Why the Elite Do Such Absurd Things

November 30th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, chaos, terrorism, crime and fear create conditions where tyranny is not only likely but inevitable, and so anyone who seeks tyranny or in other words, arbitrary rule, merely sow these things and their job is almost done. To argue that no one would want tyranny is to argue no one would want to eat. It is human nature to seek power over others, as evidenced by all of human history, just as it is human nature to eat. Moreover, those that seek political power do so usually to use that power, else why seek it? So, those in political power, not all that have or seek political power, but a large majority, actually want tyranny, (as long as they are the tyrant) and therefore will actively sow chaos, terrorism, crime and fear in society, as a means to that goal.

It was the ancient Greeks who actually admitted and debated the faction that favored arbitrary rule. Today our schools, colleges and universities avoid teaching about arbitrary rule and so most people educated by the new class have no concept of it, as a philosophy or even that there are always those who favor it. To understand the philosophy of arbitrary rule one has to read Plutarch’s Lives, Plato and Aristotle. Since few actually read them, and many are told what they said, few really know and many think they know. The philosophy of arbitrary rule is, that the people are better served when they are ruled by a person or group, that can pass laws arbitrarily. It is as simple as that. Those that favor arbitrary rule believe humanity is better off if we are controlled by our “betters.” That people are so ignorant of this philosophy is damning to our education system but even more telling of the intentions of the new class.

Rationally self interested people, rational maximizers as economists label us, and self interested rightly understood as Tocqueville put it, struggle with those who favor arbitrary rule. We believe that humanity is better off when we the people have a say in our laws, customs and economy. We believe that people in the aggregate are better equipped to understand what society needs than a group of “superior men.” We understand that it is only through the protection of individual liberties that society can flourish… and our philosophy is born out by empirical testing. The period since the invention of Constitutional rule, a form of government that intentionally limits the elite and explicitly forbids arbitrary rule, has seen the greatest advancement in the human condition since the first man and woman walked upright. Those times where arbitrary rule has reasserted itself have seen famine, slaughter and suffering, without exception.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the elite, every solution they offer, is always more power in the hands of the few. Each time a problem pops up, a new regulation, law or form of surveillance is the only answer the elite allow us to debate. It is logical to conclude that due to their default position, of more government power and their favorite economic system socialism, that the elite favor arbitrary rule. It would be absurd to claim someone who always and everywhere seek more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, favors individual liberty and eschews arbitrary rule! So since they favor and seek arbitrary rule it follows that they will do what it takes to create the conditions favorable to establishing arbitrary rule, for the good of humanity as they see it.

Perhaps that is why the political establishment goes to such lengths to create chaos in society. The elite have been undermining those institutions that create stability for over a century. The nuclear family is the most stabilizing force and is increasingly under attack by the elite. From the welfare state to gay marriage the elite have launched an all out war against the family. Christian religious institutions also create stability and so have been cowed by the elite. No church is willing to give up it’s religious tax exemption and so is unwilling to speak out, afraid to offend those who have the power to remove it, and so they have made themselves irrelevant. The list of stabilizing institutions is far too long to go into here but I am sure if you try you can think of many that are under attack or no longer exist.

Maybe the elite’s drive to tyranny is why the elite seek more terrorism instead of less. No one in their right mind believes that mass migration of Muslims will not create more terrorism in Europe and the US. To argue that it won’t is to argue up is down and down is up. Moreover, flooding a country will people who despise the culture and the people, then giving the invaders free everything is a terrifically destabilizing force, and can only lead to resentment, violence, backlash and more violence. Smashing the stable tyrants in the Middle East intentionally sowed the seeds of the migration which will inevitably lead to violence in Europe and the US on a wide scale, that violence can only lead to fear.

It is possible that the people who want to establish themselves as arbitrary rulers create the conditions for crime to flourish. More law doesn’t prevent crime, it only makes more people criminals, moreover, more regulations makes it harder to start a business or make a profit in an established business. This leads to less employment opportunities, lower wages and more crime because of it. History shows that periods of rapid economic expansion see very low crime rates and periods of low economic expansion and recession see rising crime, social strife and hate groups. All of which makes the people afraid, of their economic outlook, their property and their very lives.

Fear is the uniting element that makes the others so effective. Terrorism, chaos and crime all create fear, and a human being who is blinded by fear will run into the arms of anyone claiming they can put that fear at rest. Since we have been carefully conditioned to believe that more government power is always the answer to every question and all exigencies, most people will turn to a strongman who will “get them” and “fix it.” Like Germans did after Wiemar. Fear limits the mind and terror shrivels the soul, making people little more than animals, willing to burn another at the stake for causing the plague, behead a Virgin to restore the crops, and wipe out a race of human kind. Fear that will answer all the dreams of those that seek arbitrary rule, because the end justifies the means, and in the end, they believe arbitrary rule is in all of our best interests, especially theirs.


