Archive for the ‘Judicial Sysytem’ Category

The Problem of Evil

Thursday, September 21st, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the problem of evil has been with us since the dawn of time, and many have used it to “prove” God does not exist, or alternatively… he does. The real issue however is not the problem of evil but of oppression. Which makes the real question then, is God a tyrant or a loving parent? If he were a benevolent tyrant, then there would be no evil because he would not tolerate it, if however he is a loving parent, he tolerates evil and when his children skin their knee, he picks them up and comforts them. How is it that if God expunged the universe of evil, would that make him a tyrant, you ask? Simple, to eradicate evil in all it’s forms, God would have to eliminate free will and stop the dynamism of the universe, which only could be done by oppressive means… making God a tyrant.

Autocrats detest free will, well, everyone else free will, not their own. As a result they use draconian means to quash free will, especially where it threatens their agency, but often in a vain attempt to make their country a “better place.” The oppressor sees opportunity in suppressing evil, and in doing so he foists evil on his people. But God would do it so we would like it… some might argue. To that I ask, when and where has tyranny and oppression ever been good? Moreover, those who seek to be cradled from all life’s ills by a benevolent tyrannical God, always seem to favor unlimited government, carrying their need to be coddled from the supernatural to the mundane.

Without free will we would be mere automatons, acting as we are programmed and capable of nothing else. You cannot have it both ways. Remove free will and you have taken away our creativity, our genius, our individuality and everything that makes us human beings. A robot suffers no pain, never feels a loss, cannot create a symphony or write a novel… would you have a good God turn us into robots? Sure we would feel no pain, would never suffer, couldn’t feel pain or even die, but at what cost? We wouldn’t be able to do any of the things that makes us uniquely human. That humanity, creativity and genius come at cost is no great detractor. If you think about it, everything comes at cost, nothing is free and everything worth having requires effort. Would the anti deist take that away from us as well?

The problem of natural disasters is the fall back position of those who would have God turn us into mechanical men. Sure, after a hurricane like Harvey, automatons would be programmed to help each other, but they wouldn’t do it out of a sense of compassion, no they would do it because they are programmed to! Natural disasters bring out both the best and worst of humanity. People selflessly wading through toxic alligator filled water… to save a cat! How is that not saintly? It is the very natural disasters that give free will meaning and shows the value of free will, in and of itself. While suffering is the natural state whenever the universe is dynamic, it is our reaction to them that shows what we are made of, and who we really are.

Think about what makes a parent a good parent. Is the parent who sends their child to school in a football helmet, so they don’t bump their little head, a good parent or a bad one? What about the parent who refuses to allow their child to learn to ride a bicycle, drive a car or go to the store? If a child is to grow into a functioning adult, he or she must bump their head, skin their knee and risk a car crash. All of which grows us as human beings. To protect a child at the expense of that child’s maturity, is to stultify that child, and we as human beings are no different. Without risk, free will and the lessons we learn from them we would be crippled as human beings.

Lastly you have to look at it from God’s perspective. If you were God and knew, really knew, that those who deserve it will go to heaven and live eternally in joy, death is no penalty, but a reward. Moreover, how would someone who has never suffered know joy? Without context, what is hot without cold, what is light without darkness and what is good without bad? Mere arbitrary words in a dictionary, words without meaning or substance. Like Einstein said, everything is relative, an hour on a park bench holding the hand of a lover seems like a second, and a second on a hot stove seems like eternity. It is in context that we understand arbitrary concepts, such as good and evil, and without context heaven would be as mundane as washing the dishes.


John Pepin

Post Modernism is Diabolic

Sunday, September 17th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… Post modernist philosophy is as irrational as it is diabolic. To believe in post modernism one must deny science, mathematics, and even reality itself. The fundamental thesis of post modernism is that there are no absolute truths, and so they claim a man is not a man, a woman is not a woman and up is down. The philosophy leads to any number of absurdities. Post modernism is a spurious philosophy. A spurious argument is one that sounds logical but is indeed based on a fallacy and is intended to manipulate, a spurious philosophy is also based on a logical fallacy, and is intended to misdirect people from the real truth. I will explain here why it is based on fallacious notion, leaving it up to you to decide whether it is intended to fool us.

