School Walkouts: An Irresponsible Tool of Mob Rule (Ochlocracy)



Photo: 1969 Harvard Walkout

There are many ways to demonstrate for policy change. We would expect places of learning for intelligent students led by mature and erudite teachers, to choose methods like debates, briefings, seminars, and councils. The school walkout is not new, nor is it clever, nor does it present its teachers and students in a respectable manner. It is nothing more than the schoolhouse version of the syndicalists’
general strike. Consequently, it should not shock anyone that the 2018 school walkouts are “astroturfed” by unions through their Women’s March influence operation.

Observant citizens will recall the marketing style, branding, sponsors, and partners of the One Nation Rally from the Obama years. The “Women’s March” is just a new face on the same organizations and ideological interests. The confluence of interests includes radical environmentalists, feminists, communists, democratic socialists, SEIU, AFL-CIO, syndicalists, social justice redistributionists, abortion advocates, racial activists, LGBT activists, felon activists, and public-school unions. Their goal? To elect democrats, and shepherd the democratic party towards their interests. To use a phrase from one of their most popular communist bands:

“Ain’t the new sound
just like the old sound
just like the noose wound
over the burning ground”

Liberty advocates and conservatives have waited thirty years for their own version of Rage Against the Machine. I’m a huge fan of tunes like Way Back Home as well, but conservatives continue losing the 100-year culture war for banal reasons. I digress.

A school walkout is the childhood emulation of a general strike. The syndicalist general strike punishes consumers, business owners, the government, and the workers themselves. It’s an act of passive aggression writ large. The workers most likely were perpetrating level-one-and-two passive aggression in their workplace (temporary compliance, intentional inefficiency). In the general strike, they escalate to levels three, four, and five (problem instigation, hidden revenge, self-harm).

Acknowledging the behavioral and social manipulation of the general strike, it’s easy to understand the uncreative and irresponsible school walkout. The activist teachers and their student pawns seek to punish school administrators, school boards, parents, and the students and teachers themselves. Inspiring a minor to forego precious instruction time in order to parrot the democratic party activism of their teachers and parents is the height of irresponsibility.

Instigating school walkouts seeks to use the natural restlessness of youth, which would prefer to be whimsical and unproductive, and direct it towards rebellious mob activism. Would most students prefer to quietly and tediously solve math equations, or would they prefer to chit chat and fool around with friends in a circus atmosphere? What kind of political party would abuse the education of children for their own policy agendas? The democratic party should sanction the partners of the Women’s March and disavow this terrible influence operation.

Even worse, the school walkout can potentially turn students against their parents, their communities, and indoctrinates them with collectivism. They have not earned the moral justification for activism by first reviewing all of the evidence and opposing arguments. Like many foolish adults, they are consequently just parrots of whichever influencer they trust. The school teacher is gifted a near-monopoly of trust by the community and parents, and in that abused gift lies the betrayal of a teacher who instigates school walkouts.

If we agree that these acts of passive aggression are damaging to children, and that the teachers and parents who enlist child-pawns to do their political bidding are grossly abusing their power – then the question becomes, how do we confront this gaggle of lost souls? Our constitution affirms our natural rights to free association and assembly. That should apply to people within schools, businesses, and unions equally. In the workplace scenario, so long as right-to-work laws are advanced, the coercive aspects of union membership will be balanced by those of non-members.

Likewise, students should have the right-to-learn:

  1. A student should be free to walk out – and they should be subject to the same consequences for walking out as any other reason.
  2. A teacher should be free to incite her students towards her own ideological crusade and choose an unexcused absence from her job – and she should be subject to the same consequences for incitement and absenteeism as any other reason.
  3. The school administrators should be free to use their school as a tool of democratic party activism, by either permitting the walkouts without consequence, or by advocating them directly – and the school board and voters should then replace the administrators with ones who actually respect education.

A school under my management would never use education time for biased activism, even if we would encourage civic engagement in other ways. Nor would we harbor, protect, and apologize for deranged young killers who might someday come upon the tools of arson, shootings, or vehicular homicide. Mind-wiped products of “elite” teachers colleges continue to scapegoat failures of their own responsibilities.

