Articles

Don’t Miss the Income Inequality Myth Video

untitled-picture2

A new animated video by Alvarism explains the complex topic of income distribution with simple terms in less than seven minutes.  This knowledge is incredibly important because falsehoods about income distribution are currently driving deleterious tax policies.  Even worse, some of the most powerful and influential people in the world believe the income inequality myth. The video corresponds to section 3.2 of the book Economic Sovereignty: Prosperity in a Free Society, and a public briefing on the topic delivered by Alvarism in the U.S. Senate on May 4th, 2015.

Happy viewing!

In the video:

  1. The five statistical errors that fooled people into believing the income inequality myth:
    1. Cost of living and purchase power parity
    2. Part-time labor and full-time equivalents
    3. Counting all taxes
    4. Counting all welfare
    5. Households vs. Earners
  2. Common misconceptions:
    1. Income is not wealth.  Wealth is surplus.  Income is the only pathway to wealth a poor person has.
    2. Income distribution statistics only capture yearly snapshots of lifelong careers.  Most people will earn high income for a few years at some point in their careers.
  3. Good inequality:
    1. Matches income to age, experience, and productivity
    2. Matches income to industrial and career value for its free-market worth to society

Cite Me, Invite Me, Please Don’t Rob Me – Killing Intellectual Subversion


Let’s assume that you devoted decades of your life to guiding your beloved children to independence, joy, peace, and success. There are dozens of ways for other people to ruin your children with crime, immorality, or even legal forms of aggression. Whether your children ended up maimed for life from assaults, bankrupt from corrupt spouses, or on the couches of psychologists from relational and psychological abuse – you would feel as if your life’s most precious work was violated. This is similar to what we experience when corrupt people violate and steal our intellectual work. The difference is, parenthood is so common that most people can relate to the violation of their children. Because fewer people have chosen to spend decades of their lives in spreadsheets, books, deep thought, experiments, revisions, writing, and painstaking formulation, intellectual violation is poorly understood.

The most obvious indicators of insufficient empathy are not even diatribes from socialists who foolishly demand the end of intellectual property. Blatantly callous norms are captured in the language used to describe intellectual subversion, such as academic dishonesty and academic misconduct. It’s as if we set loose a gaggle of nursery school babysitters into the adult population whose sole purpose is to protect our most corrupt peers from even experiencing guilt for their fraud. Their attitude:

“Woops! Well, nobody is perfect, you know! A little dishonesty here, a little misconduct there – completely conducive to a normal society. And of course, it’s only relevant for academics.”

Intellectual subversion extends far beyond academic institutions. Direct victims include independent researchers, professionals in various fields, analysts, journalists, fiction writers, comedians, software developers, historians, engineers, and scientists. They are the creators, and violating them does not just harm them. There are severe consequences for intellectual consumers, and the progress of humanity itself. In reality, there is no level of intellectual subversion that is acceptable; we must detect and punish it with vigor.

Intellectual subversion is the disruption of society’s system of creation and discovery. There are multiple tactics that frauds use:

  • Bribery – offering a creator money, contracts, privilege, reputation, or promotions if they use their creative talents to produce content or results that satisfy a predetermined agenda
  • Cheating – helping a creator to gain an edge by providing them with resources and information that their competition does not have, and that will surely damage their competition. Coworkers can be cheated by cronyism when management provides their favored employees with opportunities and resources denied to the ones delivering the results.
  • Deception – giving false information to resource providers in order to gain advantage in competition. For instance, an entertainer can currently buy one-hundred YouTube likes for five dollars. So a person with a $50,000 marketing budget can buy a “viral” video with one-million likes. In this way, purely idiotic ideas make untalented hacks famous while genuinely good creations are crowded out of the public’s attention.
  • Fabrication – falsification of data and evidence
  • Impersonation – assuming the identity of a creator to give them an advantage. Shadow writers are paid impersonators, but they make their agreements without coercion.
  • Plagiarism – the reproduction of another creator’s work without crediting, citing, or acknowledging them
  • Sabotage – interfering with the completion of or attention to another creator’s work
  • Appropriation – taking the ideas, methods, findings, and conclusions of the original creator and rewording them without crediting the creator. This is an insidious form of intellectual subversion that combines sabotage and masked plagiarism. It’s not necessarily illegal, because we can’t copyright an idea.

All of these tactics destroy the lives’ work of creators – robbing them in ways that a common thief could never fathom. They also rob the public of the best creations, and lift up incompetent people who then destroy the work that they stole with their inexperience and unfamiliarity with the content. The public not only loses access to the best creations; the intellectually subverted creations they consume are only distorted shades of the original. The process of intellectual subversion also breaks the chain of creation. The original creator with all the knowledge and skills to refine and adapt the work efficiently and superiorly is cut out of the future of the creation.