If there is no such thing as truth, then science, which is based on the idea that the the fundamental truths of the natural world can be understood through the scientific method… ie, theory tested by experimentation, leading to an examination of the empirical evidence that substantiates the theory, or not. If there are no fundamental truths then science is bollix. Either post modernism is illogical or science is. Since the two ideas are diametrically opposed one has to believe one or the other. So is science illogical or is post modernism? Mathematics is also based on the theory there are fundamental truths in numbers. Mathematics states that two plus two equals four, but if there are no fundamental truths, then two plus two could equal five, one or twenty five million. Either post modernism is correct in stating there are no truths or mathematics is correct in stating there are fundamental truths. Both cannot be correct. Therefore either post modernism is irrational or mathematics is irrational.

Medicine is based on finding truths about how the human body works. If there are no truths, then a post modernist must believe that a witch doctor dancing around dressed in feathers and his face painted white, shaking a severed chicken leg over a patient is equally as effective a treatment as penicillin for strep throat, an ear infection or staph. I wonder, how many professors who absolutely believe in post modernism would go to a witch doctor to treat their syphilis? If they actually believe there are no truths then both options are equally valid. Moreover, by going to an oppressed witch doctor, they are showing their solidarity with the oppressed, and virtue signaling their open mindedness. It could be argued then, that those who avow a belief in post modernism, would have to go to a witch doctor to be treated for cancer rather than an oncologist, who subscribes to the patriarchal hegemony.

Perhaps this is why post modernists deny gender. I wonder, is a dog with a penis a male, or something else? What about a cat with a vagina and mammary glands, is that animal a female, or something else? If post modernists are correct then planes should fall from the sky since the science of aviation is based on fundamental truths of fluid dynamics. I cannot understand why a post modernist would put money in a bank, since their philosophy denies mathematics, it would seem a fools errand if there are no fundamental truths in numbers, their account could drop to zero simply because they made a deposit. Yet many people our society considers well educated, have convinced themselves of the fundamental ideology of post modernism, and by doing so must then deny science, medicine and mathematics. One can only conclude that post modernists are insane or diabolical.

Post modernism in truth denies reality itself. It is like a fantasy, where flights of the absurd are commonplace, up is down and down is up. The post modernists have embraced the ethos of good being evil and evil being good. The poster child for the philosophy of post modernism, is none other than George Orwell’s dystopian novel, his book 1984. In it he parrots post modernists by saying, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength, or are post modernists parroting Orwell? Reality cannot be denied any length of time before there are terrible consequences for the deniers. I have to wonder aloud however, in a world where reality is attacked and fantasy is embraced… how long before reality fights back with a vengeance? Moreover… who’s interests are served?


John Pepin

Atheism and Morality

Thursday, September 14th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the argument that atheists always fall back on, “I am a good person and I don’t believe in God…” presumes human nature to be saintly, when the direct opposite is true. Philosophers from Hsun Ching to the Victorian era came to the same conclusion, that the congenital nature of human beings is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. Others have believed that we are innately good, and before to be evil takes an outside force, Mohamed and Mencius are examples. Any rational glance at the nature of humanity however shows unequivocal that we, you and I, are evil at heart and civilization in us is taught. Moreover, the fundamental role of religion, not all but most, is to create a foundation upon which civilization can exist. Without that grounding, civilization itself must crumble, like a building with it’s foundation removed.

Take the spoiled child. He or she is anything but civilized. They are all ego and lack empathy. The spoiled child is a terror to be around, they speak out of turn, are violent, brutish, offensive and often friendless. No one wants to be around them. That missing civilization in them, (poor socialization), doesn’t serve them well, in fact a spoiled child typically has a very hard time being a productive member of society. Their antisocial tendencies alienates them from others, potential friends, bosses, coworkers and society at large. A culture of spoiled people, children in all but name, would not produce enough food to eat, let alone a scientific method. Clearly the path to barbarism then is to remove the socialization from the people. Some might argue, atheism is not the same as a spoiled child, which at first glance might seem true, but after a little bit of reflection is clearly spurious, because atheism is all about spoiled children. The atheist doesn’t want any limitations, just as a spoiled child shrugs off responsibility and limitations… and religion imposes responsibility and limitations.

