them, and stimulate their lives in discourse. They also use masterminds for their money. It can make him cynical of women who take romantic interest in him.

People objectify supermodels for their bodies. People objectify masterminds for their brains.

A mastermind, being wise, comes to the conclusion that he does not need his intellectual equal in romance, he just wants joy and beauty. He gets intellectual stimulation in all that he does, so he doesn’t need his wife to fulfill that need.

Consequently, beauty, morality, peace, virtue, emotional stability and behavioral normalcy is all that the mastermind requires from his wife. Many women are intimidated and feel as though he may expect them to participate intellectually at his level. This presumption would be as foolish as a supermodel expecting her man to ever look as stunning as she does.

Disputes with mastermind romantic partners are not fun. The mastermind is forced to patronize his disobedient and rebellious partner just to keep the peace, if their ego cannot sustain rebukes to failed conflictual assertions. This makes him feel distant from the partner, even if he loves her.

An intellectual dispute with a mastermind spouse is like a supermodel whose spouse tries to tell her how wrong she is about her clothing, cosmetics, or hairstyle. She’s in the 99th percentile of aesthetics, and her partner presumes that he knows better than her. A foolish intelligent man might insult his supermodel wife in such ways. A mastermind would not, because he has the wisdom to defer to her aesthetic excellence.

Romance for the mastermind is yet another frustrating endeavor.

Despite the frustrations, the fringe benefits of being a mastermind are grand. Everything we experience is deeper – love, hate, serenity, romance, sadness, pensiveness, and admiration. We have never been bored, because our minds are on fire with zeal. We get more out of every experience, and in one lifetime experience things that most people do not appreciate until they are nearly dead, if ever. Our friends will approach us a decade after we already had the same revelation, and say, “now I know what you meant back then.” Our memory is long and detailed, so we can synthesize more. We can tell stories articulately after the experience is decades old. We can relate to most people in some way, even if they think we are strange.

The Technocrats Will Fall

Many do not know the extent of the mind-numbing leftwing conformity of the technology industry. What is popular now in the news is how the tech oligopoly silences conservatives with the efficacy of a totalitarian dictator. Don’t mention that they share this in common with Hitler, Stalin, and Castro – a lot of them wear Castro’s executioner’s shirt as if it’s iconic.

First of all, they do not have the right to censor conservatives for “hate speech.” A motivated legal team could easily show that they have violated their EULAs by proving selective enforcement, targeted slander against particular users, and standards of “hate” that are amoebic.

Secondly, a motivated legal team could show the extent to which the tech companies have come to dominate information dissemination on par with terrestrial broadcast four decades ago. This brings not only FCC regulatory concerns, but also antitrust potential. In the congressional hearings, the technocrats slyly suggested that the federal government should regulate speech on social media.

If they did that in a Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) style law, which compels social media tech firms to abide and enforce Byzantine rules, then it would bankrupt disruptive innovators who could challenge the big tech domination, like SOX killed the IPO. If such rules were passed, a wise legislator would insist that they only applied progressively commensurate with market share of social media, along with other stipulations.

I am not a fan of Louis Farrakhan. I have listened to him and used his speeches in my own essays and videos. But it is outrageous to me that the technocrats have censored him like they’re running a communist gulag! How dare they choose for adults, what sociopolitical speech we are allowed to see! They may be children disguised in adult bodies, but we are not! Perhaps if they had any humanity, they would have enjoyed the education that I did in my classical education gifted and talented program. We read Adolph Hitler. We read Karl Marx. We did not become genocidal maniacs. Why do they violate Farrakhan’s freedom of speech when they allow “hatred with a smile.”

Farrakhan is not alone. They have banned:

As mentioned in the articles, the technocrats are allowing terrorist organizations that actually coordinate mass murder to remain online. They also do not ban people who incite assassination. For any offense they may invoke to justify the ban, there are other groups and influencers who do the same or worse, with one exception – they conform to the voter base of the global left in all but few cases.

They accuse some of bigotry, for jokes that we enjoyed in Mel Brooks comedies. They confuse funny stereotypes with hatred, while allowing violent incitement against white males and conservatives. Just remember that funny stereotypes about “white girls” and pumpkin spice lattes are acceptable but funny stereotypes about black girls with fried chicken are “racist.” The observed realities of culture, which are jovially endearing, seem bigoted to people without humanity.

Any “civil rights” organization that applauds this censorship needs to lose every single donor immediately. When they are too stupid to realize that one man’s sin is a righteous man’s calling, they have proven that they do not comprehend the first civil right – free speech.

I will suggest to the technocrats:

Recall Microsoft’s antitrust hell from the golden days of the tech bubble. You’re not just demonstrating that there are no masterminds amongst your leadership, but you are demonstrating that there is little wisdom to be found as well. While it is increasingly clear that the leftwing conformity of your employees is stifling thought and innovation, the climax was watching them destroy an artificial intelligence ethics advisory because of the presence of one black female conservative.

The EULA contradictions in enforcement, the FCC & FTC concerns, and antitrust potential are looming over your heads. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, including Elizabeth Warren, are aiming their juris guns at you. All of the money in the world is not going to protect you from a Microsoft antitrust repeat when you continue this totalitarian onslaught. If you think you can point to nonexistent “Russian collusion” to rob power from elected officials, we’re now looking at you as the true usurpers of electoral integrity.

I kind of hope you do continue these violations of civil rights. Overt censorship is easier to fight than how you run your blacklists into the push algos to decrement influence covertly. With every speech-destroying act, you create the market for genuine mastermind technologists to siphon your market share with new corporations.