There are over one-hundred citations and credits in Economic Sovereignty. I would be glad to discuss the results, collaborate, or present to any interested party. I believe that I speak for all creators when I kindly request for readers to cite me, invite me, but please don’t rob me. Everyone loses when intellectual subversion is perpetrated – society at large and the thieves included. When the public discovers the truth, the thieves should be made infamous and lose any advantage they robbed from the devoted lifetimes of honest creators. We will kill intellectual subversion by bringing consequences to the thieves – including the ones who technically did not break intellectual property laws. Making them infamous by exposing their fraud, and persuading the public to choose genuine creations will go a long way.

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

Can Third Parties Destroy Elections? Truth from Math Expertise Made Simple.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, the Major Third Party Candidates in the 2016 US Presidential Elections

It is election season and a hot topic on social media is whether or not Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will throw the election to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. A meme illustrates the claim from the perspective of casual third party activists:

Ignoring the disparaging, Orwellian insult of co-opting kind Mr. Rogers to express the false superiority of the creator, is it true? Even people with bad character can offer truthful messages. To answer whether or not third party candidates would throw the election to a major party, the mathematics of probability are required. Unfortunately, the meme maker treats an inductive problem like a deductive, axiomatic one. In other words, their model entails about 120 million likely voters, who must vote for one of four candidates, and who are all guaranteed to vote, no matter who is on the ballot. That’s not reality. In reliability engineering, we were expected to pick up statistical math on our own and immediately apply it to real world problems. It was an incredibly easy topic, and a stress-free break from courses like operational methods. When I saw this meme, I immediately constructed the correct solution.

There are two generalized events to compare:

  1. Trump vs. Clinton with no third parties (T = Trump, C = Clinton)
  2. Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (J = Johnson, S = Stein)

These are two sets of mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive events, meaning that one (and only one) must win:

  1. Only one of two candidates must win: P(T ∩ C) =  0 and P(T U C) = 1
  2. Only one of four candidates must win: P(T ∩ C ∩ J ∩ S) =  0 and P(T U C U J U S) = 1

So the question then becomes what is the probability of Trump or Clinton winning with or without third party candidates in the race? Based on polls, we know that Johnson and Stein cannot win, hovering at 9% and 3% respectively. When Ross Perot took 18% of the popular vote in 1992, he did have an impact on election results. So people who are interested in taking this seriously must now ask – how will votes for Johnson or Stein tip the election to Clinton or Trump. That is the only rational outcome of a vote for Stein or Johnson, since they cannot win. If all four candidates were hovering around 25%, we would be having a different conversation. But that’s not the reality.

In order to answer how Stein and Johnson will tip the election, we would consider a handful of voter types:

  1. Committed to Trump
  2. Committed to Clinton
  3. Committed to Johnson
  4. Committed to Stein
  5. Leaning Trump
  6. Leaning Clinton
  7. Leaning Johnson
  8. Leaning Stein
  9. Abstain
  10. Write-in

That set of ten possibilities contrasts sharply with an election where the third parties are not on the ballot:

  1. Committed to Trump
  2. Committed to Clinton
  3. Lean Trump
  4. Lean Clinton
  5. Abstain
  6. Write-in

To answer whether or not Stein and Johnson will throw the election to Trump or Clinton, a serious investigator would need to analyze how the following groups would change without the third parties on the ballot:

  1. Committed to Johnson
  2. Committed to Stein
  3. Lean Johnson
  4. Lean Stein

Would they all abstain? How much of each group would ultimately commit to Trump or Clinton? Is it fair to say that most of Stein’s voters would go to Clinton, and most of Johnson’s would go to Trump, and a comparable number of each would abstain? Where would a researcher find such data? We would also need to perform conditional probability calculations to determine how the third party candidates would impact the election. If our assumption about the transference of third-party voters holds, then Stein may leach 1.5 – 3% from Clinton and Johnson may leach 4.5 – 9% from Trump. When we consider the electoral college, and the fact that the votes in swing states are going to decide the election, the calculations become even more complex. A few percentage points in the national electorate may not make a difference at all.

So what’s the honest answer to whether or not the third parties will destroy this election by taking genuine political convictions and redirecting them to Trump or Clinton wins? We simply don’t know. The only thing we know for sure is that since neither Johnson nor Stein can win, those who vote for them will either have no impact or they will influence a Trump or Clinton win. Unless somebody shows you their homework – and constructs the problem exactly as it was stated here, they are deceiving you. They need to create a mutually exclusive set of events, with conditional probability, and then adapt it to the electoral college, and compare the scenarios with or without third parties in the race. That’s a very complex problem, but complexity is the nature of modeling the real world accurately, compared to propaganda from people with next to no understanding of mathematics.