John Pepin

NATO, Turkey, War Crimes and Acts of War

November 26th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a bar fight is usually started by the smallest person in the bar, Turkey’s shooting down of a Russian plane is no exception. I have heard it called little man disease, when a short person starts a fight, then slips away as his friends trade blows. Smart people stop hanging around with someone like that, because they are troublemakers, and smart nations would boot Turkey from NATO, for being a troublemaker. Turkey is a liability to NATO. It is fast descending into an Islamist intolerant tyranny. Erdogan has corrupted the Constitution to allow himself to become president for life, and install the Islamist agenda and so, Turkey no longer shares any values at all with Western nations. Moreover, should we allow a pint sized bully like Turkey to get the world into a nuclear war to protect IS and their genocide against Christians, raping of little girls, tossing gays from buildings, burning to death Captives, crucifying children and slaughter of any Muslims not Muslim enough? Is that a valid reason to end the world?

The killing of a pilot as he or she is parachuting down is a war crime. If you own a business and one of your employees runs over a child, your business is held liable, not the driver. That is because he is working under your auspices. In the same way, those rebel groups that are the vassals of the US and Turkey, operate with the support and auspices of those nations. So, war crimes committed by the sanction of another country, are the responsibility of that country. Therefore Turkey and the US are responsible for the war crimes of those that they sponsor. In other words, war crime are being done in your name, do you support that?

Turkey claims the plane was in their airspace but the events around the downing belie that claim. If it was indeed in their airspace, then how could the pilot have been murdered by rebels in Syria? The claim that the plane continued on back into Syria is just as damning as the claim the pilot was shot by rebels. Think about it, If the plane was in Turkey’s airspace and headed back to Syria, then why shoot it down? If the plane was in fact in Syria, then the downing of it was an act of war, if the plane was in Turkey’s airspace and wasn’t headed back to Syria, then the plane couldn’t have fallen on Syria, and the moment the plane was hit, the pilots ejected, they don’t continue like the plane would, and so drop pretty much below where they eject, since everyone agrees they landed, or would have landed in Syria, then the plane must have been shot down over Syria! What we have is an act of war compounded by a war crime, done by our “ally.”

Turkey is responsible for genocide against the Armenians, in the 1950’s it tried to detonate a bomb in it’s own embassy in Greece to stoke nationalistic outcries, which resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of Christians, and Turkey backs IS. Turkey has no business being in NATO in the first place. Turkey has waged war against the Kurds, the only Muslim people to protect Christians, Yazidis and others, the Kurds who have been the only true allies the US had in Iraq, and the only people in that part of the world with any real virtue. Turkey is a criminally run nation, that has worked against the interests of humanity since it’s inception, that is now becoming an Islamist stronghold.

NATO has a responsibility to defend it’s members who are attacked, but in this case Turkey wasn’t attacked, it was the aggressor. The original reason NATO was started in the first place was to stem the USSR, a country that no longer exists, and the advance of Marxism, which our governments have embraced, so there is no reason for NATO to exist anymore. Especially since it obligates Western nations to protect a petulant country that is becoming a despotic Islamist tyranny. Like a smart group of friends stops hanging around with a troublemaker, NATO should be smart and evict Turkey from NATO, before Turkey commits another war crime or act of war obligating us to burn our cities to the ground in nuclear fire to defend the slaughter and rape of innocents. In fact NATO itself has become a liability instead of a asset.


John Pepin

Foolishness and Wisdom

November 23rd, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the more ignorant and foolish a person is, the more secure they are in their beliefs. Where a reasoning man or woman questions their assumptions and biases, a fool never burns a calorie in their mind at all, they see no need. The foolish and ignorant are the first to resort to anger and violence if their beliefs are questioned. Being foolish, they would rather fight than think, and that quality of the foolish is fundamental. Ignorance is a condition that can be repaired, but the foolish will see knowledge, especially knowledge that questions their world view, as heretical. So sure are they in their beliefs that they need not learn. All of which make the foolish and ignorant easy to pick out, they refuse to listen to argument, instead making personal attacks, are quick to anger, resort to force rather than reason, have religious like faith in mankind and government, and most of all they are certain about that which cannot be known.

Young people have little life experience and so are more foolish than someone with a great deal of life experience. This is both a benefit and a curse to them. It is beneficial because they are willing to innovate in the face of almost certain failure. This is often the source of human advancement and is why most advancement comes from the youth. It is a curse however since most tyrannies have been ushered in by the youth. They foolishly follow some charismatic villain and find they have forged their own chains. The foolish youth are quick to resort to violence and that tendency has been put to good use by many despots. Che Guevara lauded that tendency of the youth to engage in violence. Once they grow up however most people loose their foolishness in the passage of time.

Unlike religious faith, which is based on rational self interest, the foolish have faith in that which has proven itself unworthy of faith. To digress for a moment, Religious faith is based on rational self interest for a host of reasons, those who have faith in God lead happier lives, live longer, live healthier, have more success in life, have stronger family ties and the retirement benefits are much better than the alternative. Religious like faith in some person, system or idea is the path to catastrophe. Get enough zealots to follow a villain and tyranny results, blind faith in an economic system like socialism and the economic future of the people is forever lowered, unquestioned belief in an idea is how entire cultures are destroyed.