But in the end it won’t be masterminds who destroy you, it will actually be yourselves. You planted the seeds of your own destruction when you hired millions of highly intelligent workers with 90% sociopolitical conformity, vapid exposure to humanities, and then used corporate cultural techniques in Human Resources to further confine their humanity. My pity resides with such employees, as much as the consumers who are showered in the resulting uninspired “innovations.”

Even when your companies disintegrate, if the tech labor market does not gain some masterminds and devotion to the humanities, the same problem will emerge from a dozens corporations rather than just a few.

Ecclesiastes 450 BC > Scientific Method Francis Bacon 1626 AD

I would add one more bit of wisdom for the technocrats who ask me, “How can a smart guy believe in Christianity?” First, realize that you haphazardly acquired your religion, which was inculcated by secular humanist schools, incessant movies and “programming” in the arts, and by popular journalists and politicians.

This godless religion you were given is one part secular humanist, one part dialectical materialism, and one part pantomimed eastern mystical spiritualistic emotive whitewash, to defray the inevitable slide to existentialist nihilism of irreligious weltanschauung. In your disbelief, you are not more intelligent, honest, enlightened, wise, or knowledgeable.

Your godless alternative is not a superior weltanschauung. An indicator of the abject failure of your godless religion (or irreligious substitution if you prefer), is that so many of your children need psychologists in public schools. Also, your scriptwriters who dominate television and movies invent dialogue and motifs that are deranged to emotionally stable people.

In Judaism and Christianity, we have understood the concepts of intellect, knowledge, and wisdom for thousands of years. Irony? Ecclesiastes spoke of wisdom and knowledge much better than Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. Perhaps it is time to humble yourselves, drop your platitudes of “positivity” that coverup your relentless onslaught against history and tradition, and actually express the “open-mindedness” you claim to value, but rarely demonstrate.

Then again, if these cultural provocations feel like a verbal punch in your brain, you can be assured that you are not a mastermind. Censor me, make yourself a “safe space,” and then go meditate with “mindfulness” and “positivity.” I’m sure one of your carbon-copy colleagues will pat you on the back and commiserate over the cognitive dissonance neither of you can process constructively.

As for Christians, we have Ecclesiastes and entire libraries filled with wisdom and expert comprehension of the human condition. We will continue to use them in our lives for the benefit of mankind. Persist in foolhardiness if you choose.

Ecc 1:12  I Ecclesiastes was king over Israel in Jerusalem,

Ecc 1:13  And I proposed in my mind to seek and search out wisely concerning all things that are done under the sun. This painful occupation hath God given to the children of men, to be exercised therein.

Ecc 1:14  I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold all is vanity, and vexation of spirit.

Ecc 1:15  The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.

Ecc 1:16  I have spoken in my heart, saying: Behold I am become great, and have gone beyond all in wisdom, that were before me in Jerusalem: and my mind hath contemplated many things wisely, and I have learned.

Ecc 1:17  And I have given my heart to know prudence, and learning, and errors, and folly: and I have perceived that in these also there was labour, and vexation of spirit,

Ecc 1:18  Because in much wisdom there is much indignation: and he that addeth knowledge, addeth also labour

Tax is Surgery, Not Virtue, Not Theft, Not Slavery

I’ve encountered two overstated visions of taxation:

1. Tax is theft, or tax is slavery (Murray Rothbard, a small clique of libertarians, and a few conservatives)
2. Tax is duty, or tax is a virtue (Democrats and socialists)

Neither of these visions is correct, as they both fundamentally misconstrue the nature of government and the financing of it. To understand the role of taxation, we must first understand different forms of ownership and governance.

Property Ownership

Ownership is the power of disposal. If you cannot do whatever you want with property, including destroy it completely, then you do not own it fully. There are three types of ownership – private, communal, and state.

A tomato you can eat or feed to the dog is your private property in full, unless the government makes it a criminal offense to let it rot and throw it into the face of a bad comedian. It’s a good thing I made that joke behind the digital cover of a website. Private property can be regulated, such as your house with building codes and homeowners’ association restrictions, but the owner’s power of disposal is mainly intact.

Communal property is shared amongst other people who interact directly with each other, and ostensibly share the maintenance, cultivation, and ownership. Some confuse this with socialism, but the model of communal property existed long before Hegel, Fourier, Marx, Bebel, and other forefathers of socialism.

Communal property is difficult for families and units of soldiers in a war theater. It can work, but it requires deep social bonds and obligations to each other that are much stronger than neighbors and casual friends. Anyone who shares resources in a family understands just how challenging communal property can get with people they know and love, let alone strangers.

Some awful professors have associated the United States pilgrims to socialism. In reality, pilgrim colonies involved none of the sociological protocols of socialism, no state property, and no dialectical materialism – the major aspects of socialism proper. The pilgrims chose a communitarian model, and it failed miserably. Only private property saved them from oblivion.

American hippies, ignorant of history, chose to reinvent communal property. They were not even creative, considering that their entire movement was nothing more than a facsimile of Lebensreform, nacktkultur, free love, theosophical esoteric beliefs, and völkisch inspirations (supplanted with Native American tropes rather than German romanticism). The hippie economic model was ironically much like puritan pilgrim communes.

They spent what little money they had on drugs, while collecting food stamps from productive citizens outside of their communes, and accepting gifts from wealthy benefactors to shore up the rest of their needs. Like lifelong child dependents, hippie communes could not be sustained at scale and without external gifts and handouts.

State ownership is when the government has the power of disposal of property or labor. Whether monarchy, socialism, communism, syndicalism, fascism, or theocracy, when the state obtains the prevailing monopoly of ownership, misery, suffering, collapse, and slaughter are not far away. Modern theocracy allows a Pope to finance chaos, suffering, and invasion with its parishioners’ donations. It’s a wonder Catholics do not rescind all donations until the USCCB and Vatican use their money and power to undo the chaotic invasions they have impelled.