Alvarism does not endorse any of the candidates, as a nonpartisan nonprofit think tank. We do insist that claims like this are treated honestly. Nothing good for America will occur by misleading voters about the realistic impact of their choices. This may frustrate those who are wedded to third parties, and with that frustration, I can sympathize. Libertarians like Rand Paul have been working within the Republican party to increase the real influence of their voters. He is an example of a different path to the same destination for libertarians. Before we assert that third parties are the solution for frustrated voters, let’s remember what happened in Germany when a minority of many third parties was sufficient to win their nation. Our leaders are reflections of the electorate, no matter how they are organized under multiple parties. Political change begins with understanding civics, understanding the alternatives, and then affecting change at the local level, in caucuses, and through nonprofit action to which elected officials must respond. Economic Sovereignty details political visions in Chapter 2. It will empower citizens to realize the origins of political bias, and to start engaging in meaningful ways. When we treat problems like this critically, honestly, and practically, every citizen wins.

Cast of Characters in Economic Sovereignty

All of the people or entities quoted in Economic Sovereignty are depicted below, in loose order of their historically notable events or births. Can you identify all of them by memory? Is there anyone you can’t quite put your finger on? Ask about specific people and let us know how many you can identify in the comments below!


Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

Something Amazing Happened When I Affirmed Nonprofit Political Campaigning Rules


Union Protests the 2011 Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill in Madison Wisconsin

It would be difficult for me to avoid political discourse, living in the Washington D.C. metropolis and devoting decades of my free time to economic and cultural research. I have always voted, and I always had my opinion on which candidates would do a better job. Still, I never sought out political campaigns, but they somehow sought me when I began publically disclosing the results of my analyses. Many modern political speeches generally disinterest me because they often insult our intelligence and make us question the claims of “progress” for humanity. All the stunning science and technology in the world can’t compensate for a corrosive culture. I encourage people to read the speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Cicero, which were conducted with paper, pen, and voice alone. Then observe the phantasmagoria of modern multi-million dollar productions with teleprompters and lowest-common-denominator language that borrows more from Adolph Hitler’s emotive tendencies than the great thinkers of history. Whether or not you like Bertrand Russell, you may agree with his assessment of these emotive persuasive tactics:

“What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.” –Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

If Russell could see the global political climate today, I’m sure he’d say, “I told you so.” Yet America is far from the globe’s worst offenders. There are those who take U.S. aid while biting the hand that feeds them with kindergarten language. Admittedly, I employed emotive techniques as part of my business counterintelligence strategy for our music technology company, MYnstrel, Inc. Prospective investors and partners would sometimes say, “your website is so cryptic and loaded with marketing-speak, what are you actually up to?” I insisted that they sign a nondisclosure agreement before I even gave them access to the second level of details. Our strategy paid off when a very large and well-connected competitor robbed our business model just two years after we put our website up. It turns out that one of our consultants spent time in pubs with that competitor’s Chief Technology Officer, so we assumed that was the vector for the breach. Luckily, we only divulge project information on a need-to-know basis, so we did not lose any significant secrets. Their reorganization and emulation of our business model was no deeper than what anyone could garner from our website. And baby, “there ain’t nothing like the real thing.” There is no way that a competitor would even come close to what we have discovered for music business and technology.

My experience in marketing for MYnstrel was useful for nonprofit leadership as well. In the making of Alvarism, LLC, my associates and I ran years of social experiments in testing mass psychology. One of the most disturbing revelations was how people with impressive credentials and high intellect were vulnerable to self-defeat in the pursuit of truth. Once they associated their identity and ego to a particular opinion or leader – their propensity for self-deception and even betrayal of friends was the norm rather than the exception. We called this subject a “Judas.” For some petty and egotistical affiliation with a leader, policy, or social cause, they did awful things to their friends who had invested good will, trust, and precious time with them. A Judas gossiped, insulted, looked down upon, berated, humiliated, or dissociated from friends who presented existential challenges to their beliefs. The key was how deep the challenge cut to their ego. Friends who opposed their beliefs, but presented weak or trivial arguments were spared the wrath of a Judas. The 2016 presidential primaries unveiled hordes of Judases. I wonder if any of those people still talk to each other.