Why would people be moral if not for the foundation of morality taught in most religions? Why self sacrifice, why play by the rules and why not just take what you want from someone weaker? Like a spoiled child. I am reminded of the Gaul King who when asked by the Roman, “By what right do you attack this city?” and answered, “By natural right, that the strong must take from the weak so the weak will perish and the strong may live.” Nietzsche had much the same philosophy, that each person create their own morality, and what is the logical end of such a philosophy? Anarchy. As a philosopher once said, life under anarchy is short, violent and brutish. Remove the civilizing impulse that religion gives, and you remove civilization itself, and all the goods that come of it as well.

Some atheists argue people will become civilized as a result of rational thought. They might recon that people would self control and become self interested rightly understood, as Tocqueville said, but to come to such a conclusion, one must not have read Tocqueville because he said America is good because her people are good, if the people cease to be good, America will cease to be good. He also laid the credit for the innate goodness in the American people of the time to our Christian foundation. It was the morality that Christianity teaches that allows people to be self interested rightly understood, not some innate rational conclusion. It is perfectly rational to rob a bank in the absence of law, and moral not to, in that same absence.

Moreover, history is unambiguous, those nations that have embraced atheism as a philosophy, namely socialist experiments, have all been catastrophes. From the French Revolution that ended in the mass slaughter of human beings, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, where little girls went down rows of middle aged men tied up, placing a plastic bag over each head until the man stopped struggling for air, atheist nations have been the focus of evil in the modern world. The crimes against humanity by atheists, like Hitler, were and always will be industrial in nature, effect and quality.

While religion has been perverted to justify crimes, those crimes were in opposition to the actual teaching of most religions. Imagine Jesus Christ’s revulsion to the slaughter of people in his name, you suppose Buddha wanted people harmed in his name, the fundamental conflict in the Bagavaad Gita was not the war, but Arjuna’s inner moral battle about the killing. No matter what you think of Christianity and Christians, Christ is and can only be described as a good man, and his teachings, do unto others, turn the other cheek, love thy enemies, love thy neighbors, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc… prove that. Crimes against humanity done in Christ’s name, Lao Tzu, Confucius or Buddha, is spitting in their faces.

One thing most atheists have in common is their love of tyranny. They shirk the limitations of morality and therefore must impose limitation through oppression. They judge others by themselves, and seeing themselves wanting, assume everyone else is as empty inside as they. Of course not all atheists are evil, most consider themselves to be good people, and many are. That is not because of some innate morality they carry, but is the result of the morality they were taught as children, often Christian morality, the very morality they so despise. They even judge goodness by the template of Jesus’ teachings. Remove the foundation, and you destroy the edifice, demolish the structure and it can no longer provide shelter. We can become spoiled children or civilized adults, but remember this, spoiled children cannot create civilization, only civilized people can do that.


John Pepin

The Weakness of Regulation as a Means to Solve Problems

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that which is set by culture, should be changed by culture and not legislation. Today the elite have the opposite idea. They believe government legislation can right all wrongs. That is partially why we see so much regulation. Nearly every aspect of human existence is regulated by some arcane government rule. This mindset has pervaded the people, to the extent most just accept regulation as the solution to all ills, at face value. Despite decades of examples that prove regulation only makes problems worse, and examples that the culture can do miracles, people still believe the fiction. The government monopoly school system is largely to blame for this. Look at the different results of the “war on drugs,” and the anti cigarette campaigns.

In the 1950s, almost everyone smoked and very few took drugs. Rod Serling, the creator of the Twilight Zone, smoked a cigarette while introducing his show. In old episodes of Rockford Files from the 1970s people would light up a cigarette in someone’s home without even asking if it is okay. Cigarettes were far more acceptable and embedded in our culture than drugs have ever been. Yet today cigarette smoking has seen a dramatic decrease while the scourge of drugs has become an epidemic. The one, cigarettes, was controlled by culture while the other, drugs, has been controlled by regulation. In and of itself, showing at least anecdotally that regulation makes problems worse, while changing the culture can make things better.

Not all cultural changes are positive though. While the cultural elite were very nearly unanimous that cigarette use should be curtailed, they also promoted drug use and the drug culture. Drugs were depicted to be cool while cigarettes were shown to be disgusting. As the people, and especially children who are far more susceptible to propaganda, became immersed in the pro drug / anti cigarette cultures, the use of cigarettes declined rapidly, despite their being legal, while drug use expanded dramatically, eve though drugs are illegal. Knowing this it is hard to deny the cultural elite have more power to change people’s perceptions than any amount of regulation, no matter how draconian.