Of course, just like disposal of private property can be constrained by state and communal impositions, the converse is true for state property. In good cases, citizens have a meaningful say in the disposal of state property. A functioning society will always have a mix of private, communal, and state property, with disposal rights that are beholden to the others to lesser or greater degrees.

In truly free market (capitalist) societies, private property is the overwhelming standard of ownership, with minimal constraints on private disposal. The capitalist society also has communal property for families secured by contracts, and the state taking ownership only where force is required – war, criminal justice, taxation, civil disputes, and market disputes. In the case of market disputes, the capitalist government is only supposed to play the role of referee, not become a player.

There is no capitalist government on earth. Dirigisme, and tenets of democratic socialism have overtaken “the free world” in the past century with results ranging from horrific to stagnant and soul-eroding. Zwangswirtschaft was the National Socialist (Nazi) incarnation of dirigisme.

The diligent scholar would review August Bebel, the history of German SPD, and Weimar Republic to understand what models of governance have prevailed in the modern day. The United States is not even the most “capitalistic” government in the world today. Over a dozen nations exceed the United States in economic freedom. The “amount of capitalism” that has been allowed in dirigiste societies has gone a long way towards improving the human condition despite the counterproductive impositions of exorbitant taxation, debt, and regulation.

Means to Exchange

With ownership in mind, we must now understand how exchange occurs. There are three means to earn money through exchange:

Labor earns money – the more productive, rare, valuable, unpleasant, risky, or dangerous, the more you earn.

Resources earn money – as in productive property that you own, including investments, companies, durable goods, and other assets that you make useful to other people.

Power earns money – an aggressor takes what they want from others with force, a child of well-connected parents associates with people who have wealth and power, a beautiful woman bats her eyelids and gets paid for standing in front of a camera, an exceptionally intelligent man gets opportunities just by dint of what people know that he can devise for them. A person with power doesn’t necessarily exercise labor, but can increase their access to money based on the intimidation, application, or admiration of their power.

Agreement or Usurpation in Exchange

Now we can address how a citizen exchanges with the government. Within each of the three means of earning, those who exchange resources can do so with agreement or usurpation.

When a laborer has failed their job, yet collected their compensation, they have usurped the exchange. Plumbers destroying more than they fix, automotive mechanics breaking things under the hood to make work for themselves, doctors injuring those they were paid to heal, lawyers extending proceedings unnecessarily and exploiting ignorance of their client – these are just a few of the infinite examples of laborers usurping the exchange. Syndicalism – trade union socialism – where workers coerce ownership of capital, is another way laborers usurp exchange.

When a resource owner delivers less than what they agreed upon, they have usurped the exchange. Landlords who violate the clauses of renters agreements, factory owners who maim their workers with risky conditions, corporate culture that coerces overtime work without compensation, investors who deploy Ponzi schemes to fool other investors, banks that use information asymmetry to take from depositors an undisclosed share of the productivity of their money – these are just a few of the infinite examples of resource owners usurping the exchange.

When a power player fails to deliver the results they agreed upon, they have usurped the exchange. A beautiful woman who shows up to a modeling shoot drunken and haggardly, a genius man who holds back his intellectual might from those who welcomed him to solve their problems, an association of well-connected people who use relationship silos to keep certain people from others in order to increase their power at the expense of others – these are just a few of the infinite examples of power players usurping the exchange.

There are less obvious forms of labor usurpation as well.

Professors who fill their students’ heads with misinformation, or prioritize low-value knowledge and social engineering over consequential knowledge are usurping the implicit labor agreement with their students.

Christian pastors who fail to teach the seven virtues to their congregation may not have explicitly violated their contract, but in making their laymen morally weak and less independent, they have failed the implicit purpose of association.

A beautiful woman who uses her natural power of attraction to marry a wealthy man, and then chooses to become a haggardly drug addict, or an obesity patient, has violated the implicit agreement. The same could be said of any spouse who seduced their partner with positive qualities (power) and then retracted or disposed of those positive qualities. This self-loathing passive aggressive behavior is a common usurpation in marriage.

Justice employees who selectively enforce the law are not failing their labor duties directly – only implicitly. Refusing to remit illegal immigrants to immigration court, and doling out light sentences to violent criminals are just two of many instances.

Is the exchange of labor, resource usage, or power in compliance with expectations and agreement? Or is there usurpation involved? Understanding exchange is required to comprehend taxation.

Tax is Duty or Virtue?

Democrats and socialists promote the horrendous notion that paying taxes is virtuous. If people were perfectly moral and wise, they would not need government. They would not make innocent mistakes that harm other people. They would not intentionally violate others for their own benefit. In an alternate reality, where people are perfect angels, law and order would be superfluous, and government unnecessary.

Because government itself is an answer to human imperfection, every penny of taxation to finance it is regrettable, and not virtuous. Every dollar we add to grow the size of government carries an implicit admission – that our society has increasing moral squalor which requires more law and order as a corrective.

Whether it is a citizen who is so foolish that they will spend their money today and leave themselves bankrupt in retirement,

increasing crime,

tolerance of illegal immigrants jumping into ailing social service budgets that were paid for by years of taxation of citizens prior to their invasion,

hostile business practices which beg for market regulation,

or violations of the environment which give people cancer…

increasing the size of government is an admission that our society is becoming less virtuous.

No amount of taxation is a happy duty and virtue. Every penny of taxation is a sad admission to the reality of human imperfection, and its consequent requirement for law and order backed by guns and force. Conversely, every decrease in the size of government concurrent with peace and prosperity, indicates that our society is improving.

Tax is Slavery or Theft?