Considering that this school walkout is a leftwing influence operation to scapegoat guns for failures of law enforcement, schools, and mental health professionals, it is egotistically self-serving in its whitewashing of teachers’ and school administrators’ responsibility to detect, isolate, correct, and neutralize predatory students – who could choose any weapon of mass killing. That is why the confluence of democratic party interests are astroturfing the event. Their sacred belief in the public education model is currently at risk, so they must deflect at all costs – in this case, towards their profane item of self-defense: guns. While the actual policy goals are laughable and cannot stand against rigorous debate, the school walkout is a more insidious beast, using our education to inculcate a mob mentality in our youth. A healthy nation prefers academics to enlighten with reason, civility, and evidence, rather than to incite with propaganda, disobedience, and emotion. Perhaps the Women’s March and its affiliates use these methods because they know that their gun control agenda would never survive an honest, civil, and intellectual contest.

The front-persons of the Women’s March (Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland)

The partners of the Women’s March:


The misguided influence operation of the Women’s March:

Syndicalism:

2018 Economic Sovereignty Presentations

What’s better than a one-of-a-kind book that condenses volumes of socioeconomic intrigue, concepts, research, and discoveries into a few hundred pages? It’s a presentation of the findings by the author, with Q&A, and book signing! Economic and financial issues change year-to-year, but the discoveries and concepts in Economic Sovereignty: Prosperity in a Free Society remain the same. In 2018, Alvarism has added an assessment of the new GOP Tax Bill to the Economic Sovereignty presentations.

RSVP

Use our contact form to RSVP, or private message Alvarism LLC or Thomas Kurek on Facebook.

Please RSVP five days before the event to allow organizers to scale their accommodations. The venue address will be disclosed upon RSVP.

Current Presentation Dates

February 13th, 2018 6:30 PM – Fairfax County, VA
February 25th, 2018 12:30 PM – Sterling, VA

Event Description
Financial self-determination, economic misconceptions, class warfare, and the “managed decline” of the US economy revealed. New GOP tax bill assessed.

What do federal and state governments spend our taxes on? How has government spending changed over the years? What does poverty and prosperity look like in America – by numbers and in lifestyle?

The TEA Party, Occupy Wall Street, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and economists from different schools of analysis have different visions of the American economy. Economic Sovereignty looks at the economy by the hard numbers, evaluates income dynamics, and juxtaposes American economic performance against the global economy. It also evaluates political ideology that biases economic assertions.

This research arrives at concepts for personal financial independence and policy suggestions for the government to eliminate the debt and restore economic self-determination to American citizens. Join the author in a presentation of the key findings and discover this uncommon knowledge with a personal touch.

Author and speaker Thomas Kurek founded Alvarism LLC, a think tank for economic and sociological analysis based upon empirical, rational and perennial knowledge paradigms. His services were commissioned by the State Department, global hospitality and tourism, ecommerce, healthcare, state government, FBI, and Department of Defense.

The Dangerous Fake Narratives of Hackers, Internet Trolls, and Spies: Part 2


Nathan Hale is Executed by the British on September 22, 1776 for Spying

In part one of this essay, we reviewed Russian and American political influence scuffles reported by The Atlantic, The New Yorker, New York Times, and Washington Post. Without context that includes the 2011 Russian election fraud and the Trolls from Olgino, an observer may be incredibly confused upon hearing of alleged Russian hacking. Conflating Wikileaks and its source with the hacking entity is a popular misnomer. But before we turn to hacking, we need to complete the story of Russian trolling, disinformation, and “fake news.” Without this knowledge, we have no context for the greater Russo-American political influence scuffle to which these events contribute. How did the United States respond to coordinated Russian disinformation in 2014? Why would Russian trolls shift from fanning the flames of leftist narratives to supporting Trump?

2014: The US Counter-Disinformation Team



Rick Stengel, US State Department Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy

The US State Department was tired of Russia meddling with American public opinion. Secretary of State John Kerry called the Russian state-sponsored news media in the West, Russia Today (RT), a Kremlin propaganda arm. His Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, Richard Stengel wrote that RT engages in disinformation.