A recent poll of generation x concluded that as many as 40% of them are in favor of government restricting speech that might be offensive. The real number is probably lower, (I hope), but the vehemence of those that see no problem with government deciding what speech is acceptable, are so sure of their position they need not question themselves or their assumptions. Disagree with them and they immediately attack you as a hater. They can’t be bothered with reason, like the slippery slope argument, the history of such movements or that innovation requires free thought which flows from free speech. They are willingly forging their own (and our) chains, and are helped along by professors who never grew up and dropped their foolishness, because they never left the coddling cradle of academia.

A person need not be young to be foolish and some who are foolish are not ignorant but the two go together like chocolate and milk. Ignorance is not only a lack of knowledge, but the inability to apply knowledge, which is in itself a form of foolishness. There are people who don’t have a great deal of knowledge, but are wise, which again shows that knowledge is not proof against foolishness, and ignorance is not proof of foolishness. To be foolish is to be willfully ignorant, self inflicted and self directed. To be wise is to be open minded and willing to question assumptions, but not to abandon those concepts that have been tested in the crucible of time, to do so is to be foolish.


John Pepin

The Lesson of the Twentieth Century

November 19th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the fall of the Berlin wall was the period on the sentence of socialism, yet the elite have go all in for socialism. When the Berlin wall fell it was final proof that socialism was a failed economic system. The Soviets had tried for decades to make it work yet it failed. That failure of socialism was the end of a century of failure. Every time socialism was tried it ended in catastrophe for those who tried it. From the United Soviet States of Russia to Cambodia, socialism failed and failed spectacularly. The end of a century of failure was the fall of the Berlin wall, the final capitulation that even a nation with unbounded natural resources, huge population, committed socialists, powerful education system and was a superpower, failed. Yet today, the democratic party of the US is full blown socialist, Europe is run by socialists, and Canada recently voted in a socialist, it would seem that the world want to try socialism again. Of course it will fail again, but the elite are so in love with the system, they care not how many people will die of famine again, the deep level of suffering it will bring on, nor do they care about the tyranny socialism always brings with it, they are willing to inflict all these disasters on humanity so they can try it once again.

Socialism has built within it the seeds of it’s failure. The incentive to work is non existent in a socialist system. The socialist system, where everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work or even if they work, can only undermine the work ethic. In those places where the work ethic is very strong, socialism can last longer, but in the end, the people will realize they don’t have to work to get the same as those who don’t. This is a pernicious effect that cannot be mitigated. Sure, some have argued the lash can be sufficient substitute for the incentive to get ahead, but in the end the lash only further alienates the people and lowers the quality of their work, even if it improves the quantity. The incentives of socialism corrode it from within.

Planning an economy isn’t like planning a wedding, there are simply too many moving parts. Imagine all the information that must be garnered, categorized and understood. The mass of information is simply too large for any bureaucracy, even equipped with quantum computers to effectively gather let alone understand. How many socks to manufacture for example. The market system has the price feedback so a manufacturer knows, by the price he is getting for his socks, whether to make more or less, but in a socialist, planned economy, the number must be set by a bureaucrat. No matter how smart, well meaning or committed to socialism the bureaucrat is, she will never get the number, of even a simple commodity like socks correct. Now consider the style of socks people might want. The level of information about how much to produce quickly becomes impossible to assess, and so there are always huge gluts and shortages. Moreover, the style of what is produced is never what the people actually want.

The drive to advance efficiency is destroyed in a socialist system. If you come up with an innovation in a socialist system, is there any incentive to implement it, is there an incentive for a bureaucrat to implement it either? No, there is not, innovation is a pain in the butt for the central planner, it is simply too much trouble. Implementing innovation is hard work, if you cannot get ahead for your innovation, will you struggle to push it through? No of course not. If you push in a socialist system you are labeled a troublemaker and no one wants to be labeled a troublemaker in a socialist system! That can get you sent to reeducation or worse. Innovation, and the advancement of efficiency that comes with it is frowned upon in a socialist system.

Socialism always and everywhere must institute a tyranny. In order to plan an economy the natural rights of the people must be taken by force, the good of the society always comes before the good of the individual, and so your inborn natural rights are eliminated. Of course, the good of society is always in line with the personal good of the leaders. Under socialism everyone is a slave to the state except those who run the state, so in other words, the leaders of a socialist country own everyone within that country. Socialism is the modern equivalent of arbitrary rule. If the beloved leader believes your death will serve the society he will expect it of you. You have no right in a socialist system to the products of your labor, you are in deed and fact a slave, in a socialist country tyranny is the norm and must be the norm.

The twentieth century was a century that proved, over and over again, that socialism cannot work. The fall of the Berlin wall was the period to that sentence. All the arguments against socialism I have put forth are made moot, because the lesson of the twentieth century was that socialism must fail. Yet here in the twenty first century the elite are intent on creating a world government based on socialism. In their hubris they believe they can make the unworkable work, they are wise enough to fix the incentives, they believe themselves virtuous enough to prevent tyranny, they believe themselves to be gods. Our hope is that people will remember the fall of the Berlin wall, and the lessons of the twentieth century and forestall the insane plans of the global elite. God help us of we don’t, in a world government that is socialist there will be no escaping it, and the more it fails the more insane the leaders will get.