Murray Rothbard, is the most ardent proponent of this campaign of ignorance since the 1980s. On the surface, there are merits. The government has neither labor nor resources that it did not take with force. It is true that there are some resource-earning programs that defray government costs – you pay a fee to get into the national park. How did the government come to own the park? If it was gifted to them, then their power earned it through influence and belief of the donor.

Every man owns his body, the most sacred private property on earth. Violations of a man’s body are the most grievous intrusion of communal and state ownership. The vast majority of the population only has their labor to earn money – which is ultimately the use of their body.

Hence, when the government taxes, they are using power to violate the bodies of its citizens, with every ounce of tax they collect from income. They even indirectly tax the income of laborers by imposing taxes on businesses. The business must then raise their prices or decrease compensation to pay for the tax. If that business is a grocery store, then the customer then pays the tax from their labor every time they buy food. If that business is real estate, the renter pays the property tax with every rent payment, and the tourist pays the property tax in the cost of their hotel rate.

A properly functioning government is only given mandate for human affairs that require the use of power – war, criminal justice, taxation, civil disputes, and market disputes.

If the government owns labor directly (communism), then they own bodies, and this is in fact slavery.

If the government owns resources directly, its only incentive to optimize the productivity of those resources is power. Its employees operate on the budget. The citizens who use the government resources have expectations concocted by the government and civic organizations. That is the inherent conflict of interests that leaves state-owned resources massively inefficient.

A person who is obligated to communal property can dissociate from the commune or use force within the commune to establish control over communal property. How does a person who is obligated to contribute labor or resources to the government maintain ownership of their private property (body and assets)?

Only when taxation coerces 100% of private ownership of particular people is slavery the correct term. When it coerces an exorbitant amount, it is corvée serfdom.

While taxation is not slavery in most cases, it is also not theft. A thief uses force to take what you own. They do not answer to you, they do not do anything on your behalf. They simply take and leave, for themselves and nobody else. You have no prior agreement with the thief about what they will take from you, and typically thieves have done nothing for you in the past.

The government uses power to take taxes. They answer to us through the representative you elect, and through many other forms of civic engagement that we can choose. By remaining in the USA, we implicitly agree to the social contract – the US Constitution, which forms our government and obligates it to defend our liberties when the use of liberties by others steps on our own. It requires financing to do that job.

The government is also obligated to use taxes for other people, in ways that we had a chance to direct with our civic participation. Using power exchange, the government has erected order and state-controlled resources that we take advantage of without having to ask, in many cases. The soldier abroad, securing global trade markets for our business and consumption, does the job without our asking him directly.

There are many implicit agreements with the government that we take advantage of each day, mostly unwittingly. No such agreements exist with thieves.

Tax is Surgery

With the knowledge of ownership, means to earn, usurpation in exchange, and the purposes of taxation and governance, we can draw a much better analogy:

Tax is surgery.

In rare cases, surgery is murder. In rare cases taxation is slavery (Russian gulags, Chinese re-education camps, Nazi concentration camps).

Surgery is killing in more cases, but not often. Malpractice and complete failure do occur. Taxation is killing at times. A law-abiding Cuban communist retained some effectual ownership of their body, labor, and resources, but was stripped bare to the point of indignity and irrelevance.

What they were allowed to own by the government could never enable them to exercise any amount of liberty and self-determination. Even their utensils and dinnerware were inventoried by communist officials invading their home (this and other testimonies are true stories).

Surgery is injurious in a plurality of cases. In many cases, the outcome of surgery does not heal the patient, and creates new injuries. It may not be a majority, but the reason that doctors’ lawyers force contractual disclosure of surgical risk is precisely because injury from surgery is a plurality outcome.

Unfortunately, the most common sociopolitical paradigm across the globe today is secular humanist democratic socialism, tinged with dialectical materialism and theosophist visions. In that sociopolitical standard, taxation is injurious. The government employees, nonprofits, and civic participants are bad surgeons. The proof of this is out of scope for this article, but demonstrated irrefutably in the book Economic Sovereignty: Prosperity in a Free Society.

Surgery is necessary but still undesirable in all other cases, when not murder, killing, or injurious. In a well-functioning society, taxation is the regrettable price we must pay for being imperfect human beings who require law and order to minimize the damage done by our failures.

We certainly wish that we didn’t have to get cut open and injured in order to heal a bigger problem. But we will always need taxation and governance so long as human beings are not angels.

I look forward to a day when economic sovereignty is established and taxation is minimal, appropriate, and financing beneficial government activity instead of tyrannical government activity. On that day, I’ll agree that we finally have taxation performing good surgeries on the human condition.

Anger with a Smile: The Steep Cost of Ad Hominem Satire

With geopolitical stability, global energy and financial security at risk from an Islamic fascist dictator who tortured and slaughtered without mercy, 43% of Democratic and 97% of Republican legislators approved a war. Depictions of Bush as an ape multiplied, while pacifists whitewashed the ethno-nationalist maniac that the US military pursued. Apparently, white skin is a requirement to be labeled as an ethno-nationalist. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party was verboten accuracy in speaking of Saddam Hussein. If you are brown or Asian, and non-Christian, violent ethnic pride is unremarkable.

Thus the sociopolitical opportunists who lack the rote skill to juxtapose statistics of killing fixate upon disorganized and anemic “white nationalism” while Latino, African, Asian, and Islamic Ummah ethno-nationalism produces a global slaughter of Jacobin proportions. At my last count, Islamists were responsible for 54% of global terrorism victims since 1970, while socialists comprised 30%. They have slaughtered 91% of all terror victims in the EU since the year 2000.

There are even propagandists who point to the number of terror attacks in the US, in order to downplay Islamist lethality. That figure conflates the property crimes of eco-fascists with lethal massacres. White ethno-nationalists of Christian heritage (but not Christian faith), have mountains of killing to do if they wanted to catch up to the global terrorism of brown, Asian, and non-Christian ethno-nationalists. People might lie to themselves and others, but cold hard numbers interpreted correctly do not.