Under the Bureau of International Information Programs, the US State Department created a Counter-Disinformation Team, modeled after the Reagan Administration’s Active Measures Working Group. With a beta website and hired staff, the project was scrapped after only eight months. Counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler said that the Obama administration decided that the project would antagonize Russia. An anonymous official inside of the US State Department said that the Obama administration simply refused to take Russian disinformation seriously. Both are likely to be true – the Obama Administration likely had the mentality – “why are we going to antagonize a foreign nation by responding to a threat that we don’t believe can seriously impact America?”

Perhaps one of the most glaring political contradictions of this story is that we do not hear a clamor from Democrats about the Counter-Disinformation Team. Top Democrat officials with the power to confront Russian meddling, identified the threat in 2014 and then summarily scrapped the program. Now they speak of “fake news,” disinformation, and hacking, only after they lost an election. There’s nary a whisper to be heard in Democrat circles, saying, “Who were the people that promoted the Counter-Disinformation Team? Which of Obama’s appointees scrapped the program? That project would have preempted this issue.”

On the other hand, the question of whether government intelligence teams are the best tools to confront disinformation is much more important and will be discussed at the end of this series.

2015: Russian Trolls for Trump



After exacerbating American racial and class tensions with leftist groups like La Raza, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, Russian disinformation shifted to promoting Trump and denigrating Hillary Clinton. The Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University, RAND Corporation, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute agreed that Russia was using social media, paid internet trolls, botnets, and websites to criticize Clinton and support Trump. But why would they support Trump? Was this just the Putin Administration’s revenge on American Democrats for shedding light on his party’s corruption in 2011?

Knowing the biography of the Putin Administration, we can say that it was a delightful three-for-one deal: revenge/intimidation, shifting US/Russian loyalties abroad, and chaos in US civics. Their emotional side relished the thought of getting revenge against Hillary Clinton. Their rational side perceived an opportunity to serve Russian state objectives.

The Russian government does not care who wins US elections. Their goal is to erode faith in the United States government, its policies, and its interests, in order to pave a path for Russian influence, culture, deals, and policies abroad. Russia has adopted a part-mercantilist and part-Eurasianist stance, and its competitor is “Atlanticism,” led by the United States. Russian interference in US civics will always fight Atlanticism, and support their mercantilist and Eurasianist positions. The research of RAND, Elliot School, and FPRI was corroborated after the election, when Russian officials were caught celebrating Trump’s victory by NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT). This suggests that Putin’s Administration truly believes that Trump will be better for its mercantilist and Eurasianist agenda and worse for Atlanticism. Whether or not that is true – a separate issue. Russia has been wrong about most concepts in politics, economy, and culture for over a century. It also suggests that the Russian trolling for Trump was not motivated by revenge or disruption of US civics alone.

A third motivation is to spread chaos in United States civic discourse via disinformation, so that Americans have a harder time arriving at a sensible understanding of their own interests. Disinformation (black propaganda) does not induce emotional support like standard propaganda. It is an intentionally false narrative, supported by some truths, which poisons open communication channels by lowering the signal-to-noise ratio (valid information is the signal, disinformation is the noise). Disinformation fills the citizen’s head with lies, and it also creates noise and chaos. People then become cynical and paranoid about the communication channel itself, and they have a harder time participating in free, honest, and open information exchange. Most people lose interest in listening to the communication because picking out the signals from the noise becomes too tedious.

Intelligence is ultimately a preparation of the battlespace. The battle can take the form of a conventional war, or economic, monetary, trade, or cultural conflict. Exacerbating racial, religious, ideological, and class tensions, dramatizing and exaggerating corruption in the US government, and filling American heads with fiction serves the same goal – weakening American civics. That cannot be achieved by exclusively playing for one side of the tension.

With this in mind, many casual observers are misled to believe that Russian trolls promoted Trump because they are incredibly excited about his policies. When we understand that the goal is to make American civics “stink” so that normal people do not like touching it, it makes perfect sense that Russian trolls would fan the flames of the Black Lives Matter, La Raza, Occupy Wall Street, and Corrupt-Hillary narratives. Soiling Trump with mountains of polemic did not need extra help. Popular US news media was doing passionate work on that task. To soil all candidates involved and produce the sentiment that the entire election is disgusting required dirt on Hillary Clinton. And quite frankly, digging up dirt on established political dynasties like the Clintons is not a difficult endeavor.