Any time I suggest to a progressive that regulations should be dialed way back they always come up with the excuse, what about drugs, corporate malfeasance, toxic waste dumps and the children? Then they sit back with a smug grin that they have caught me. Of course the easy answer is the cultural difference between cigarettes and drugs but one can think much deeper than that. The culture of our corporations is that of the new class and was transmitted to them by our universities. It is a toxic culture of the ends justifying the means, of class separation, and of elitism. How many times have you heard the term, “flyover country?” That epitomizes the culture of the new class, namely they believe themselves to be the smartest, wisest and most concerned people, while the rest of us hoi polloi are miscreants in dire need of being put in our place. In short, the problems they exclaim can only be solved by regulation, are created by culture, and will only be made worse by regulation.

It is attractive though, the idea that any problem can be solved by government regulation and spending. When I was in the first grade, there was a publication disseminated to the schools. In one edition there was a story how Nixon was coming to terms with democrats about spending. The article said, democrats believe that almost any problem can be solved if only you spend enough, while republicans believe spending cannot solve every problem. In my six year old first grade mind, I thought to myself, “Of course! If you spend enough any problem can be solved!” Regulation is the same, it is mentally lazy to think that any problem can be solved by regulation as well. But I ask you, can we spend enough to stop a hurricane, what about regulating racism away, is it possible to solve hunger by regulation or spending for that matter? The easy answer is yes, the correct one is a resounding, no!

So here we are, with problems galore and multiplying exponentially, seemingly all are intractable. The scourge of drugs is at an all time high despite the war on drugs, corporations are off the rails as far as corruption goes, we have political violence on our streets not seen since NAZI Germany, our politicians don’t care about Constitutional limitations or our nation’s good, immigration is impoverishing entire nations and gun crime is out of control, in the very places with the toughest laws against guns. Regulation has not solved any problem, anywhere at anytime, yet it is always the fall back position. Meanwhile we have definitive proof that changing the culture can actually solve our problems. If we truly want to solve our most intractable problems, then all we need do is look at the template of the anti cigarette campaigns, and simply change the culture. Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, by that standard our culture, government and indeed the people themselves are insane.


John Pepin

Personal Choices Have Real Power!

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the world we live in is the aggregate of everyone’s actions, thoughts and attitudes. You might think your words don’t matter, or your minor indulgences are irrelevant to the big picture, but in that you are wrong. All the small actions accumulate into big consequences. Our culture is the accumulation of all of our decisions about what to wear, where to eat, what food to buy, what shows we watch on TV, the music we listen to and what books we read. Therefore we choose the culture by our actions. Our government is as powerful as we tolerate and our society is what we make of it, which is incredibly empowering, it puts us in charge of our culture, society and government. If you don’t like an aspect of our world, you can lead by example and change it in your own life, thus changing the paradigm, one person at a time.

When we cede our power to the elite, because we have allowed ourselves to become dejected by the seemingly overpowering tidal wave of history, they are only too happy to accept the gift. Most of us go along because to change our own actions appear too difficult, would inconvenience us or might lower our economic prosperity in the short run. That is why many people get into negative ruts, like stealing, lying and adultery. They are the easy path, while work, telling ugly truths and fidelity are harder to do. But how much harder is it, to not have to keep track of lies, pretend to be trustworthy while worrying about getting found out, or being faithful and not feeling the stress of potentially being caught? In truth the easy path is the one seen as the hard path and the hard path is actually the easy one, if we only open our eyes and hearts.

We can choose… to be the drop of water that refuses to take part of the tsunami, thus lowering the intensity of it. Moreover, by making that choice, we induce others to make the same choice, we are tribal in nature and when we see someone else acting virtuously, it is easier for us to act the same way, just as sin becomes more possible the more people we see engaged in it. When we are surrounded by people acting as villains, like monkey see monkey do, we tend to follow and become villains ourselves. By being leaders, and leading by example, we can change the direction our world is going.

