Articles

“-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.

Why I wrote EconSov Part 2: Defining the Problem Accurately

If You Want to Create…

All creation begins with a problem to solve. If we can’t identify the problem, and then define it sufficiently and accurately, then innovation is crippled or even worse – human energies are misdirected towards waste and deconstruction. Even the most banal postmodern art creation has a problem to solve.

In a sheer moment of honesty, the artist might admit to themselves, “I loathe myself, I seek no truth, symmetry, or beauty, but by doing something different from what came before me, I can play the part of contrarian and get attention for my talentless expression.” Sublimating psychological disorder is the problem they attempted to solve in their postmodern art creation.

A complex system of global economic disorder is a much tougher problem to define. The first article detailed the global economic interests that have already touched the lives of billions across the globe. But the Davos Clique and Piketty are only phase three of the global economic vice.

Prior to The Great Recession of 2008, I predicted the housing bust and collapse of the economy, very easily. I was also making observations about many of my peers in the metropolis, who were living lives fashioned like some combination of the movies Office Space, Idiocracy, and Fight Club. Without a mollified public, there would be no substrate upon which the Davos Clique could fester.

True, the reaction of our elected officials to the recession was abhorrent, but even more disheartening – the American citizen was complicit in ignorance, silence, or emotive absurdities that spoke exactly nothing to the fundamental problem. The policy response was accepted by all notable caucuses except for the conservative TEA Party.

That the stewards of our government could sacrifice our future on the altar of the present became the most cowardly and ignoble response I could fathom. That parents would rationalize betrayal of their own children by co-signing student loans, burning cash on luxurious international family travel (while claiming to be environmentalists), and touching up digital child photos on their overpriced phones, while they sold their nation into bondage?

These betrayals defined a nation of mindless functionaries upon whom every ounce of education was wasted as it seeped through their crumbled moral foundations. Thomas Sowell articulated the economic collapse perfectly in The Housing Boom and Bust. Who was reading his indisputable tome of wisdom? Would they spend five hours of one week watching journalists and politicians distort reality instead of just reading the book?

Then came Occupy Wall Street (OWS), blaming bankers who simply operated upon decades of “affordable housing” schemes dictated to them by the dirigiste politicians. Should the bankers have gone out of business by not complying with subprime coercion from the government’s “saviors of the poor?”

Should the bankers have crashed their retirees’ investments by not diversifying the government-coerced risk of the subprime loans? ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, HUD, the CRA, and all of the other major contributors to the mess seem like a distant memory, but the economic rot they left still wreaks from the pile of debt we carry on our backs.

During the height of the OWS lunacy, I met a young adult in New York with a graduate degree, a narcotics addiction, a job as a highly paid banker, a Democrat party carrying card, and a Guy Fawkes mask. When he attended OWS events, I asked him why he was protesting himself. He didn’t think my joke was funny. I still do. He assured me that the yield curve was the only thing that mattered, and if we wait long enough, the TEA Party might become right – nevermind the misallocation of resources and evisceration of innovation and production.

His Democrat-voting professors apparently were unable to teach concepts like financial repression, destructionism, and the array of macroeconomic indicators I published in Economic Sovereignty. Good functionaries of a machine don’t think for themselves – they follow canned formulae, if not authorized by the machine, then by their peers, in a gigantic solidarity circle of groupthink. After all, a consensus of unjustified but well-credentialed experts makes knowledge in the institutionalist society.

But immoral fools with graduate degrees were not the only OWS darlings. Some mighty intellectual power was present as well. Noam Chomsky’s obtuse denials could not hide his anarchosocialist ideology. This global mob of deconstruction already had its anarchosocialist epic poem in the movie V for Vendetta, which gave OWS and the Anonymous hacktivists their Guy Fawkes masks.

Dirigisme continues to crumble across the globe. The liquidity policy response of 2009, OWS, and the new round of taxation, immigration, and controls constitute its coverup and entrenchment operation. It is a slick production with armies of egotistical professors, entertainers, journalists, and emotional citizens. They blame capitalism, which is nothing more than an ignorant euphemism for “freedom,” as if it isn’t the government programs that induce failure and then scapegoat those whom they induced to fail.