So why do tech companies, politicians, journalists, corporations, and entertainers amplify white nationalist violence while minimizing the rest? It has become so bad that the Democratic Party moved in lockstep to call recent Christian victims “Easter worshippers.” Lame excuses for the language followed.

For those unfamiliar with political PR – a communique goes out to a trusted network, suggesting language, and the public figure chooses to heed or ignore the suggestion. If you think that all of these Democrats coincidentally dreamed up “Easter worshippers” to replace “Christians” in their language, please look at your ceiling right now because somebody wrote “gullible” on it!

The sociopolitical opportunists don’t dare speak the truth about such slaughter, lest they damage the fragile egos of their “minority” voters, colleagues, investors, and customers – who actually form an enormous demographic when combined. There is also a sizable demographic of self-loathing white people who resent their parents, families, and themselves subconsciously, and consequently enjoy participating in the rite of flagellating themselves.

They feel enlightened and superior, each time they validate imaginary ethnic victims in abstract categories. It’s a great way to expunge unmerited guilt without actually having to do anything constructive. They carry their plastic swords into the basement and slay the white oppressor goblins, and then run outside to tell the neighborhood of their heroic play-time fiction.

Those sociopolitical opportunists will stuff their dishonorable mouths with a 2% profit margin, a 2% annual bonus, or a 0.5% voter polling lead, while their enlarging Pinocchio noses cast shadows over the graveyards of the slaughtered. As it turns out, it’s the brown people, Asians, and non-Christians who usually suffer the most casualties from their own ethno-nationalist violence. White people of Christian heritage contribute a small portion of the global death toll.

The fiction of white oppressors also does not serve the real victims well. Falsely aggrandizing white nationalism while minimizing other ethno-nationalism has lethal consequence for the “brown” people that the sociopolitical opportunists patronize claim to “validate.”

And once the facts are twisted into the fiction, then the satire emerges from every corner of academia, social media, newspapers, entertainment, and civics. Instead of focusing upon concepts, facts, and logic that drive valid criticism, they scrawl their caricatures of opposition like intoxicated hippies with a fingerpaint surplus. Thus they draw Bush as a monkey, as depicted above. They draw soldiers as monkeys. They depict religious people as monkeys:

But the same people who create dehumanizing satire of soldiers fail to see how their sexual choices bring them closer to primitive animals than soldiers who struggle against tyranny. Dare to depict Beyoncé in ape garb for promiscuous dances of genital worship, and watch the accusations of racism mount. Dare to depict drunkards and drug addicts as dogs devouring chocolate, and become the teetotaling killjoy. Here are our rules for satire in the secular humanist, democratic socialist society:

  • White man bad, brown man good
  • Religious man stupid, godless man smart
  • Intoxicated man cool, drug-free man boring
  • Promiscuous man cool, chaste man boring
  • Soldiers and war primitive, hostile statecraft enlightened
  • Policeman oppressor, mercy for criminals enlightened
  • Businessman greedy, government bureaucrat charitable
  • Rich man indulgent sinner, poor man saintly victim
  • Females infallible, males culpable
  • Gun owner scary, unprotected citizen courageous

Violate these rules at your own risk. There are surely dozens of others emerging in conjunction with current sociopolitical agendas. To the opportunist, it doesn’t matter what’s true, it only matters if they win.

And they strike below the belt to win. Double standards, inverted values, and unjustifiable visions characterize ad hominem satire. Though the comedian activists hurl their invective with a smile, there is anger, anxiety, and self-loathing beneath their disingenuous joviality. A person who is genuinely confident and respects themselves does not choose the bottom four tiers of disagreeable arguments:

But what if logic dictates that these methods of mass psychology are an accidental feature of our times? Polarized sociopolitical cliques are unavoidable in modernity because dysfunctional argumentation is a side-effect of post-industrial societies with public education. With fewer manual labor jobs, and governments coercing everyone to spend 25-33% of their lives in school, those with below-median IQ are shepherded into intellectual endeavors, but are forever ill-equipped in them. The popularity of invective and fallacious argumentation is a logical consequence of replacing manual activities with intellectual ones.

To feel relevant and empowered in the intellectual climate, the below-median IQ citizen does not watch interviews with professors, which leaves them “bored,” confused, and unsatisfied. They tune into any of the dozen comedian activists, who seem clever, caricature everything, remain shallow, provide the illusion of relevance, and ridicule a scapegoat. In one package, the intellectually frustrated citizen of modernity gets to have fun, feel relevant, and release their frustration upon ridiculed scapegoats.

It’s Looney Tunes For Adults! They even tried to make a successful business man, Herman Cain, look like Elmer Fudd by incessantly calling him “The Pizza Guy.” This circus of satirical ad hominem does not end when John Oliver’s mouth closes for the evening. The mob of viewers parrot the dysfunctional modes of thinking and behaviors in their communities and on social media.

Anger with a smile is like a slow drip poison, eroding zeal, self-respect, trust, and humility with every chuckle. Once a person does not respect themselves, they combine with other people who fill their void, and the collectivist mob of spotted hyenas is born. Anger with a smile multiplies in groups.

There are too many priests of smiley anger to list, but the most promoted ones are Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Conan O’Brien, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and Seth Meyers.

Comedy is a great experience, and so is satire. But the way in which satire is pursued makes all the difference. It’s valid to satirize groups of people who are participating in a trend that is justified by hard evidence. Ad hominem satire against specific people, or satire in which the punchline is not justified by hard evidence is destructive. There can be no privileged classes of people immune to satire. And when they use it to obscure dire struggles like warfare and ethno-nationalist violence, they are willing to destroy any truth in order to advance an agenda.