We tend to follow our leaders, act as they act and think as they appear to think. Look at the popularity of People Magazine. Many of us are only looking for an example to follow, and what examples we have to follow, Hollywood stars going from bed to bed and marriage to marriage, politicians lying so much they forget what the truth really is, and our business people openly screwing their employees, shareholders and customers. Our leaders are the very people we must not follow! Sadly, it is in our nature to follow those we look up to, and so our culture, society, economy and politics degenerate into filth and egoism.

When we are allowed to seek our own good, contrary to what would seem obvious, the aggregate lot of Mankind is improved, while when we are limited by regulation and law, the aggregate lot of Man is lowered. This is because as we seek our own best good, through the free market, our good comes at another’s good. When you buy meat at the butcher who’s self interest is damaged? Certainly not the butcher, who now has money to feed his family, and certainly not the buyer, who now has meat for his children, and clearly not society because the people are better fed. Moreover, the beef industry can pay their people, truckers have cargo to haul and even the cows themselves benefit in the long run, because if everyone stopped eating beef, many types of cows would go extinct. Both the buyer and seller served their self interest, and by their doing so, the lot of Man was improved.

Many people are just followers and always will be, that is their lot in life, but need it be yours? In Elitist theory, an alternative to Marxist class theory, the elite make up 10% of any population. They are the ones who make the decisions and the people, who make up that group change. You can become a leader, an elite, and lead people to goodness… by acting good. You have the power to change the world for the better or you can give that power away to others to do with as they see fit. Those in power today would rather you follow and not lead, they don’t want the competition, plus if you lead people to goodness, it will interfere with their leading us to evil. You can be alight in a dark world for people to rally around bringing in more light, you can sit down and shut up and allow the world to be engulfed in darkness, or you can actively participate in darkening the world. The choice is yours… please choose wisely.


John Pepin

The Capitalist Versus the Socialist Mindset

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, it has become obvious that the capitalist mindset in the West, has been effectively replaced with the socialist mindset. Not just the inroads soccer, the quintessential socialist game, has made in the US, but even the way corporations are being run today. The capitalist cares not for skin color, group, tribe, culture, or creed… the capitalist only cares whether you keep your word and if your check will clear at the bank. The socialist mindset however is a return to tribalism. What is paramount to a socialist, is not whether someone can pay their bills or is a good person, but to what group do they belong. For the socialist group identity is the most important consideration when judging any person. It has become so clear the tribal socialist mindset has taken over our entire culture, because so many in power… in journalism, the bureaucracy, law, science and even business, act in ways counter to the capitalist mindset and conforming to the socialist tribal mindset.

Take the corporate policies of large publicly traded firms such as Starbucks, and Target. They have instituted policies that have a naked political cause, that are in direct opposition to the shareholder and customer’s interests. Target implemented a policy allowing men in the women’s bathrooms in a ploy to pander to the LGBT community and their political allies. Of course wise parents of young children stopped shopping there in common sense protection of their children. Leading to a loss for the shareholders and a diminishing of options for customers. Starbucks CEO alienated everyone who supports traditional marriage, by telling a shareholder to take his money elsewhere, if that shareholder couldn’t support same sex marriage. Which naturally resulted in a boycott of Starbucks and losses for the shareholders. In both cases the losses were experienced by people other than those who made the decision.

Look at how the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) schemes with big bank executives at Goldman, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and Citibank to embezzle money from shareholders. Every few months one of these or another too big to fail bank (TBTF) gets fined a billion dollars or so. Recently Deutsche Bank was fined an astronomical figure for manipulating the price of silver, no one went to jail and so the offender him or herself was not punished, instead the shareholders were fleeced out of that money. The executives still got huge bonuses and the SEC received another billion dollar payday. A win win for the collaborators and a loose loose for the shareholders and customers of the bank. Every TBTF bank has paid out a billion dollar settlement since the Financial Crisis of 2008.

Up until the election of Donald Trump the worst kept secret in journalism was it’s supposed “fairness.” Even when Walter Cronkite retired and came out as a closet one world Marxist, he maintained he provided the US with an unbiased perspective. The George Soros funded On the Media aired on National Public Radio, had one main theme, and that was, the media must retain it’s appearance of fairness regardless of it’s actual bias. Today they have tossed out all semblance of fairness and have gleefully become the propaganda wing of the Democrat party. From the non reporting of the Awan brothers scandal, to the dwelling on the long ago debunked conspiracy theory Russia Trump collusion, the media has taken off the mask and that can only mean they are desperate or confident.