Underneath it all, The Davos Clique steers the ship. Phase three began when Thomas Piketty starting writing his book, and I began writing Economic Sovereignty at the same time. Phase three can last a very long time, or it can be accelerated by a black swan event. If Economic Sovereignty beats Piketty’s paradigm of falsehoods, the world will become more peaceful and stable. The problem of dirigisme is well defined in the book Economic Sovereignty, along with institutionalist economic policy in general.

I love my fellow Americans and wish to empower them. After realizing they were so ill-equipped, and that the functionaries of The Davos Clique stood nearly uncontested by the facts and concepts, I concluded that a large part of the problem is the economic knowledge gap. I also realized that The Davos Clique has its hands in so many special interests, that hoping for an institutional approach would be infeasible. With a great awakening of the public and sympathetic philanthropists, the looming specter of dirigisme could be thwarted with liberty.

But what would it take and how could the darkest secrets of The Davos Clique be unraveled? In the next article, we will review the approach I took to research Economic Sovereignty, and how my knowledge and experience gave me such an advantage over hordes of economics professors.

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

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

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

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

The Tyranny of the Davos Clique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Socialists Even Use Tax Filing Policy to Enlarge Government

Recently, a Washington Post author promoted Elizabeth Warren’s tax filing legislation. In this article, we will disclose what the Washington Post hid from our eyes, and repudiate the author’s propaganda techniques. The stakes are high – if Trump loses in 2020, democrats have a chance at passing this indirect tax increase and erosion of our liberty.

The Tax Filing Simplification Act (TFSA) was sponsored by Democrats: Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Eldon J. Markey, Patrick Leahy, Tammy Duckworth, Margaret Wood Hassan, and Jeff Merkley. There is a new incarnation working its way through our legislature as well, which is the object of the Washington Post article.

Opposing the legislation is The Free File Alliance, a coalition of 13 leading tax software companies, which have donated $1.4 billion in free services to 50 million Americans through the Free File program. The government asked them to do this in order to shepherd people towards e-filing from paper forms. These companies have also reduced administrative cost for the IRS as a result of their excellent work, and provide this corporate charity to citizens who earn less than $62,000 in a year.

Tim Hugo, Executive Director of The Free File Alliance, stated eloquently the case for liberty:

“Not only would the legislation create a tremendous and potentially harmful conflict of interest for the American people by enshrining roles of tax preparer, tax collector, tax auditor and tax enforcer together in one entity, the IRS, but the system’s very creation would also be a huge burden for taxpayers. The IRS has cut 13 percent of its full-time workforce since 2011, and government budgets are shrinking, not expanding. The proposal would make the essential tax administration work of the IRS impossible, while disadvantaging the taxpayer.”

But conflicts of interest and government staffing shortages are only the beginning of the problem with this legislation.

Cybersecurity – which organizations are more resilient?

With the TFSA, the government will reduce the security of Americans by centralizing more of their private data in highly targeted government databases. Currently, only thousands of records out of millions of private tax software customers have been breached – a proud track record of success. By contrast, government failures in cybersecurity have compromised hundreds of millions of citizens’ private information. Do I trust banks and private tax software firms more than the government databases? Unless that database is hosted on JWICS, I’ll take the banking and software companies every time.

Reinventing the wheel – enterprise software systems are expensive to build

Beyond the administration work that Tim Hugo envisages, what would it take the government to duplicate the sophistication of companies like Intuit? Read their latest annual report. The TFSA will force us to finance a government-run superfluous software company (i.e. expansion of the departments of the IRS, and its contractors).

At the present time, privately competing tax software companies employ dozens of thousands of accountants and engineers to efficiently deliver complex services. The amount of taxes required to duplicate their efforts would be wasteful. It could cost a few billion dollars, if Intuit’s annual report is a yardstick. Where will they recover such money?

Subversive tax increase – the true agenda of TFSA

They will recover such money from tax overpayments. Currently, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates $400 billion per year in underreported taxes, which they call the “tax gap.” Alvarism says the “tax gap” is a good thing with which we should not bother.