John Pepin

A Gun is a Tool of Liberty

November 16th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, for a society to be truly free, the people must be armed and be able to defend themselves, and for the same reason, before a people can be enslaved they must be disarmed. While it is obvious that a slave must be disarmed, the other side of the coin, that a person be armed and able to defend themselves, is not as clear. There are many who in their ignorance believe a helpless person can be free, such thinking is muddled at best and pernicious at worst. The state of freedom, by it’s core definition, is one of independence from coercion. A disarmed person is helpless and is at the mercy of anyone armed with intent to force submission. Therefore anyone disarmed is a slave. Only those people who have the ability to defend themselves can be said to be truly free.

Ignorance is the closest ally of the despot. Many people who have never been around guns falsely seek to limit their availability. In their ignorance and fear they can’t imagine the safe use of a gun. They believe their fellow man is incapable of virtuous actions. Maybe because they know themselves and judge others by that standard. Yet millions of people own guns and have never shot anyone. In fact, those who use guns for violence are the exception, those who don’t are the rule. The would be autocrat plays on the ignorance of people to get them to go along with their own enslavement. The elite know that sowing the seeds of fear is always a means to separate people from their Rights and ignorance is a breeding ground for fear.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. That a gun is a dangerous tool is evident, but many tools are dangerous and many people are harmed by their misuse. A chain saw is a dangerous tool, ignorant people are scared by a chainsaw’s noise and potential for dramatic harm. Many people are wounded badly, and even killed by the misuse of chain saws, but there is no call from government for their banning. ATVs are very dangerous, but not as scary, many people are critically injured by their misuse, in fact more people are injured in ATV accidents than by guns, yet there is no widespread call to ban ATVs. A ladder is a very dangerous tool, in fact falls from ladders is one of the single biggest sources of personal injury, but government doesn’t try to outlaw ladders. The argument that guns are dangerous and so should be controlled only by government is false, and is designed, not to enhance safety, but to enslave the people, because a gun is a tool to fell tyrants, while a chain saw is a tool to fell trees.

Those who have a mind to enslave others know that first the victim must be disarmed. You never see a thug tossing his victim a gun before the criminal robs him do you? Governments intent on becoming tyrannical understand this all too well. Since it is usually bloody and inefficient to try to forcibly take guns from the citizenry, subterfuge becomes the means of choice. Government, for example, can create conditions where the society becomes ever more randomly violent. As the people feel less and less safe, some, perhaps many, will turn to government to become tyrannical, to prevent the violence. That government which has a mind to become despotic will be all too happy to comply. Such a government could also vilify gun owners by sending guns to a neighboring country’s villains and blame the resulting violence on their own citizens. The elite could import hundreds of thousands or millions of people who they know will engage in crime, undermine the society and sow chaos.

Violence is a reflection of a society, not the tools it has. Where people have no stake in society, they will be more prone to violence, when violence is glorified the unstable will adore the excitement of violence, the less moral a people the more acceptable violence will become, and whenever a government condones violence against the most innocent, (as in abortion)… violence will appear honorable. Violence in any society comes from the elite, the cultural elite, government elite and business elite. A society that is violent is violent because the elite have made it so, removing the tools of liberty will never remove the violence the elite sow in society, it will only make the violence more personal.

A gun is a tool and only a tool… of liberty, those who are armed are free while those without guns are slaves. Slaves to their fear, their ignorance and their government. They are dependent on another for their individual security. We all know in our hearts that where guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns, and where only outlaws have guns, you are in constant danger, but in their ignorance and fear born of that ignorance, many are willing to subject themselves and their fellows to the slavery of criminals. Violence in a society is the fault of the elite, who sow it’s seeds, nurture the culture of violence and condone it’s use. That the elite benefit from violence in enhancing their power and enslaving a nation is lost on most. Villains prey on the weak, not the strong, to be disarmed is to be weak and therefore prey, to be armed is to be strong, and therefore free, therefore, only those people who are armed and are able to defend themselves can be said to be free, those without the ability to defend themselves are slaves, in every sense of the word.


John Pepin

Actions have Consequences

November 12th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, actions have consequences, both individual and collective, some immediate and some delayed, but they all have consequences. Government actions, (collective actions) however produce a special kind of consequence. Of all the entities that have ever existed, only government benefits from mistakes, to a point, then the cumulative weight of those bad actions come crashing in and destroy that government which has profited so much, by a series of mistakes. Elitist theory says that every fall of every government is the product of a series of mistakes that led to it. When observed by a person however those downfalls might appear random, this country lost a war and so was destroyed, that country experienced a drought that triggered a famine, and so on. But when looked at in the long term, it becomes obvious that each failure was predicated on a series of poor decisions by the rulers, that led to their own downfall. The same paradigm work today with our modern governments and institutions leading inevitably to our downfall.

If you make a bad decision, the likely hood is that you will experience the effects pretty soon, sometimes you have to make a series of bad decisions before the consequences appear, but given enough bad actions consequences become inevitable. This is how we learn right from wrong, smart from stupid and profit from loss. The immediacy of the negative consequences is a great teaching tool for individuals. Governments however work under a far different paradigm.