The examples I could come up with would fill tombs but we have only a page, so I will finish by explaining the results of the capitalist mindset, versus the socialist one. Eggbert Slokum the sofa salesperson, only gets paid when he sells a sofa. Obviously then he only eats, pays his bills and drives a car if he sells sofas, and if he doesn’t sell a sofa once in awhile he and his family will go hungry. Being self interested Eggbert drives the sales as best he can. Do you think Eggbert will allow his family to go hungry because he doesn’t like the skin color of a customer? Is it likely he will poke in the eye, a potential purchaser of one of his sofas, at risk of loosing his car? If anyone believes there is always enough customers, that alienating one or two is an option, has never sold anything.

Sam Slick the socialist, on the other hand, is a bureaucrat. If someone comes to him he doesn’t like, all Sam need do is send the person of a politically disfavored group to the wrong window, a few times, then give him the wrong paperwork for the license. If the hateful person still doesn’t get the hint, deny her application without reason… let her fight for the license in the courts that are equally stacked against her. Sam will still get paid, he will face no negative consequences. and he will continue to move up the ladder of the bureaucracy, toting his bigotry with him. Moreover, why should Sam do anything for anyone without getting a bribe? Even members of politically favored groups should be able to supplement Sam’s pay, else they don’t need the license to do business after all, do they.

From this we can see that our community leaders have embraced the socialist mindset and thrown off the capitalist one. We see this by their actions, corporate policies, reporting and findings of law. The capitalist mindset lends itself to tolerance and inclusiveness while the socialist one lends itself to exclusiveness and intolerance, the results of which we see played out in our streets every day with ANTIFA riots, and the utter clamping down on free speech on our college campuses. Isn’t it ironic then, that much of the propaganda progressives pump out claims the inclusive to be bigots and haters, while it pretends the exclusive and intolerant are open minded. We see the purple nightshade fruits of the socialist mindset ripening before our very eyes, even as the beset American Chestnut tree, that nourished us for so long, is allowed to wither and die.


John Pepin

Division Weakens The People’s Power

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, while we the people have the most political power, ours is diverse and easily divided, thus neutralizing it altogether. The elite know this and use it against us constantly. Like I meant in my article, The Fallacy of Faction, the elite divide us into ever smaller factions, pit those factions against each other, while their faction, new class progressives, amass power because of our infighting. Machiavellian in more than just implementation but of design as well, the elite have moved us far away from where we the people, want our nation to be. We do not seek the destruction of the nuclear family, millions of abortions a year, an ever lowering standard of living, the destruction of the nation state, outright socialism, nor to be oppressors or oppressed. I bet if asked, almost everyone would agree we need less of those things and stronger families, less abortions, a higher standard of living and self determination, The goals are not very much different between the run of the mill democrat and republican, we only differ in the team we choose to get us there, but in doing so we empower those who work at cross interest to our unified goals.

Machiavelli said that the people have the most political power, and that a wise prince will seek to side with the people, not the aristocracy. A charismatic prince can hold the people to his or her banner and wield them as an overwhelmingly powerful political tool. The aristocracy on the other hand must seek to weakening that power in order to keep secure their own political power. The best way to break the power of the people is to factionalize them. Create arbitrary groups, tribes, and pit them against each other. The trouble with capitalism though is that the market system, and the mindset it creates, tends to marginalize all attributes other than ability to pay. That is one of the reasons the new aristocracy, the new class, seek to marginalize the ignorant masses by factionalizing us.

The cultural elite use every deception and manipulation the study of psychiatry has given them to create disunity in our culture. They take the smallest, most eccentric segment of the population and elevate their wants above the good of society, as a means to factionalize us. The obvious example is men in women’s bathrooms. Such an absurd cause to champion when there are real problems in our world that are and will continue to cause human suffering can only be entertained by someone either psychopathic or one who believes the ends justify the means. Many who know in their hearts the policy is bad, are willing to fight tooth and nail because that absurd policy helps an oppressed segment. The result is a powerful issue to split people, conceived and implemented by the cultural elite.