The sociopolitical opportunist uses the four lowest tiers of the argument pyramid, and their passive aggressive anger with a smile allows them to deny animosity when they’re exposed. This kind of sociopathy should have no place in civics, and I look forward to a new age of virtuous culture that is resilient against such psychological aggression.

Why I Wrote EconSov Part 4: Awakening the Heroes Who Will Confront Disorder

Without economic sovereignty, we endure economic bondage and dependency through debt, redistribution, and patronage from institutions that usurp labor and resources. Some consider “economic sovereignty” to be the amount of control a nation has over its economy without foreign encumbrance.

It’s an bad definition, lacking full consideration, because a nation is its people, and if they are beholden to domestic overlords and surrogate decision makers, they are not a sovereign people by supplanting foreign interference with native tyrants. And native tyrants in the “global economy” cannot act in isolation domestically. Thus the Davos Clique, G7 summit, Belt and Road Initiative, and other cooperative organizations flex their muscles.

Economic bondage and dependency is not mutually exclusive to totalitarian nations. No form of government is immune to economic tyranny. The perverse form of democracy (ochlocracy), characterized by demagoguery, emotive rhetoric, and shallow participation by collectivist cliques, is common across the globe. The loudest, most propagandistic, and worst abusers of mass psychology prevail in a race towards who can pretend to be Santa Claus better than the next candidate. They buy votes with promises to rob their neighbors on the behalf of those who vote for them. Powerful institutions shut down debate, accuse opposition of hate speech, de-platform opponents, and brainwash the public by paying off academia, journalists, politicians, and nonprofits.

The decline of Seattle is currently whitewashed with such methods:

Earlier this month, leaked documents revealed that a group of prominent nonprofits—the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Campion Advocacy Fund, the Raikes Foundation, and the Ballmer Group—hired a PR firm, Pyramid Communications, to conduct polling, create messaging, and disseminate the resulting content through a network of silent partners in academia, the press, government, and the nonprofit sector. The campaign, #SeattleForAll, is a case study in what writer James Lindsay calls “idea laundering”—creating misinformation and legitimizing it as objective truth through repetition in sympathetic media.

The dishonor that such powerful and monied “social justice” champions exhibit is emblematic of the way economic tyranny is pummeled down the throats of citizens in “democracy.” The democratic browning machine gun is filled with .50 caliber mass psychology, mowing down the unarmed minds of hapless voters.

But the public will not tolerate such abuse indefinitely. Passive aggression is the first response. Workers, citizens, and businesses alike scam each other, exploit the rules, and feign compliance while delivering the bare minimum results to maintain the status quo. Stagnation in real terms is the result. Statistics are colored to claim growth and success, but closer inspection reveals decline, rot, and waste.

Active aggression ensues when the bread and circuses no longer placate the populace. Luckily for the economic tyrant, in modern democracies, bread and circuses are bountiful. With chemical lobotomies in the form of “happy pills,” television, trivial socializing (digitally and physically), video games, shallow leisure travel, and intoxication of all sorts, there are infinite methods of escapism, so that people can avoid honestly confronting their trapped reality.

On the bright side, with knowledge comes power, and power is the only way to uproot tyranny of any sort. Economic Sovereignty was written to provide that power to all who are committed to ending the tyranny. In part one, the Davos Clique was revealed as drivers of international affronts to economic sovereignty. In part two, the problem was further defined. In part three, the concepts of creation and the understandable tunnel vision of specialists were elaborated. If the public had the knowledge published in Economic Sovereignty, none of these problems would ever have emerged.

To be sure, modern citizens are economically illiterate – not because they are stupid, but because they have been pummeled by .50 caliber mass psychology in their schools, their news consumption, and civic communications (nonprofits and politicians).

It’s not that every single economist in the world is blatantly dishonest like Thomas Piketty, many Davos Clique members, the Belt and Road emperors, and those who sell their souls to controlling public opinion like the #SeattleForAll influence operation.

It’s that in the universities, there is an ideological bias that serves up career consequences to those who even seek to disprove the dirigiste economic orthodoxy.

It’s that in the private sector, those who curate the true understanding of the economy gain competitive advantage in the markets. Why would they disclose the secrets of their trade that allow them to predict markets and beat their competition?

It’s that in the nonprofit and government sectors, entire departments and programs depend upon false visions of the economy to even maintain their mandate.

It’s that across the board, there is a segmentation of specialization that prevents integrative analysis conducted by a generalist such as myself.

While some conspirators like the Davos Clique and #SeattleForAll operate for their own self-interests – ideologically, politically, or financially – there is no proof of global conspiracy. As usual, great systemic failures of complex systems emerge from a confluence of bad actors. Each group of contributors act dysfunctionally for their own reasons, accepting long-term losses for short-term gains, if they even see the danger of the long-term liabilities.

When I was reading Thomas Sowell’s The Housing Boom and Bust, I realized that he was borrowing from the epidemiological method to conduct root cause analysis for the economic collapse. It was pure brilliance, although he doesn’t disclose that approach explicitly – you’d have to be familiar with that methodology to identify it in action.

I borrowed it for my own analysis of complex human systems of events and actions in economics and culture. Still, analytical failure is only the secondary issue. The economic illiteracy of the general public is a key issue.

How bad is economic illiteracy? Can you believe that more than 75% of college graduates can’t answer four simple economic questions that I’ve been able to answer since high school? We must also consider consumer debt, corporate debt, student debt, municipal bonds, government debt, and the housing collapse in which homeowners and voters played a major role.