The “tax gap” is a consequence of disputes in the grey areas of the tax code, and unenforceable edict. Americans should keep that money in such disputes, where there is ambiguity and an accountant is willing to stake their license on such filings.

How does our current system work? The current filing system obligates taxpayers to assert what they owe, and puts the onus on the government to verify it. Banks and employers report to the government what they paid to us. In the middle is yet another check – the accountant or the tax software. Their measure of success is accuracy. They do not benefit when their customers get audited. Their customer will choose their competitor next year after such an unpleasant experience.

Income-earners, employers, banks, accountants, sophisticated software, and government working together to verify their dues – what a great system and conquest of liberty! In America, we prefer self-reliance and checks-and-balances to centralized power. Our current filing system stands on those values.

By contrast, the TFSA erodes these checks and balances, putting the onus on the taxpayer to tell the government it is wrong, and encouraging taxpayers to let the government do their accounting for them. Consequently, it errs on the side of overpayment of taxes.

Even worse, a taxpayer has to fear de-facto auditing should they opt to tell the government they are wrong. The least motivated and least equipped citizen would become more likely to be overcharged by the government, simply by trusting the government, laziness, fearing worse conflict, or preferring to avoid the hassle rather than giving the government meager sums it is not entitled to. When there are inevitable disputes – would we rather allow the government to be overpaid, or for citizens to keep more of what they earned?

I have personal experience with state business tax schemes that impose such demands. The state demanded sales tax, and when lethal illness of the owner disallowed compliance, they presumed what we owed, which was around 3000% what we actually owed.

After the demand for undue tax came to us, we tried to get someone on the phone. They refused to communicate through email. Would we need to spend money on a lawyer to correct the government’s imposition? We remained in a state of intimidation, wondering if the government would harm our business because of its assertion of what is not true. A more un-American arrangement I could not imagine. Now, realize that the TFSA multiplies this intimidation by the millions for individual wage earners.

Communists send dissidents to labor camps. Democratic socialists weave a gigantic web of intimidation and indirect coercion with a populist smile and claims of benevolence. In this case, they deceive the public into loss of liberty, and a tax increase that could rise to hundreds of billions using coercive methods, with false promises of simplicity and security. They effectively increase taxes without having to take responsibility for an overt tax rate increase.

Disqualifying low-income Americans from welfare

Wouldn’t it be convenient for democratic politicians, if a policy mitigated budget strain on the welfare programs of democrat-dominated urban areas? The TFSA will have that effect. By inspiring low-income Americans to forego private tax software Free File options with cheap add-on services that help them minimize their tax burden, they will inadvertently trick vulnerable Americans into paying more than they owe, and potentially disqualify them from means-tested welfare. A higher adjusted gross income (AGI) has that effect in many cases.

The Washington Post Propaganda Machine

With the concepts and facts laid out, a person would feel a great sense of anger reading the Washington Post article on this same topic. They will feel as though critical information and logic was withheld from them. They would also feel matronized by the propaganda techniques employed by the author. She wrapped her unjustified advocacy of the TFSA in the emotive sugar of race- and poverty-despair.

Here are her claims:

CLAIM: Tax returns are daunting and complex for Americans.

REPUDIATION: Only one in three Americans have complex returns, with itemized deductions. Those Americans have the resources and wherewithal to navigate the government’s Byzantine maze of coercion which incentivizes and deters particular activities. The other two-thirds of Americans have tax returns that are simpler than the basic algebra education they received in high school. With 70% of Americans eligible for Free File, and software doing the complicated work for them, this claim is nonsensical.

CLAIM: Other nations pre-populate tax forms or preclude filing altogether. Her implication is that those other nations are more enlightened than the USA in this regard.

REPUDIATION: Russia, UK, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Chile, and some others have policies similar to the TFSA. The UK’s Ummah immigration red carpet has doubled their attempted murder rate in ten years. Russia censors political dissidents. Germany had years of brown-outs because of their green energy zealotry. Should we adopt every bad idea from foreign nations? Why does such an invocation of the exotic arouse persuasion at all?