On the other side, people whose egos were bolstered by the facts we presented viewed us as champions, as we became powerful vehicles for their confirmation bias (the uncritical seeking of justifications for what they already believed). We called them Simons, for St. Peter, the everyday apostle and the common man in his strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing abnormal about confirmation bias. A Simon could become a Judas if they were willing to turn on their friends for differences in beliefs. The uncommon subject was the Thomas. Just like the “doubting Thomas” of the Bible, a Thomas had to see the evidence for himself before he took a stand. A Thomas was concerned with the evidence and justification, and got frustrated with people who were so eager to take things personally. Thomas’ stuck to the facts and concepts, while Judases focused on personal stories and events from their own lives. There couldn’t be a more blatant demonstration of ego than the reliance upon personal stories to “prove” general beliefs about the world. And Judases typically lacked the introspection to see how that pattern of thinking demonstrated their egotistical barriers to truth.

With the mass psychology context established, you can imagine what was going through my mind when I reviewed the political campaigning rules for nonprofits – as Alvarism, LLC is seeking nonprofit status. I knew how vitriolic political activism could get, so I thought the political campaigning restrictions for nonprofits were great rules, and I’m eager to comply with them. My experience in executive management, organizational theory, and leadership made them intuitive. If the mission of Alvarism, LLC as a sociological and economic think tank is to educate the public and policymakers on the results of our research, why would we want to draw battle lines between candidates? Elected officials come and go. While colluding with elected officials may seem pragmatic, it reveals a certain faithlessness in the unique value that the organization has to offer. Affirming a candidate would say that we want to use the power of government to give us an advantage, because our ideas and results aren’t good enough to persuade people honestly.

Consequently, staying out of political campaigning gives us the freedom we need to focus on the mission of this organization. I encourage people to choose the officials who most closely pursue economic sovereignty and valorist principles as described in Economic Sovereignty: Prosperity in a Free Society. But what if that candidate loses the election? Wouldn’t we prefer to cooperate with the less favorable candidate so that we may advance the interests of our members, donors, and followers? One of our first articles asks both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to approach inequality policies with the truths revealed in Economic Sovereignty. We cannot and we will not endorse either of them. That means that I won’t be liking, supporting, or criticizing any social media posts that deal with this election’s candidates. I can advise people on issues, and let them decide for themselves, but I cannot endorse.

Ultimately, something amazing happened when I affirmed the nonprofit political campaigning rules: I was compelled by my own official capacity to follow organizational standards that fight detrimental mass psychology. Activists who wish to help candidates get elected should form political action committees (PACs). I wish that other nonprofits would stop trying to find ways to circumvent the spirit of these laws. A smart business thrives on predictability and avoids such controversial activity. We need a lot more Thomas’ and fewer Judases in this contentious political climate, or we will soon find that too many of our neighbors believe that snow is black.

(This article is based upon the civics module in Alvarism research, which was presented in “social retrogression” briefings and is described in the third unpublished Alvarism manuscript)

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

Clinton and Trump: Shocking Income Inequality Facts Will Boil Your Blood


Dear Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump,

Like many Americans, I tend to stay away from political campaigning and personalities. We’re too busy turning the gears of American industry to spend time fawning over the elected officials that we hire to represent us. We are ready to hire one of you for the highest office in our nation, but it’s not looking good so far. Every time I catch a news story, it sounds more like tabloid hysteria than professional and respectful discourse about your candidacies. As an American who sacrificed my own personal health, savings, and security to publish game-changing economic research, I’m not amused by the opportunists who are swarming around you and poisoning your teams with agenda-driven misinformation. My discoveries have overturned their claims, and my greatest concern is that your speeches will reflect their falsehoods. From your speeches promises will emerge, and from your promises, policies will take hold.

There is a lot at stake for our families if you proceed with misconceptions about American economic inequality. You will slam the door shut on the American dream and leave our children in desperation. Your tax and spending policies that are based upon these falsehoods will cripple all Americans who struggle to earn a safety net for their families in a few good years of their careers. The upper-end of the statistically impoverished class will continue to languish in state dependency, and the truly destitute will be relegated to meagre subsistence. As those policies manipulate the price of labor and siphon tax redistribution, they will continue to explode the outrageous costs of essentials, including rent, real estate, healthcare, education, energy, and government services. Any pittance that your inequality policies send through Americans’ front door will be overshadowed by the taxation and price inflation that you send through their back door.

So let me set the record straight: there is not enough income inequality in our nation. Mistaken economic advisors have certainly arrived at their conclusions with authoritative methods. The problem is that they constructed their inquiries without the full set of assumptions and accurate definitions that model our reality correctly. Consequently, their ardent assertions of “income inequality” are irrelevant conclusions. They calculated income distribution based upon households, and without including all forms of subsidies, welfare, and taxation. So their inequality claims do not represent the actual money that individual Americans have in their pocket – they represent changing household characteristics, inflated income for the wealthy that is whittled away by taxation of various forms, and deflated income for the poor that ignores most of the resources they actually use.