Democracies across the globe continue to vote for politicians who promise to be Santa Claus without disclosing the serf colonies of elves required to make all the goodies for the prideful phony altruists. We have voted “yes” to municipal bonds so frequently that the total muni bond debt has gone from zero to four trillion dollars in less than three generations. How did we finance superior education in the 1950s, which was heavy on knowledge and light on social engineering?

In just one school district, public school educators have robbed taxpayers of $70 million to build a sports stadium for their students who can’t even recite Shakespeare, perform a concerto, or solve trigonometry problems. Parents let the government-run schools get away with this insanity – partly from moral squalor, and party from economic illiteracy.

The market for news also indicates economic illiteracy. Banks and advisors warn of impending recession as chronicled in a recent Alvarism article. Now, 2/3 of American Chief Financial Officers agree with that assessment. Why haven’t most news consumers heard this critical news?

Journalists are not selling this information to their viewers, because their viewers prefer Looney Tunes For Adults, where political animals verbally beat each other senseless in an endless circle of mindless rivalry. Viewers rewarded journalists with high ratings for the two-year Trump-Russia collusion hoax which obfuscated the much greater parent-issue of electoral integrity. That was a Looney Tunes For Adults episode that will go down in history as a classic. Bugs Bunny is jealous.

The idea that people are too stupid for economic sovereignty is absurd. I will admit that American intelligence has been dragged down by incentives for unintelligent people to produce tons of children, and disincentives for smart people to have children. I have a 99.97th percentile IQ, which is nearly double the national average.

And so what? A supermodel soon learns the liability of extreme beauty as people try to use her, and never try to see her inner value. A strongman soon learns the liability of his physical prowess, as people challenge him, or work him to the bone. Uncommon intelligence is easily exploited by others as well. And like a knife can be used for murder or surgery, intelligence on top of moral decay is a ferocious instrument.

You might note on the chart in the linked article that Germany and Japan lead the globe in IQ. How could they be the nations that ushered in National Socialism, nearly rending the world inside out? The pure evil of Unit 731 and The Holocaust will never be forgotten.

And where are German and Japanese innovations? They have copied American inventions for over a century. German and Japanese readers, please swallow your national pride for a moment – those are the facts and I have the intellectual property statistics to prove it. I personally love many things about Japanese and German culture.

While Economic Sovereignty is objectively written at the 13th grade level, it is within 80% of the public’s capacity to acquire the powerful knowledge. Even if some may struggle and require assistance with the concepts, the power is within their reach. A PhD biochemist once told me that he had a hard time with the book. But a classically educated woman with a bachelor’s degree in literature, and a young man with no college degree, absorbed the information without any challenge. The knowledge seems intimidating, but it is not, and nobody is a lesser person who requires special explanation on top of independent study.

Improving the human condition does not require that every man is a genius. I don’t even need most of my coworkers to match my intelligence. Improving the human condition requires that successful culture is held as the standard. Our educators, journalists, clergy, politicians, executives, and entertainers have not chosen to do that. In acts of social retrogression, they have degraded the culture of the masses, making them less able to stand on their own two feet.

Creation requires wisdom, virtue, and knowledge. A few people in that mix need high intelligence. As the Germans and Japanese demonstrated in the 20th century – intellect is not synonymous with prosperity and innovation. It can be grossly applied to horrific and foolish pursuits. As a Navy Captain once said to a bright engineer under my management: “you really are a smart dumbass.” Without high culture, and the seven virtues, an intelligent nation is a wasted nation at best, and an evil nation at worst.

If democracies across the globe think they are immune to economic tyranny, they need a serious reckoning. Their actual-ochlocracies have developed the most sophisticated economic bondage in history using 21st century mass psychology tools. A populace empowered with the knowledge of Economic Sovereignty is the beginning of the recovery of our rights and dignity.

It’s hard not to be a menace to society, when half the population is happy on their knees. But with knowledge, we can gently lift our prostrated neighbors from their mindless genuflection to false prophets of institutional power. The Santa Claus costumes will come off quickly when they finally see the serfdom of the elves.

I wrote the book because I believe in the capacity of most people to correct this maelstrom of corruption. Economic Sovereignty is just the first of four treasure troves of knowledge required to explode the .50 caliber mass psychology machine gun nests. The guilty parties hide from debating these concepts because they know that their antiquated bread and circuses are no match for the inferno of truth that we bring. And democracies across the globe have never needed purgation fire more than they do now.

A partner of Alvarism jokingly called me Vulcan, knowing all that I have done. But these fires and weapons need heroes to wield them. There are few greater joys than identifying new heroes, who are worthy of the munitions and arms of my forge. One of those greater joys is watching the heroes use that power to change tyranny and chaos into peace, order, and prosperity.

Improving the human condition is not just about the struggle of creators and masterminds. The heart of the process resides in the chest of each hero, awakened by the light of truth, and ready to confront disorder en masse.

Why I wrote EconSov Part 3: Creation > Deconstruction

Don’t mind me, I’m just a Law Abiding Citizen, playing judo with some naughty knaves. When an Italian economist from Deutsche Bank sought me out for information collection and entrapment, I knew I was succeeding.

Creation > Innovation > Formulation > Emulation > Deconstruction

What kind of engineers are good at economics? There is a difference between an entrepreneurial engineer and a typical engineer. One innovates, the other formulates. It is easy to give people what they think they want. Most technology companies, nonprofits, and government institutions do that. It’s much harder to give people what they didn’t know they needed. The prior gives us better selfie apps, while the latter gives us the combustion engine and a number of my inventions.

An entrepreneurial engineer of the industrial-organizational domain might create a new factory. And surely, he is an innovator. Let’s say the factory pumps out Pet Rocks. What is the outcome of the innovation? One more trinket to clutter the houses of hoarders? What might an environmentalist say? What might a classicist say, who could recount legendary tales much more amusing than Pet Rocks?