If a person believes America is exceptional, they would be skeptical of foreign policies. We have proven TFSA policies to be inferior for those who value liberty and peace. Foreign failures are not impressive simply because they are foreign. Xenophilia – the emotive favoritism of foreigners – is a very irrational disposition, as much as jingoism.

CLAIM: Low-income and racial minority Americans are targeted for audits by virtue of their race and impoverishment.

REPUDIATION: She cites a report on an absurd website called “The Root” which presents anti-white racial propaganda (warning: profanity in the link). If we inverted the instances of “black” and “white” on The Root’s content, Facebook would be banning them as a “white nationalist” site.

Dissecting The Root’s absurd report, which claims that blacks are audited more frequently because of racism, we find that the reason is quite simple – black dependency on welfare is 600% that of whites. Wealthy people were audited in 2017 up to seven-times as much as people with very low income.

Those low- and high-income taxpayers have something in common – they utilize a mountain of rules that give them government benefits, or allow them to keep more of their own money. Black counties are audited 30% more than the national average according to The Root’s study. It’s shocking that they’re not audited 600% more.

In other words, people like WaPo’s brilliant Princeton graduate see a fabled KKK hat behind every shadow, but in reality, the IRS audits wealthy people the most, and people who use the tax code for welfare redistribution as a very distant second. Black people happen to use welfare much more than white people proportionally to their share of the US population. A higher auditing rate should be expected.

CLAIM: Poor households miss out on deductions and credits

REPUDIATION: A much worse fact is that crimes go unsolved. We can set out a bounty of goodies for all to enjoy, and it is not a tragedy if a small fraction lack the motivation or desire to partake. It’s a great thing that tax software companies offer free tax returns for poor people to access those credits and deductions. It is even more encouraging that they find value in buying cheap services to advise them further. The government will not more effectively help poor households reduce their tax burden – it is the definition of conflict of interest.

CLAIM: Poor households need to spend an unacceptable amount of their money on tax services

REPUDIATION: Unacceptable to whom? The wealthy democratic socialists trying to tell poor people what choices to make? The fact that poor people willingly purchase additional services that cost them less than their monthly internet, phone, or television bills, tells us that it is acceptable to those “poor” people choosing between free and cheap.

CLAIM: The wealthy pay for tax services that enable them to pay lower rates or no tax at all

REPUDIATION: The tax code – a great maze of incentives and deterrents is, itself, a product of institutionalists. We Americans who disavow socialism, dirigisme, zwangswirtschaft, and indicative planning are the victims of those policies, not the beneficiaries.

The wealthy are no more at fault to minimize their tax obligation by classifying their expenses and income, than low-income Americans are at fault for taking deliberate steps to qualify themselves for redistribution. Outside of this tyrannical system of control are we, the valorists, who repudiate the injustices of dirigisme – which makes acrobatic schemers out of the rich and poor alike.

CLAIM: Opposition to the TFSA, introduced in bipartisanship by a Democrat and Republican, is a result of Intuit and H&R Block lobbyists.

REPUDIATION: Having disproven the validity of the TFSA, we should all be very grateful for the lobbying efforts of The Free File Alliance. Of course, lobbyists for Planned Parenthood, SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFT, and the NEA are always welcomed by Elizabeth Warren and her friends. Lobbyists are only dirty business when they oppose the activists complaining about them.

Conclusion

The TFSA will threaten welfare qualification for vulnerable Americans, increase taxes, intimidate people, reduce liberty, enlarge bureaucracy, duplicate private sector business, and create new cybersecurity risks. Those who support such an awful bill should not be elected to office. And how did such a credentialed author for the Washington Post get the story so wrong? Her assessment is an example of the extreme danger that follows irrational visions of xenophilia, racism, and poverty.

The Democrats who support this policy have elite educations from Ivy League schools like Princeton. Yet they are not intelligent and knowledgeable enough to analyze very basic evidence. It tells us something about the legitimacy of “elite” college degrees in the modern day.

Contrasting Alvarism articles to the Washington Post, people learn much from our articles, and think critically. The effects of the Washington Post article are false perceptions about taxation, racial animus, wealth shaming, and xenophilia. It is a wonder that people continue to read such publications. We do hope that the lessons learned from this analysis assist our readers in their future civic participation.