Americans who are considered statistically poor by the Census Bureau spend 2.6x the income that inequality advocates report. In the rare event that they include some form of taxation, they do not include local, state, or ad valorem taxes such as property, sales, and other massive taxes that are levied unequally. Even worse, the household income that they measure does not represent equal numbers of people or earners. For instance, in 2012, the lowest household income quintile had only 0.45 earners and 1.7 people per home, while the highest had 2.04 earners and 3.2 people per home. Do I even have to explain that houses with 4x the workers should be earning at least 4x the income, or that houses with twice the number of mouths to feed need twice the amount of income? Is your blood starting to boil yet, with how the inequality advocates have bamboozled you?

In addition to their exclusion of total welfare, subsidies, clemency, taxation, and household composition, the inequality advocates do not correct for part-time labor or cost of living index. There are people with high salaries that work fifty- to sixty-hour weeks, and there are those with low wages who only work twenty-hour weeks. If a person is getting by with half to one-third of the labor that a higher-income worker is earning, they are not getting a raw deal. Remember that time is money. Why would any honest analyst pretend as if the sixty-hour worker is living the same quality of life as a person who could fill their week with two more jobs on top of the one they have? That’s not exactly a “fair” comparison, is it? As for the cost of living, you should be intimately familiar with that concept due to your relentless business travel. In a state like New York, the per diem payments for travelling government employees fluctuate by 300%! Nationally, the typical variation for cost of living falls within a 30% range. All inequality statistics must be compressed by cost of living if we wish to accurately compare the actual buying power commanded by incomes in different locations.

When corrected for all of these factors, the real inequality measure (Gini ratio) has barely fluctuated since 1984, and is overestimated up to 300% by inequality advocates. The inequality that remains is due to normal factors – industry and age. The industry that a person works in is more or less productive for society. Mining and oil is more productive than landscaping. Although industrial income inequality has more than halved since 1929, it is still a third of modern real income inequality. Age income inequality is greater than real income inequality. A person earns much more at the end of their career than they did in their youth. Did your inequality advisors explain these crucial details to you?

Finally, you must realize that these income statistics are all a snapshot of one year. Most people are not confined to these income levels for their entire lives. Your “poor” stats include elderly with houses paid off, and your “rich” stats include successful married couples at the height of their career. Wealth is not income; wealth is surplus, and income is only a pathway to wealth. Please do not put more barriers in that pathway. There are very few mega-wealthy Americans. Your inequality policies that increase taxes, inflate prices, add value-based tax, and use financial repression in central banking do not affect those few wealthy Americans in the way you imagine. In fact, they bolster the wealth of wealthy Americans, as they artificially inflate their financial accounts, stocks, and bonds.

Your inequality policies will ensure that every endeavoring American never gets to reap the rewards of a prosperous career in the few good years that they earn an impressive income. They also make labor in some industries even more corrupt than it is today. Did you ever wonder why the most advanced industrial nation in history must search the globe for foreign workers? Did you consider that reducing prices for essentials is the best way to help low-income Americans, instead of imposing high minimum wages that will leave many of them unemployed and unable to get their foot in a door that could give them the skills they need?

Manufactured equality has severe consequences for workers, and we are already enduring too much of that harmful equality. Misconceived inequality policies garner class separatism and deconstruction of the American dream. I humbly beseech you to reconsider your inequality rhetoric and advisory teams that failed to accurately disclose these facts to you. With this knowledge, we have the exciting opportunity to reclaim economic sovereignty for Americans; if you fail America in this, you will be a pariah of history instead of a champion.

Respectfully,
Thomas E. Kurek

(This article refers to section 3.2 in Economic Sovereignty. All citations for the arguments here, are within the book)

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

Breakthrough Discoveries You Must See Before The Upcoming Election

Dear Readers,

After years of research and exhaustive investigation, I have published my first book, revealing discoveries that cannot be found anywhere else. With your support, this great venture will make a difference for our communities in America. The discoveries in Economic Sovereignty: Prosperity in a Free Society, are normally sold to private corporate clients in the form of special reports and whitepapers, at the cost of over $500 each. Because I believe in empowering you, I instead chose to present the discoveries in an affordable book that is easy to read. It comes just in time for the upcoming election of our new President, and no matter who you currently favor, this knowledge is critical to your informed consent when you cast your final vote. Taxation, wealth, poverty, jobs, economics, and inequality is grossly misrepresented by many of our leaders. When you discover the truth, you will be astounded.