If a government makes a wrong decision, the people suffer, but the government prospers. Each bad action leading to more power and more money for those in power. The consequences for those in leadership are profit for bad decisions and loss for good ones. If a government passes a law that is supposed to lower the cost of health care for example, and instead that law raises the cost making health care more unaffordable, the people will turn to government again to fix the problem government created. Government, and those in government profit comes at a cost to the people. If a government regulation drives down economic output, more regulation is demanded to improve the economy. Again government profits while the people loose. This can work for generations, each wrong action resulting in more government power and more money for those in power.

It works only to a point however. Each bad decision creates tension in the economy, society and defensively. One bad action might lower economic output driving a call for more equal distribution of economic output, which further lowers economic output. Eventually the economy of such a nation will be destroyed. Then the collapse of the economy will be blamed on some extrinsic shock, that is said to have “caused” the economic meltdown. Had the economy been left alone and those cumulative bad actions had not been taken, the economy would have survived the external shock and probably would have profited by it. As government regulates it’s citizens, and so corrodes the people’s stake in the nation, those who have lost a stake in the nation will care less for it’s future and will turn to drugs, crime and the dole. As more do such things, more regulation is needed to control those who have lost their stake in the nation, further corroding others stake in the national outcome until no one cares about the nation. If a war were to break out, no one would fight for a country they have no stake in, and so the war will be lost. As we have shown, it wasn’t the war that destroyed the nation but the cumulative decisions of the leaders. The war was merely the catalyst that triggered the consequences of the cumulative bad decisions of the leaders.

Our modern countries have profited tremendously from their bad decisions. Our leaders become rich while in government, then become filthy rich after, by selling their access. Each bad action taken by our governments enriches those in power and enhances their power. Those bad decisions have apparently positive consequences for those in power and so they become drunk with their seeming omnipotence. The worst their actions they make the more power and riches they get. This continues until today when our leaders act, to any rational outside observer, absolutely absurd. Sadly, there will come a day when the true consequences of all the bad decisions our leaders have made, come crashing in on them and us. Since they have profited so much by those bad actions, to expect them to change is like expecting a heroin addict to willingly kick the habit, while heroin is freely available and they live in a mansion. In the next incarnation, this same paradigm will work out, because the actions of government appear to have opposite consequences for the elite than the people. The eventual consequences are inescapable, the timing cannot be known, and people will point to some shock, war or outside exigency that led to it… but actions always have consequences.


John Pepin

Pragmatism, The American Philosophy

November 9th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, pragmatism is the quintessential American philosophy, it embodies everything our founders believed. The US founding was based on a market system… of ideas, economics, politics and philosophy. In a marketplace, ideas, products, and even philosophy are tested. Pragmatism as a method of thought and inquiry tests ideas and weighs them on an empirical scale. In a market, if a product gives value then it will be successful, if however, it is of no value, it fails. Marketing a product then can be said to require pragmatism, if it fails losses need to be cut, so the product is discontinued. Philosophy requires pragmatism to test its results, if the results are good then the philosophy can be said to be good, and if the results of it’s implementation are bad, then the philosophy itself can be said to be bad. In a marketplace, the measure of anything is how it sells, where there is no marketplace however, without pragmatic consideration, there is no viable test on the value of a product, idea, system or philosophy. Moreover, we see empirically that where pragmatism is used the standard of living improves and where pragmatism is eschewed, the standard of living declines. Your standard of living and that of your children is dependent on our leaders, teachers, executives and even ourselves, to be pragmatic and use pragmatism to weigh our decisions.

Pragmatism as a body of philosophy is normative, or in other words, it harmonizes that which we believe and think, with that which is real. People believe in all sorts of things, from communism to relativity, but how can we discern what beliefs are true and which are false? That is where normative philosophy comes in. Pragmatism tests the social theories, philosophical ideas and organizational attempts not strictly scientific questions, while science tests physical theories not complex ones. This is a mistake that many in the sciences have made, they seek to apply the scientific method to questions of society and social philosophy, (complex systems) because the scientific method has been so successful in discerning what water is, how fast a rock will fall, and other purely scientific problems. In complexity theory, strictly scientific questions would be called mount Fuji questions, where questions of society and social interaction are a changing landscape. Therefore, to apply the scientific method to questions of social philosophy, is like driving a nail with a screwdriver.

How pragmatism is used, is it observes the results of an action, then rates those results as good or bad. The rating is then used to predict the outcome of other similar actions. For example, if government puts a limit on the price of rental housing, for even the most noble of reasons, the result is a lack of housing. Pragmatically then, rent control has a negative outcome, even though the motivation might have been altruistic. Pragmatism looks at results not motivations. When the scientific method is used however, it always takes into account the motivation, like a chemical reaction, all the inputs need to be measured, quantified and the method of combining them weighed. In a chemical reaction this is necessary and fits the requirements well, but in complex systems this level of measure is impossible, and so the scientific method fails to predict the results… where pragmatism succeeds.

The founding fathers looked at the results of all the civilizations that came before them. They were very learned men who knew history. They weighed the results of all the governmental systems that had come before, and using pragmatism, they settled on a system of government that combined the best of what history had to offer and discarding the worst. In that way the very founding of the United States was based on pragmatism. The founders pragmatically looked at the results of various systems and if they produced good results, they were considered good and were incorporated, and if they produced bad results, they were considered bad and were discarded. The founders didn’t consider the motivations of the framers of past nations, civilizations and economic systems, they only looked at the results of those systems.