Finally, the Putin Administration’s Information Operations/Information Warfare (IO/IW) achieved classic mafia-like intimidation in addition to revenge and deranged American civic infighting. It sent a dire intimidation to American politicians of all parties: “Do not dare bring attention to Russian corruption, or assist Russian opposition politics, or else you will be the next target of destruction by disinformation, hacking, and IO/IW in general.” The Trump administration has received this message loud and clear. It will be interesting to see how it responds to the intimidation. Cowardly denial and avoidance? Brazen retaliation? Or giving Russia lip service while taking countermeasures behind the curtain?

Russia had an axe to grind with America after they blamed “the West” for their own civil unrest in response to the 2011 Russian election fraud. They started grinding that axe with the Trolls of Olgino. But trolling is not rocket science. Russia’s state-sponsored trolling surely was emulated by thousands of Russophilic sycophantic parrots across the globe with too much time on their hands. In this way, state-sponsored disinformation made by a few hundred agents can snowball into viral internet content. Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, put it perfectly when he characterized Russian trolling as seeking to weaken opponents and critics. He said, “They don’t try to win the argument. It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.”

With the background of Russian-American political influence scuffles, the subsequent trolling, disinformation, and counter-disinformation stories elaborated, we have the context to ask each American: how can you confront trolls and disinformation?

Unprecedented statistical analysis of crime, warfare, terrorism, and espionage is presented in a chapter of Alvarism Book Two, which is not yet published. This essay supplements that chapter.

The Dangerous Fake Narratives of Hackers, Internet Trolls, and Spies: Part 1


A Joke Referring to Russian Alaska Day, Galvanizing Russian Patriotism by Fabricating Historical Resentment

News coverage of the Russian/American dance of political intrigue, including hacking, internet trolling, and propaganda has been mostly myopic. The braided conversation is currently filled with everything that makes our modern news environment toxic. Conflicting groups mingle twisted psychology with international espionage deceptions into a maelstrom of fiction. Many Democrats have used Russia as a scapegoat for their political repudiation at the polls, in complete denial of their failures. For those whose memories extend beyond four years, Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party peddled a similar narrative about United States’ alleged interference with Russian elections in 2011. Meanwhile, many Republicans have denied Russian involvement, cynically asserting that Russian hacking is just a fabrication to stain the legitimacy of Trump and his rightwing appointees. Conspiracy theories abound. Some of the most fanciful: Obama sabotaged Hillary Clinton for his own personal gain, Israel hacked the DNC, and our own intelligence agencies carried out the hacks. Where are the professional, nuanced, and honest presentations of facts and context?

Because this saga of global intrigue requires uncommon knowledge of espionage, politics, public relations, and ideology, and spans complex ongoing events since 2011, the story could not be told in one-thousand words. In this three-part essay we will discuss the first volley during the Russian election of 2011, the Russian disinformation response via The Trolls of Olgino, the failed United States countermeasure in John Kerry’s scrapped Counter-Disinformation Team, the evolving Russian disinformation objectives, the alleged Russian hacking of US political parties, and finally what impact, if any, Russian activities had on the election outcome, and whether they achieved their intelligence objectives (two separate concerns). We will close with some practical advice on confronting internet trolls of all sorts, and how America should respond to disinformation in general, whether it comes from a particular foreign intelligence program, useful idiots, or domestic institutions.

Citizen Confirmation Bias

To be clear, all intelligence operations are conspiracies, but armchair activists who have never so much as read a single textbook on intelligence, are always way out of their league when they speculate about espionage events. Successful deception relies upon telling the asset or target what they want to hear; nearly every bogus narrative and distortion of these complex events can be reduced to confirmation bias. Democrats do not want to believe the voters rejected their offerings in 2016. Republicans do not want to believe that Trump benefited from foreign hostilities. If the prevailing fears are of Obama, Israel, or the US intelligence community, then they must be the conspirators. In the absence of certainty, mobs of jokers are chanting, “hubba, hubba, hubba, who do ya trust?”