It is up to us to require our leaders to pursue optimal policies on our behalf. I am greatly concerned that you might walk into the polls on election day fed with the misinformation spread through network TV broadcasts and misconceived political speeches. If you do, we will repeat recent history. In 2008, thirty years of housing and banking interventions culminated in the most severe economic collapse in a generation. Even though Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz suggested that the banks should fail, and our greatest economists argued against the bailouts and stimulus debts, our leaders insulted our intelligence by preaching oversimplified falsehoods like “Wall Street greed.” Nary a public official gave honest explanations of the collapse that legendary economist Thomas Sowell presented in The Housing Boom and Bust. Our leaders kicked the can down the road back then, and the day of reckoning now approaches, with the median estimate of economists in a recent Bloomberg survey predicting recession in 2018.

But historic events of national proportion are not the only items of concern. On a daily basis we see economic erosion when college graduates live with their parents while trying to hang on to irregular jobs. We see the economic erosion when people cannot afford health insurance, new houses, college payments, or retirement savings. We see the economic erosion when the only way that low-income Americans can afford children is to game the welfare system by having kids out of wedlock. We see the economic erosion when our elderly cannot afford to leave their children anything of significant value when they pass on. As free people, we are responsible for understanding wealth and taxation in simple terms so that we can make the best decisions for our loved ones and family, during challenging times.

With this groundbreaking book, you and I have mutual needs. I need your support to recover some of the great financial losses I sustained to make these discoveries, and to continue future investigations. You need the discoveries to understand the economic environment that you and your family have been trying to navigate. Your simple support and generosity will set you apart from the great masses of our neighbors who continue to unwittingly feed our economic perdition. With the knowledge you gain, you can help them to see the light. This $500 value is yours for only $9.99 to $34.99, depending on what you prefer:

  1. The Kindle version is $9.99. It features color charts and photos when viewed on color devices.
  2. The paperback version is $24.99. It features a carefully curated index and greyscale-optimized charts and photos.
  3. An autographed copy is available and ships personally and directly from Alvarian Press. It is $34.99. You can find details here: https://alvarism.com/EconSov
  4. Amazon offers a discount on the Kindle version if you’d like to own both the paperback and the Kindle version – $24.99 for the paperback and $2.99 for the MatchBook Kindle copy.

You can also support this great endeavor by signing up on our website and following our Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube pages. All you have to do is click on the “Follow” button on the bottom of any page on alvarism.com, and provide your email address. Updates are infrequent, but the few emails you receive will be meaningful.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. With your support, these critical discoveries will succeed in making positive differences in our communities!

Yours Truly,

Thomas E. Kurek
Founder & President of Alvarian Press, LLC

Please follow us Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Alvarism.com:

Alvarism Website: https://alvarism.com (click the follow button at the bottom)
Alvarism Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/AlvarismLLC
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlvarianPress
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Alvarism

Discover Social Facts: U.S. Racial History Estimate

Each of the one-hundred charts published in Economic Sovereignty was curated with meticulous precision. The question emerged: how do U.S. demographics compare to the demographics of the world? Race is just one of many factors. I received a challenge from a local political science enthusiast when I showed him the chart. He suspected that American whites were overrepresented in statistics, but he wanted to see how I figured out that the most accurate estimate of whites in America was 55%:


This conflicts with most major publications. Why? The truth is contained in what we consider to be the definition of race.

When you think of what “white” race looks like in America, do you think of The Simpsons? The Brady Bunch? Hillary and Bill Clinton? Bernie Sanders? Donald and Ivanka Trump? Family Guy? Bing Crosby? Margaret Thatcher? If the answer is “yes,” then only 55% of America is white. Would you consider people who speak Spanish, identify with Latin American culture, and watch Telemundo to be white or Hispanic?

The problem comes from the definition of race in the regulations that have governed statistical collection in the United States. Officially, “Hispanic” is not a race, but an ethnicity, and about half of U.S. Hispanics are “white Hispanics.” Can a person be “racist” against Jews or Muslims? How? Are Judaism and Islam races or religions? Do Jews forbid blacks and Dravidians from converting to their religion? Would they say that they were not really Jews if they did, because of their genetics? Officially, North African and Middle Easterners are considered “white” by the U.S. statistical categories. If that’s the case, then it would be impossible for a “white” person to be “racist” against a Middle Easterner – since the government claims that they are also white.

In technical terms, it would be possible to be “bigoted” or “prejudiced” against an ethnicity, such as Hispanics, Jews, and various Muslims. Racism is a very specific form of prejudice against a person because of their visible genetic manifestations – such as morphology and skin color. People offer prejudice against ethnicities, cultural and political groups much more frequently. Due to intra-Islamic rivalries, there are Muslims who are prejudiced against other ethnicities of Muslims.