The United States was founded with limited government so those in power couldn’t contaminate the system. The founders had seen the results of powerful governments and so enacted limited government to protect their new nation from those results. While the leaders of powerful governments might be virtuous, have only the most noble of motivations and honest, the results always were and are the same. The system becomes more and more despotic until the tyranny is open for everyone to see. Once that happens the people understand they are victims and loose their perceived stake in that society and the society collapses. The founders recognized that it is the nature of government to seek ever more power over the people, and pragmatically tried to check that tendency, with pragmatic Constitutional limits on the power of government.

The US was founded as a market system because the market system had resulted in such a dramatic rise in the lot of humanity. Under a market system everyone is pragmatic. If you could make more money at another job you change jobs, if you can make more money building anther product or adding features to your existing product you do it, if it fails, you revert to what worked before. Everyone weights the results of their actions. Since we are pragmatic in our business dealings, as a matter of human nature, we apply pragmatism to other aspects of our lives. Our relationships, our housing situation, etc… our every decision is based on pragmatism. Pragmatism becomes ingrained.

Pragmatism therefore is the quintessential American philosophy. The US founding was based on pragmatism, the style of government is pragmatic, our market system is based on pragmatism, our people have been inculcated with pragmatism and our society itself is pragmatic. Tocqueville called attention to American pragmatism in his theory of self interest rightly understood. To be a rational maximizer is to be pragmatic. Everything about America and the American way is pragmatic. Unfortunately, today our leaders are not pragmatic but ideological, and seek to move us away from our founding, to a place that our founders looked at, weighed and rejected… for the results it produced. Our modern leaders care nothing about results and only consider motivations. They believe a system that has only resulted in human suffering on a massive scale, can be made to work, if only the “right” motivations are applied and the “right” people are in charge. Pragmatically speaking, their ideas can only fail, and fail big time, because they always have.


John Pepin

The Federal Reserve System

November 5th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, once you have thrown a rock into the sky over and over, each time it falls to the ground failing to fly, a sane person would reconsider his attempts to orbit a rock by throwing it, the elite however only redouble their efforts. The Federal Reserve was implemented for the express purpose of stopping economic recessions and stabilizing the monetary supply, it’s every effort has led to the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. In fact, the Federal Reserve is responsible for every recession, bubble and depression we have experienced since it’s inception. The results have shown, beyond any doubt, that the Federal Reserve does far more harm than good, it’s history being a string of spectacular failures, but the elite redouble their efforts at monetary control through rational policies. A sane person would stop throwing the rock into the sky, but the elite, clearly, lack sanity.

The Great Depression, according to Milton Friedman, was entirely the fault of the Federal Reserve. His argument was that the Federal Reserve allowed the Bank of the United States to fail, because it was owned by Jews, and that failure set off a cascade of events culminating in the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve then doubled down on it’s stupidity by destroying money and hoarding gold. That policy destroyed businesses around the country. As other nations sent their gold to the US to pay for their negative balance of trade, the Federal Reserve locked it away, not using it to create more money and so, even as the supply of gold to back more currency came in, the amount of currency in circulation diminished.

Since then the Federal Reserve has practiced exactly the opposite strategy. When the US fully disconnected from the gold standard in 1973, and US currency became totally fiat, the Federal Reserve was given carte blanche to print money. Like every other central bank with fiat money it did so with gusto. The stagflation of the 1970s was the result. While most people today don’t remember the situation then, to buy a house the interest rate was upwards of 14%! Imagine trying to buy a house, car or start a business with a loan today at 14% interest rate? It would be impossible. The Federal Reserve had flooded the system with too much money, the exact opposite mistake as they had made in the 1930’s.

The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to reign in the boom bust cycle of the economy. During the 19th century, there were many booms followed by busts, economists argue to this day what caused them. I am of the opinion that each was caused by the situational exigencies of the day. Monetarists however believe all economic problems are related to the currency. One boom might have been stimulated by the gold rush a bust by the playing out of easy to reach gold, to a monetarist every economic event is a money event. So they decided to invent a US central bank. They understood that Americans were wary of a central bank and so named it the Federal Reserve. It was supposed to fix the problems of the market by rationally planning the money supply.

Since it’s creation however the boom bust cycle hasn’t gone away, far from it, the cycle has got far worse. The cycle is a boom that typically lasts 4-8 years followed by a bust that lasts a year or so, with a few notable exceptions. Within the cycle there is a super cycle of huge busts that cycle about every 30-40 years and lasting about 10 years. While one could argue such a cycle in and of itself is not such a bad thing, it allows for creative destruction, the super cycle booms have become more reliant on money printing and the busts have become bigger and more dangerous. Today everyone knows if the Federal Reserve raised the interest rate above 0, (zero) the economy would collapse. In other words, the economy is on life support.