The least psychologically rewarding conspirator is Russia. Very few Americans are satisfied by thinking that their elections are vulnerable to foreign meddling, and in 2016, America is weary of foreign entanglement. The notion of a new major conflict does not reduce the cost of healthcare, college, and taxes, nor does it increase job opportunities and returns on investments. Americans are much more apt to indict corruption in their own government than to admit a foreign government has the power to trounce the American government in a significant way.

Unfortunately for Citizen Confirmation Bias, who relishes shoving his fingers in his ears as he swallows the banal narrative that suits his ego most favorably, getting the story right is his only cure. Misdirected hostility against fellow Americans, and the whitewashing of foreign hostilities can lead to diplomatic and security nightmares – at worst, economic turmoil and proxy wars. We must review the major players, their interests, evidence, and implications to understand these critical events.

The 2011 Russian Election Fraud


Tens of thousands of Russians protest election fraud in 2011

The story begins in 2011 when Russian election monitors reported pervasive fraud – suggesting that Vladimir Putin’s United Russia was saved by cheating. Russian opposition websites were hacked. Russia’s Interior Ministry pursued three criminal cases, and cited hundreds of electoral breaches. Massive protests ensued. If Americans thought that their election of 2016 was a Barnum & Bailey Circus, then the Russian election of 2011 was an international tour of Cirque du Soleil.

From her US State Department officialdom, Hillary Clinton twisted the knife protruding from United Russia’s belly, calling for investigations into Russian election fraud and the Putin Administration’s intimidation. She characterized the Russian election as “neither free nor fair.” Putin and Medvedev reacted to the allegations with denial, despite dozens-of-thousands of Russian protestors and official indictments by the Russian government itself. Medvedev said, “I consider such statements absolutely irresponsible, deceitful, and even provocative.” Putin blamed the protests on Hillary Clinton’s “signal,” as he derided his Russian protestors – calling their white ribbons “condoms” and accusing them of being paid agents of the West.

This event is significant because it formed the motivation for the latest volley of Information Operations/Information Warfare (IO/IW) between the United States and Russia. Russian internal corruption, in which Putin’s government perpetrated intimidation, fraud, and cheating, while political parties jostled and hacked each other, was simply called out by Hillary Clinton from an official capacity. America became an easy target for Putin’s Administration when they accused Hillary Clinton of “deceit and provocation,” and their domestic opponents of being paid Western agents. Putin’s political entourage had secured their scapegoats for civil unrest in the wake of their contaminated democratic proceedings.

The 2013 Trolls from Olgino

It wasn’t long before Vladimir Putin’s first deputy, Vyacheslav Volodin, created a troll farm named the Internet Research Agency Ltd., also known as The Trolls from Olgino. In the summer of 2013, it was time for Putin and his cohorts to retaliate against “Atlanticism” of which the United States is the purported head in Russian ideological parlance. Hundreds of paid trolls made blog posts, comments, infographics, and viral videos on behalf of Russian interests. But these influence agents are not just out to spread pro-Russian propaganda. Their main goal is to perpetrate campaigns of hate, disinformation, and harassment. Investigative Journalist Adrian Chen said, “They seek to overwhelm social media with a flood of fake content, seeding doubt and paranoia, and destroying the possibility of using the internet as a democratic space.” He added a disclosure from Leonid Volkov, “The point is to spoil it, to create the atmosphere of hate, to make it so stinky that normal people won’t want to touch it.” In other words, Russian intelligence wants us to be looking at kitty cat memes instead of evidence-based articles like this.

Western investigative journalists claimed that the Russian trolls were ideologically blind. Sometimes they would promote American racial tensions with Black Lives Matter or La Raza narratives, and class warfare with Occupy Wall Street narratives. Other times, the trolls would incite ideological division in the USA by jumping onto naturally dirty American political battles with election disinformation and hacking disclosures. As we will discover by the end of this piece, the Russian paid trolls are not ideologically blind. Western observers simply do not tend to read the ideological doctrines disseminated to Russian leaders through their training and education, and they try to force-fit Russian ideology into their own Western political categories.