I once knew a Sufi Muslim who scowled upon hearing of another Islamist terror attack. He uttered, “Disgusting Wahhabis.” At the time, nobody knew if the killers were Shia. It was as if Hezbollah and Houthis did not exist to him. Yet out of the other side of his mouth, he would say, “do not refer to radical Islamic terror.” He wanted people to join his prejudice against Sunni Muslims instead. Using the term “racist” is not only inaccurate, it leads to glaring contradictions, and obscures visceral prejudice against other identity groups such as black conservatives or rural whites.

To reconcile these contradictions, we consider race in terms of ethnoracial identity, and that is what my chart accurately represents. It makes absolutely no sense to present ethnicities such as Middle Easterners, Jews, and Hispanics as white people occasionally in crime reports, housing data, national demographic data, or other analyses, and then single them out as minorities in other inquiries.

The categories black, white, Hispanic, and other encompass America’s general perception of ethnoracial identity. My data analysis includes greater precision, but it’s lost in a small chart, so Asians, Pacific Islanders, Dravidians, Sinhalese (and other Indians), Native Americans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, etc. are included in the “other” category. The Hispanic category represents all Hispanics.

I believe that this ethnoracial identity ontology more accurately depicts common public perceptions of race. You could reproduce my chart using these assumptions, and the citations for the source data (there are numerous sources required for the estimate). The citations are published within Economic Sovereignty. Instead, you could just cite the chart from my book, but I’d be very interested in any cross-validation of my result with other researchers who have used the same set of assumptions.

World Population, Depopulation, Immigration, and the Cliffs of Saipan – Part One, World Population & The Saipan Analogy

Last night I successfully derived the most accurate population estimate for practical use in analytics that exists today. It is incredibly alarming; this is one “hockey-stick” curve that is accurate, with dire consequences. The blue line shows global population, from 10,000 BC to 2014 AD. The orange line shows annual growth of human population for the same time range.

The Population Situation

The global population is sustainable for now; however, there are billions of lives that hang on invisible stuntmen wires, and the only thing that keeps them from plummeting to their deaths is a crew of devoted workers who they cannot see and do not appreciate. If one crew member gets sick, and takes a day off, the fanciful actor will fall, and his entire illusion will come crashing down with him – millions will die. To understand how fragile our global population is, we should look to the things that balanced it in the past.

Prior to the Age of Science & Materialism

There were only five population declines, caused by war, disease, and natural disaster, and they all occurred prior to the advent of Sir Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method. As with most things in nature, human population growth was cyclical and nearly flat. Culling the population from ancient to medieval times was done by famine, maternal death, serfdom, slavery, constant warfare, disease, and cultural injustices posing as social justice. A disordered society could not maintain the balance needed to keep food production sufficient. As a consequence, social misfits were subjected to executions, torture, honor duels, human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat, and instant justice – no matter how misconstrued their offenses were.

Brutal Native American Indians like the Iroquois and Sandwich Islanders resorted to cannibalism, widespread infanticide, and torture of derelicts and enemies. The Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs of Latin America perpetrated human sacrifice and hellish forms of slavery that made the U.S. cotton fields feel like purgatory. Building ziggurats and breathing in pulverized limestone were not tasks that a free man would choose. Across the globe, China’s first emperor would also put his slaves to task on brutal construction jobs. In Africa, the Dahomey Kingdom, which supplied many African slaves to Asia, Europe, and the Americas, slaughtered the wives of the king when he died, along with thousands of prisoners. Dahomey soldiers had decapitation quotas when they went on raids. If they returned without enough grotesque skulls, their own head would be taken to make up the difference. In Asia and Europe, centuries of brutality were colored by wars of religion, oppressive serfdom, and control of resources. European and Asian witch hunts, vendettas, and honor culture supplanted their old human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat, ancient, and barbarian carnage that was similar to more recent African, Latin American, and Native American brutality.

Across the entire globe, there was always a reason to kill, and always a reason to put transgressors, opponents, and misfits in their place. When human beings are competing against hard limits for survival, culture develops systematic ways to rationalize adaptation – even when it involves slavery, killing, stealing and rationing resources. Religion, government, and family tradition were the vehicles for these rationalizations (excuse-making), prior to the age of science.

The flat-line of human growth was held in check by nature, and brutal culture kept mankind in check as it competed at the limits of its own sustenance.

During the Scientific Revolution

The following chart shows a higher resolution sample of the last five-hundred years of population growth:

The natural and manmade limits that kept the human population under one billion for 11,800 years suddenly began to change with the advent of the scientific method. American and European discovery shifted the growth curve for the first time in millennia. Europe and America then spread these scientific discoveries by means of colonialism, trade, war, and agreements. Since recorded history, technological and scientific discovery has been motivated by security, so military application is usually the first venture. In the civilian realm, the fruits of the scientific method were first applied for basic civilian medical developments, food, and shelter production, which enabled families to support more children. You can see the incremental growth on the orange line above, from the 17th century, through 1900 AD.