One of the pernicious effects of the Federal Reserve’s planning is that they hide the results of the rapidly growing bureaucratic state. By 1933 the Federal Reserve had done it’s damage to the US economy and it was FDR’s turn to continue the destruction. He implemented innovations in regulations that would have far ranging effects on the ability of people to do business in the US. From regulating the price of underwear to how many acres a farmer could plant, FDR brought the US economy under the command and control of central planning. Upon his death many of his draconian regulations were overturned, allowing the US economy some breathing room, but the march of bureaucracy goes on, until today every aspect of our lives are regulated by the Federal government. To protect the bureaucracy and the elite from the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve has had to lower interest rates, (expanding the money supply), to counter the negative effects of the increasing regulation and taxes, the pernicious effects of the welfare state and crony capitalism.

The 2008 housing bubble was entirely inflated by the Federal Reserve. By keeping interest rates very low the Federal Reserve allowed the prices of houses to inflate well beyond the American people’s ability to pay. That bubble pulled in resources that otherwise would have been used elsewhere. The legislators passed laws that prevented banks from using reasonable diligence in giving loans, in the name of racial equality, and the term liar loan came about. As more people brought homes, even homes they couldn’t afford, they could refinance them every year because the price continued to go up. This created a feedback loop where demand could be fueled by the increase in house prices which was increased by the low interest rate of the Federal Reserve. Of course the whole house of cards came crashing down in 2008 and the entire banking system was put in peril.

Obama came in an instead of fixing the underlying problems, he doubled down, and instituted a host of new regulations further diminishing the ability of the economy to recover and so the Federal Reserve had to monetize the debt, to make it seem like the economy was recovering. During QE3 the Federal Reserve was printing enough money to make 85,000 people millionaires a month! Just to keep the whole thing afloat and protect Obama from the fallout of his policies. Every year since the stopping of QE3 the Federal Reserve has hinted it would start to “normalize” rates, and every time it does the stock market throws a hissy fit. Even today the fiction that the Federal Reserve can normalize rates is bandied about like it could happen. Far more likely the federal Reserve will be forced into another round of innovative quantitative easing to prop up the economy.

The Federal Reserve has failed in it’s core mission, spectacularly, in every way. It’s policies have ushered in far worse economic events than could have been imagined by a 19th century economist. It’s policies, rationally considered central planning of the money supply, has created more human suffering in the 20th century than any time in US history. It has been a tool of the socialist elements, to hide the effects of their disastrous economic policies and has inflated bubbles that threaten, and continue to threaten, our banking system indeed our economy as a whole. It’s failures are legendary, yet the elite cannot even consider it’s dismantling. Yes, you or I would tire of throwing a rock into the air and hoping it will achieve orbit, but the elite never fatigue of it, in fact, they double down on their efforts… well, until our economy totally collapses.


John Pepin

Self Interest or the Iron Fist

November 2nd, 2015

Dear friends,

It seems to me, the invisible hand is much preferable to the iron fist. The new class however, believe just the opposite, that self interest can be replaced with the lash to motivate the people. Arguments can be made for both sides, the one that poor performers will become good performers, when motivated by physical pain, and the other that the human want to get ahead will drive people to perform well. The new class, being trained by academia who’s motivations, world view and personal history is outside the norm. As such the new class sees the world through a very different lens than those not in the new class. Of course, not all members of the new class have incorporated the propaganda into their psyche, but most have. That is why so many, especially economists, (who’s science was invented by Adam Smith and therefore get their authorization from him), consider Adam Smith’s invisible hand to be fiction, to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

Those in academia that train the new class live in a different world than the rest of humanity. Their ideas don’t have to be tested in the crucible of reality, they need not give actual value for their labor and they live in a cloistered world. The result has been an academic class who’s ideas have become ever more disconnected from reality. Up to ninety percent of academics are socialists and the top echelon are outright Marxists and anarchists. When confronted with the real world results of socialism, they respond in one of two ways, real Marxism has never been tried, or the wrong people were in charge. Their ideas need not comport with history, reality or even humanity, their ideas are based in the logic of ideas, which as Hegel said, in logic, if a pen is held in the air and let go, it need not drop… that past experience doesn’t necessarily predict future results.

So the new class, is inculcated with ideas that need not necessarily rely on past experience to predict the results of their actions, and so, given their position in society as the executives of our corporations, media moguls, Presidents, Legislators, judges, lawyers and doctors, in short the leaders of our society, their personal views differ from the common man’s. They seek to use human labor to their own ends, be it corporate profit, maintaining political power, enhancing their pay, or simply continuing the status quo. Since the advancement of the human condition, as they see it, is their bailiwick, the rest of us are merely here to serve their wants. As such they believe that whatever motivation to labor is used, all that counts is that the unproductive be forced to be productive. Given their world view, hubris and power, the iron fist is far more effective than self interest.

I, however, as I said in my first sentence, am of the opinion that all people benefit when self interest is the primary motivation for human endeavor. While the lash is a powerful incentive to labor, it creates a strong resentment to the person holding the whip. That resentment then causes the labor to be undermined by the laborer. While it is true, a slave can be forced to work him or herself to death by the lash, (as has been proven throughout history), they will not willingly help their master improve the efficiency of the process, lower the input cost or improve the product. The resentment that builds up when the lash is used prevents that. Human nature being what it is. Moreover, the iron fist discounts the very real probability of societal, economic, cultural or technological advancement originating from those not in the new class.