The media elite manipulate us into believing lies and disbelieving truths. Any story can be made to say anything the storyteller wants. The story of Little Red Riding hood is told many different ways to make many different morals. In a few she eats her own grandmother, in some she is saved by wash women and others she is saved by a handsome huntsman. Very subtle changes change the whole thrust and meaning of the story. The media that calls itself unbiased works in this fashion. They omit critical information, add opinion in the form of adjectives and adverbs with a political bent. Calling abortion, choice, or murder, are examples of a biased use of adverbs, equally denoting a bias on either side of the scale. This is done by the media elite to separate us by any number of ways, our religions, skin color, language and politics.

The government elite pass spurious regulations like a bird breathes. Every regulation is necessary and will solve an urgent need of society… or so we are told. Every year the ball gets moved a little further down the field towards tyranny and away from liberty. We are lambasted, if we disagree the way to limit the power of the elite is to hand them more power, as haters and showing our privilege. What we are never told, only left to surmise for ourselves, is that the new regulations are almost always addressing a problem created by old regulations! Problem reaction solution at work. All of which divides us weakening our collective political power.

The only real way to undermine the elite’s factionalizing us… is to practice courtesy, thankfulness, be undiscriminating in our love, inner harmony, filial service, human heartedness, pragmatism and charity. It is hard to hate those you have chosen to love, anger is like a bulldozer in a swamp in the heart that is tranquil. We must pattern our love of others after the selfless love of the family. Keep in our minds, “There before the grace of God go I,” whenever we look down on another, for whatever reason, for if we were born into their circumstances we might not have ended up as well off. It is only through loving each other that we can overcome our divisions. There will always be divisions, I might want to walk around the right side to close the door, and you might want to walk around the left side, but we both want the barn door closed… as long as we love, respect and value each other the door will get closed, and we will not be at loggerheads keeping it open forever.


John Pepin

Progressive Brilliance!

Friday, August 25th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, progressives have elevated the art of spurious logic to stratospheric highs, surpassing even the Greek Sophists and Rhetoricians. You have to admit their ability to twist the truth in to a lie and a lie into the truth is remarkable. It takes a special kind of mind, to be able to convince people their eyes are lying, and the used car salesman is telling the truth. Progressives have done it. They have managed to make up down, right left and inside out. One wonders if they have had help of a diabolical nature, nevertheless, I take my hat off to them, their achievement is second to none! Progressives truly are the best schemers on the planet and throughout time.

Progressives have convinced the people of Europe to commit suicide in the name of tolerance. It is amazing that people, in Rotherham for example, are willing to let their daughters be raped and sold into the sex slave business for decades and anyone who said anything, was arrested… and they accepted it! In fact even with Sweden becoming the rape capital of Europe, daily terrorist attacks and open calls for the annihilation of Western civilization, the people of Europe are embracing their own extermination and offering their children up as well. I cannot imagine how anyone could accomplish such a feat of chicanery.

They have managed to make many people believe that killing a baby is a choice. Not just the slaughter of over 60 million babies since 1973, but to have people so spellbound they accept with glee the torturing babies to death so their pieces parts can be sold at a greater profit, is just awe inspiring. How does one go about making killing a baby not just allowed but the best option? You would think anyone with brains enough to keep their heart beating, would know better but against the power of progressive spurious logic, most minds just wither away.

It must have been a genius that made so many believe that “shall not be infringed,” means “Must be regulated!” Not just that but to make people believe that an amendment to our Constitution in the bill of Rights… is to allow government to keep and bare arms, is pure brilliance! Imagine it, now the Bill of Rights is to protect government’s rights, instead of individual rights! Up is down and left is right in the new world order. They have connived to get weapons in the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of law abiding citizens… supposedly to protect the law abiding citizens!!

Imagine how hard it must have been to fool us into thinking socialism has never been tried after tens of millions of people have died under socialist regimes. With the weight of history against them it is a real achievement. I always loved the line, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Or in the case of socialism and history, “who are you going to believe, the progressives… or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Maduro, Kim Un, Idi Amin, Lenin, or any of the dozens of other Marxists that slaughtered their way through whole populations? To manage to fool so many into embracing an ideology that has resulted in so many deaths, suffering and tragedy, is the act of a true master of deception!