The most profound changes came afterwards, including motor oil, canneries, cars, railroads, mechanized agriculture, vaccines, antibiotics, and most importantly, the complete mitigation of infant mortality and maternal death. As it turns out, the men who solved these problems for the women and children they loved, would inadvertently turn population growth onto an exponential trend. Not even the bloodbath of imperial and socialist war and democide of the 20th century could slow the victory of science over premature human death.

In short, science and engineering are responsible for this exponential population growth, and now our entire population is dependent upon the stability of energy, food, and trade, in order to stay alive. We are once again approaching limits that will contain the population, except a disruption in these times means death-in-the-millions, instead of death-in-the-thousands. Along with these new limits, we are facing cultural tricks and rationalizations; only this time, it is not religion and family tradition that is coercing compliance – it is secular journalism, government, education, and entertainment.

Banzai Cliff & Culturally Coerced Compliance

The 20th century showed us how culturally coerced compliance was transitioning from religion and family tradition to the other cultural industries. Hirohito, Japanese god-in-the-flesh, demonstrates this transformation. So we begin by thinking of this chart in terms of Banzai Cliff in Saipan, rather than a “hockey-stick.” The implications of the world population explosion are in fact national suicide – not a fun hockey game. On July 1st, 1944, Japanese Emperor Hirohito’s suicide order reached his civilians of Saipan. He was worried that Japanese defection would demonstrate the civility of Americans, encourage more defection, reduce the will to fight, and thus decrease Japanese victory prospects. Hirohito promised civilians who committed suicide equal spiritual status in the afterlife to that of soldiers killed in combat. This was accompanied by disinformation about the American forces, claiming that they were redheaded, sadistic, hairy monsters who will rape, torture, and murder every man, woman, and child. Considering that the Japanese soldiers were doing that to Chinese and Indian victims, this quasi psychological projection must not have been difficult for the inhabitants of Saipan to believe.

The U.S. Marines used loudspeakers to tell Saipan’s civilians to come out, surrender, and that they would have safety, shelter, food, and water. Only some obeyed the U.S. Marines – most of them obeyed their Japanese government. Over 8,000 Japanese civilians committed mass suicide. Many jumped from two-hundred foot cliffs, plummeting to agonizing deaths on the jagged rock formations below. Determined fathers slit the throats of their children before tossing them off the cliffs in an Abrahamic rampage. Despairing and terrified mothers leapt from the cliffs with their babies in their arms. Others engaged in suicide ceremonies in which families clustered together and then pulled the pins of grenades that they held to their chests.

In modern terms, this single Japanese democide event, perpetrated with their own disinformation and intelligence operations, is close to three 9/11 terror attacks in its death toll. As I look at the world population cliff on my chart, and I think of all the population dynamics I have observed in my study of history and modern cultural institutions, I see that the modern Hirohito is dispersed throughout mass media and social media rather than concentrated in one man. The modern Hirohito has thousands of voices, operating on TV, in schools, newsrooms, government offices, nonprofits, music, and movie studios. Modern covert influence (CI), groupthink, and propaganda is decentralized.

These modern Hirohito voices speak of “sustainability,” “climate change,” “immigration,” “refugees,” “family planning,” “abortion,” “depopulation,” “economic redistribution,” “social justice,” “equality,” and all things related to manipulating sex and population dynamics. They use fear, ignorance, and the psychological drives (Fight, Flight, Feed, Fornicate) to coerce the sociological results that they desire. The army of voices does not even need to be cognizant of the total system of influence – there is no conspiracy required. They are useful fools (polezniye duraki) who operate on unjustified visions, propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation. They think they are heroes of humanity. Those who make the charts like I do, know better.

For those chart-makers, who feed the intelligentsia with half-truth straw men, their social and economic agenda will be affected with culturally coerced compliance. They are unlikely to debate people who will prove them wrong in a matter of moments. We have already seen the complete blackout of intelligent analysis of sustainability, family issues, population growth, depopulation, and immigration. This series is another spark in the darkness, with information that has never been presented elsewhere. Even the unprecedented global population estimate that I produced with sophisticated Transact-SQL code, synthesizes the thirteen major estimates that exist today. I am now confident that all of my per-capita historical calculations are more accurate than any other researcher in the world.

The continuation of this research will explain how Japanese, Russians, Americans, Europeans, and Canadians have depopulated themselves. You will be astounded by the way that the numbers contradict the popular narrative.  They will be presented in the second book of the Alvarism series.