Economists should know this as a matter of course. After all, it was Adam Smith, the founder of the science of economics that explained this paradigm far better than I could, hundreds of years ago. Their authority is based on his work, but the science of economics has moved away from empirical reality to the desires of the new class. Marx, Rousseau, John Maynard Keynes, Veblen and others gave the new class a theory that fed their egos and hubris. They taught that self interest as a motivator of humanity is flawed and that the new class can plan an economy far better. The planned economy only requires as a motivator, the iron fist, to bring even the lowest producers into production. Of course they couldn’t tell labor their true intentions, labor would have rebelled aught, so they usurped the motivations of labor to enslave it. That is why those who seek to use the lash as a motivator of men and women, always talk about equality and fairness, to fool the average woman and man into believing theirs is the cause for which the statist is fighting.

Those wielding the whip never taste it’s bite, and so see no problem with it’s use, those who feel the sting however, understand the evil of it. The new class has no worry about the hoi polloi wielding the lash against them, the new class are the leaders and so only see the results second hand, in the labor that it inspires. The new class has no need of competition from the masses for their position in society, and the iron fist is the best means to both achieve good productivity from labor, while at the same time insuring their continued place. The new class seeks low cost, high efficiency and submission from those that work for them, while at the same time, high wages, power and prestige for themselves.

So there it is, one of the primary differences between a socialist and a capitalist, is the means to motivate people to work. The socialist believing the lash as the best motivator of people while the capitalist is of the opinion that self interest works best. Adam Smith, Mises, Hayak and many others fall into the latter category. Their philosophy however dis-empowers the new class, it teaches the planned economy itself is flawed, and therefore is an anathema to the new class. The new class is egoistically self interested, forswearing the good of mankind for their own narrow good, and so the iron fist is to them the ideal means to motivate people. What do you believe, is the iron fist the best motivator of people, or self interest? Your answer shows who you are.


John Pepin

Open Government

October 28th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when government works in the dark, someone is going to stub his toe. The US government more and more hides even it’s most mundane workings from the public. There are obviously grievous examples such as not showing congress what was in the Affordable Care Act, (Obama care) until they voted on it, when Nancy Pellosi famously said, “You have to pass it to see what’s in it.” There are alarming examples like the new Internet regulations that were secret, and concerning ones too, the National Atmospheric Administration hiding it’s correspondence from Congress and by default the public. Unfortunately secrecy has become the norm. Budgets are passed in the dark of night, news dumps Friday afternoon, blatant ignoring Freedom of Information suits and so forth. The workings of government are now almost entirely hidden, which poses a very real risk for our liberty, prosperity and even sovereignty.

Open government is a prerequisite of democracy. Our democratic republic looses it’s democratic function when government treaties, regulations and laws, let alone how they came to be, are hidden from the public. How can people intelligently vote for a candidate if his or her communications, negotiations and even votes are not recorded and available? Imagine working for a company that isn’t allowed to monitor your actions while at work. How can a person decide if government is working for the people or the elite if regulations are not published? Like The recent Pacific trade agreement, negotiated in the dark of night, and now that a draft has been leaked to the public we find that most of it is not about trade. Without knowledge, knowledge that open government provides, people simply cannot judge government, and therefore cannot vote logically.

When government works behind a veil bureaucrats become corrupt. This not only applies to bureaucrats but especially politicians and lobbyists. Think about it for a moment, if your employer was barred from judging your work, talking to you while at work or even monitoring your comings and goings, how long before you started taking advantage? At first you might make personal phone calls, later possibly pad your pay, then you might not even show up but put in for the time…. like many people actually do in government. Stories of Hack jobs for half witted brother in laws are rampant. Hack jobs that pay huge salaries. All made possible by the veil of secrecy.

Darkness undermines accountability. How can a politician, bureaucrat or judge be held accountable for their actions if no one is allowed to see those actions? As I explained above, corruption flows from secrecy in government, the reason is that accountability is lost. All the scandals that government and it’s officials have become embroiled in are all due to their being aired. Had no one heard about the House Banking Scandal, it would still be going on, if Fast and Furious hadn’t been discovered by the murder of Brian Terry, who had been killed by one of those guns, the number of scandals we see are dwarfed by the number that still go on, only because no one can see them.

Your liberty is threatened when government covers itself in darkness. Corrupt officials, lack of accountability and democratic institutions corroded all lead to the loss of liberty. Even as the machinations of government become ever more hidden, government requires every detail of your personal life be open to their ever staring eye. Government officials will say, “If you have nothing to hide why be afraid of government monitoring?” They make the claim they need to monitor our emails in the name of security, so I have to wonder, how is it that government knowing my pork pie recipe effects national security? When one watches another, and punishes them, especially arbitrarily, the watched is the slave and the watcher is the master… Liberty is lost.

If openness applies to us, how much more to a government that is supposed to work for us, but of course government no longer works for us, we work for it. We have to self report our income, they monitor our comings and goings, they keep tabs on every aspect of our lives, while at the same time hide even the most mundane of their own actions. There is only one place such a system can lead, to corrupt, tyrannical and unaccountable government, that works for the elite at the expense of the people. The polar opposite of a democratic republic. Indeed someone does stub their toe… you and I.


John Pepin