In the next article, we will discuss the US response to the Trolls of Olgino, the trolls’ shift to exacerbating ideological division, and the arguments for-and-against Russian hacking.

Unprecedented statistical analysis of crime, warfare, terrorism, and espionage is presented in a chapter of Alvarism Book Two, which is not yet published. This essay supplements that chapter.

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

Will Swindled Middle Class Americans Ever Reclaim Their Liberty?


Plato asserted, “Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.” As middle class Americans scurry about under the weight of their enormous debts, overpriced education, inflated mortgages, unaffordable healthcare, and crushing taxation, they remain captivated by the spells of unworthy leaders. Economic deception is omnipresent within news articles, political speeches, classrooms, and movie scripts. In addition, normalcy bias and willful denial impels us to disparage anyone who conveys unpleasant truths. Consequently, the majority is stupefied whenever economic calamities strike. But middle class Americans do not need an education in economics to realize that the American dream is bending like the elbow of an inebriated politician charging his bar tab to the taxpayers. The American dream envisions a chance for everybody to gain prosperity with hard work, natural talent, and a little luck. It presumes a fair system of compensation for productivity, where the customer is king, and we direct our productive energies to wherever our neighbors vote with every dollar they spend.

The envy-mongering propagandists who weave fairy tales of inequality, have no respect for that liberty. Nor do they respect cognizant Americans who observe equal lifestyles in their communities that make Karl Marx throw parties in his grave. They are poverty hustlers, using terms like the one-percent along with fake statistics to induce wrong beliefs about prosperity incidence, which they incorrectly refer to as wealth distribution. They deceive people with more than inaccurate terminology; they distort basic concepts. Prosperity and poverty is defined by material concerns alone, but they create poetic distortions such as a poverty of spirit, family, love, or culture, as if social dysfunctions can be ameliorated with money. They must not have listened to the radio in the last century to hear song choruses like “can’t buy me love.” They also have not studied the eternal ancient wisdom of Claudius Claudianus, who said, “whoever desires is always poor.”

On the other hand, perhaps they do understand this wisdom, since they frequently inspire malformed desires in the minds of their audiences. The people that they call “poor” have video games, air conditioning, cable television, washing machines, cell phones, and computers. They eat what they want to, and have an infinitesimal chance of homelessness. Legal privileges and redistribution bring them into the same neighborhoods as middle class Americans who can barely afford to pay their bills. They live in the same places, eat at the same restaurants, go to the same schools, and visit the same doctors. They report only $15,000 in income but they spend $39,000. The poverty hustlers exclude the value of public housing, Medicaid, food stamps, and other subsidies. They do not adjust for cost of living, and they make comparisons to before-tax income. Between 96% and 99% of Americans have had reasonable access to healthcare since the 1980s. The proportion of Americans who live in statistically falsified, fake poverty is 14.3%, while 20% of middle class Americans use welfare for perks. Only one-percent of Americans are actually destitute – truly impoverished with inadequate shelter, food, or clothing. They suffer because of the fake poor and their poverty hustlers – not because of inadequate taxation. In this redistributionist society, equality is plentiful and justice is scarce.

How can we better envision this crushing level of equality
within which we are immersed? Death is the great equalizer, but the same could be said about traffic. Since America is over 80% urbanized, we often sit in traffic observing the cars around us. Who is prosperous? The guy in the Mercedes Benz is in debt by $800,000 after his mortgage, car, and student loans. His profligate debt is not prosperity. The guy next to him in the Porsche is a violent drug dealer, one step away from prison. The guy behind him in the Corvette sold his no-interest-loan house for a fortune, stealing from his neighbors through the government bailouts, banking policies, and subsidies that artificially bubbled rental and mortgage prices to the stratosphere. The woman beside him in the Lexus is unemployed, and drawing $70,000 per year from welfare and subsidies while her children crawl around barefoot. The woman at the front of the line in the luxury SUV spends her days as a government bureaucrat barely doing four hours of work a day; she fills the rest of her “work hours” surfing the internet, perusing social networks, and texting friends and family.