Creation is more than innovation, it requires proper moral and value-oriented considerations. It requires visions of humanity and the world that are enduring. Popular opinion is not the arbiter of what is moral and good. Any pseudo-intellectual who believes that needs to open a history book and turn to chapters on the Mongolians, Weimar Germany, the Aztecs, or the Mayans.

Chaotic evil was popularly “good” to them. I’m sure very bright people in the Mayan civilization helped them to more rapidly accelerate deforestation for their slash and burn agriculture and to plaster their temples of human slaughter with their slave labor. But their hellish orchestra of death and oppression was keeping the sun from burning out, according to their animistic religion. The slaves and slaughtered people certainly were not fond of the innovators who made the ziggurats a reality.

Even an entrepreneurial engineer can innovate useless or harmful things, that turn to dust quickly on the timescale of humanity.

A creative engineer operates upon the enduring traditions and wisdom of history, the moral and value-oriented absolutes inspired by it, and accurate visions of the world. If they possess that foundation, then their inventions become enduring. The stringed instrument is enduring. The aqueduct is enduring – its modern incarnation brings safe water into our homes through plumbing. The magnificent gifts of creative engineers throughout history can only be obliterated by errant or evil people.

Any formulating engineer can solve complex problems. Any entrepreneurial engineer can innovate. But only a creative engineer solves problems to improve the human condition.

There are very few creative engineers, because our rubber-stamp university credentialing system across the globe does not want them. To be like Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, or Sir Isaac Newton requires as much interest in humanities as formulary. But formulary makes the STEM graduate more readily employable by The Davos Clique and other overlords of much lower intelligence, but much greater power and wealth. In this way, both the creative and destructive processes are usurped by unjustified people. The foolish engineer becomes an instrument of inferior people with wealth and power. In a grand irony, the instrument-maker becomes the unwitting instrument.

I did not intentionally become a creative engineer. I have always demonstrated equal skill in STEM and the humanities since I was a child. I enjoyed it all the same, in fact, I needed the synthesis to be satisfied with my activities. Management came naturally. I grew larger than the other kids faster, so I was a leader in little league football. I mastered musicianship on guitar and composition early, so I was a band leader and composer. I mastered course material rapidly so I was a leader in academics. I mastered my jobs so they put me in charge of people and projects – from small business to resident life on campus. My experience in organizing people gave me insights.

Economics was easy for an engineer with management and humanities expertise. In one semester, they gave us a course that accelerated us through what it takes economics undergraduates three years to learn. They could do this because we were already in our fifth calculus course and we could achieve a lot more with sophisticated mathematics and students of higher intelligence.

Engineering Economy focuses on the complexity of how a technology and organization can perform financially. Will the designed technology be a loss? Will it make returns on investment? How much? Why? These are simple questions, but they have complicated answers. They’re just not nearly as complicated Engineering Physics.

Some of my classmates hated this stuff. I loved economic analysis. I loved creating organizations from nothing. I loved software estimation – not necessarily Cocomo II, but my modern methods were often saving graces for companies that employed me. In one week, I saved the Pentagon $10 million per year in mobile phone charges with a simple spreadsheet. None of their MBA graduates could do that. They spent years wasting that money. For me, financial and economic analysis is easy as pie, and incredibly important.

Perhaps one of the reasons I love it so much is because I value people engaged in virtuous activity. If I can help them optimize the virtue of their time expenditure, I am greatly satisfied. Without accurate economic and financial analysis – people are consigned to waste. And lost time is never found again. The Davos Clique and dirigiste politicians don’t really care about wasting our time, and consequently our lives, so long as their agenda is served.

In the first article of this series, I showed my Engineering Economy textbook. I still use it from time to time. I also use newer books such as CIO Best Practices for managing labor. In the second article of this series, I showed a mug my father bought me for Christmas during my junior year.

It was a common to speak of rocket science as the most complicated knowledge. If something very simple became a point of contention, people would say, “it’s not rocket science.” The smartest people in Iran and North Korea are still trying to figure that one out – poor Nuclear Nadal. So my father thought it was amusing that his son was studying rocket science from a guy who worked on the first shuttle for NASA.

I did well in the class, but I did get the product rule in N2 wrong like everyone else, the first time. We’re used to calculating force presuming that the object remains the same mass as it moves through space. We did those calculations a thousand times. But a rocket burns fuel so quickly that its change in mass over change in time is incredibly significant. Fallacious assumptions are sometimes accepted by the brightest and most knowledgeable people, even in their own field of practice.

I do not believe that all of the economists are corrupt. I think that most are operating on fallacious assumptions by rote habit, just like our brilliant rocket scientists, in their misapplication of Newtonian physics. I hope that they will collaborate with me on Economic Sovereignty when they wish to correct some of their models and conduct research on the novel creations I have made by analyzing the national and global economy.

Creators are infectious. When people finally understand why they need what the creator has conceived, they want a part of the beautiful and noble activities. There are few more rewarding things than knowing you are improving the human condition with your own life and talents. And we do not need a thousand Galileos, but we do need millions to understand the value of his creations and to help him apply them to this world in myriad ways.

To understand how the human condition is improved by Economic Sovereignty, a person must first appreciate how we are threatened. In the first article, I described the Piketty inequality fiction peddled by The Davos Clique. In the second article, The Great Recession, Occupy Wall Street, and the TEA Party take form. In this article, I answered the common question for people who do not understand how certain engineering practices relate to business, economics, and industrial-organizational endeavors, and why I have always participated in this field. Our education was a very special one, with uncommon features, along with my career.

In the next and final article, the genesis of Economic Sovereignty is concluded, the Davos Clique scout from Deutsche Bank is revealed, and the economic knowledge gap of our society is detailed.