One lane over, a college student in a Toyota Prius is living off of her parents and loans. The statistics say she is “poor,” but the thousands of dollars of tattoos on her skin and spring break vacations say that she is rich. A millionaire computer genius in a beat-up economy car slowly approaches the back of the line, sporting his clearance-rack button-down shirt, and tattered loafers. Next to him is a local café barista in a used Mustang. He barely makes above minimum wage, but his lifestyle is similar to that of the “rich” people in his neighborhood because they are paying for most of his rent, schooling, and healthcare through government programs.

It is difficult to discern those who earn their living honestly from those who feed from ubiquitous redistribution. Some acquire wealth from marrying, inheriting, or coercive law suits. Blue-collar union laborers are paid much more than some of their college-educated peers. Teachers, soldiers, and government employees take their compensation through enormous benefits instead of large salaries; consequently, they take a king’s ransom of prosperity in tax avoidance on top of the unstated value of their benefits. Investors reap private gains with public losses due to bank bailouts and government expenditures that salvage their failures. No decent person would claim that a wealthy prostitute, thief, corrupt businessman, or drug dealer is successful in life. They steal their prosperity through illicit actions.

Whether proper or illicit, all redistribution is essentially something-for-nothing. The measure of success is not necessarily prosperity, but a society that embraces the worst instincts of humanity easily confuses the two. Wasteful activity is encouraged from ubiquitous redistribution, and the economy begins to eat itself alive. Legendary Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises called this subtle process destructionism:

Such a policy of destructionism means the consumption of capital. There are few who recognize this fact. Capital consumption can be detected statistically and can be conceived intellectually, but it is not obvious to everyone. To see the weakness of a policy which raises the consumption of the masses at the cost of existing capital wealth, and thus sacrifices the future to the present, and to recognize the nature of this policy, requires deeper insight than that vouchsafed to statesmen and politicians or to the masses who have put them into power. As long as the walls of the factory buildings stand, and the trains continue to run, it is supposed that all is well with the world. The increasing difficulties of maintaining the higher standard of living are ascribed to various causes, but never to the fact that a policy of capital consumption is being followed…

The policy of [Classical] Liberalism is the procedure of the prudent father who saves and builds for himself and his successors. The policy of destructionism is the policy of the spendthrift who dissipates his inheritance regardless of the future.

–Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

As capital is consumed through destructionism, another effect is the perversion of scales and measures. Accurate measure of value, labor, and productivity becomes divorced from compensation as the results of productive labor are collectivized and redistributed. Freedom of opportunity is sacrificed on the altar of equal outcome, burying the productivity of the ambitious and diligent.

The unique blend of economic analysis, political principles, and historical evidence in the book Economic Sovereignty dispel the illusions. The discoveries were made possible by looking at American prosperity from very different assumptions. What have we spent our money on for the past century? How much money is actually in our pockets, after all forms of taxation are considered? What are the forms of redistribution and something-for-nothing in any society? How can we estimate the level of redistribution? How have people actually acquired their prosperity in different careers?

The shocking truths that emerge will vindicate every American whose intuition suspects a subverted American dream, along with unprecedented economic equality. What remains is wealth-by-the-trillions that is trapped in overvalued services, civic expenditures, malinvestments, and real estate. The elucidated economic reality shows that the mobs of people screaming about inequality are pumping their fists in the air over illusions in their heads. If middle class Americans do not wake up to the methods of the swindlers, their liberty will continue to be stolen by criminals, scofflaws, and perfectly law-abiding charlatans.

(This article refers to sections 1.1 and 1.2 in Economic Sovereignty. All citations for the arguments here, are within the book)

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

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

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

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

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

There are two generalized events to compare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something Amazing Happened When I Affirmed Nonprofit Political Campaigning Rules


Union Protests the 2011 Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill in Madison Wisconsin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy Economic Sovereignty today! Click here for more details!

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

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

The Population Situation

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

Prior to the Age of Science & Materialism

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

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

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

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

During the Scientific Revolution

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

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

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

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

Banzai Cliff & Culturally Coerced Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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