Spurious logic means, to make an argument that sounds logical but is in fact illogical and meant to trick. The ancient Greeks called it sophistry. The use of which is an art. I would think it difficult to make a person act directly against their own interests, but progressives have managed to do it. I should imagine it impossible to get people to allow their very own daughters to be abused in the name of tolerance but Europe has embraced it. You would think it hopeless to deceive people into disarming themselves so the criminals who prey on them will be safer, but like the woman said, No mother wants to worry her son might get killed robbing a liqueur store! I cannot imagine how progressives have hidden the history of socialism so well that many educated people want to visit that suffering on themselves and their children. You have to hand it to progressives, their ability to get people to harm themselves is almost mephistophelian. Makes one wonder if they have supernatural help…


John Pepin

Good Greed and Bad Greed

Monday, August 21st, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is a myth that pervades modern thinking, that myth is, the new class seeks the benefit of all while the bourgeoisie seek only profit. The myth both misstates reality and implies, the result of the first will be good, and the second bad. It misstates reality because it presumes members of the new class are selfless, which is of course absurd, if we are to accept they are human beings. They, like you and I, are self interested, and being self interested, they use the power their professions give them to maximize their individual profit. To claim otherwise, is to claim they are not human beings, angels perhaps? Moreover, the result of the professionals maximizing their personal profit, (greed), yields a much worse result for humanity, the economy and especially liberty, than a filthy industrialist’s profit driven greed. To be rational we must look at the result, pragmatically, to see which form of greed is better for humanity.

A capitalist in the traditional sense is not actually driven by greed, so much as a desire to make a thing work. All the greats have been this way. Ford built his cars to make a profit of course, else he couldn’t have made his cars, but hos primary motivating drive was to produce cars for everyone. Entrepreneurs devote their lives to their personal drives, profit is just a by product, the goal is to produce. Once the entrepreneur is dead, the sons manage the business into the ground and the grandchildren become half wits, unable even to screw in a light bulb without help. That is the reason for the saying, shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations. This explains why the grandchildren of industrialists need trust funds… they would quickly burn through any amount of money and starve in short order.

Today we hear about how mechanization will drive everyone out of work. Marx said when the forest of arms looking for work grows ever thicker and those arms become ever thinner, that’s when the revolution will take place… because the invention and widespread use of the mechanical loom would drive people out of work. What he didn’t realize though, was that the mechanical loom allowed the price of a wool coat to get so low a humble worker could afford to buy one, instead of having to stuff his shirt with straw in winter. Moreover, the workers in fabric factories didn’t have to endure the repetitive motion problems that plagued those pulling and pushing a traditional loom. As the new class prophet, Marx was denigrating the means and profit of entrepreneurs, he missed the result of their labors. A higher standard of living and lower physical demands for the average worker.

What is the result of someone building a thing continually improving upon it and making it available to ever more people? Our modern world. Everything you consider a necessity was initially a luxury. It was an entrepreneur who probably invented it in the first place, then made it available to everyone to the extent it has become a necessity. At one time sewing needles were a luxury! If not for people who have an inner drive to build, innovate and create, humanity would, and indeed history proves… stagnate. Absent a means for entrepreneurs to fulfill their inner desire to create, there is no advancement, there can be no advancement. It is only through the creation of products, implementation of ideas and new ways to structure firms that we all have a phone in our back pocket that also takes pictures and is connected to an endless encyclopedia.

When the new class is given free reign to their avarice, they pursue business plans that alienate their customers, destroy their brands, wreck the reputations of once great companies they took over from industrialists and entrepreneurs, drive down wages so they can get ever more extravagant bonuses, pillage pension plans, move jobs overseas, hold workers in contempt… and all at the shareholder’s expense. Firms are bankrupted, economies crash, wages are held down, legal fees skyrocket and liberty must be curtailed to stop people discussing what is going on. All these externalities clearly are negative and indict the unlimited ability of the new class to feed it’s greed.

Without spending acres of trees elaborating on this and belaboring the point, when the greed of the new class is allowed, the lot of mankind is lowered, when the greed of entrepreneurs is allowed, the lot of mankind is improved. Looked at pragmatically then, it makes sense that entrepreneurship should be encouraged, and the ability of CEOs, lawyers, politicians, bankers, journalists, bureaucrats, economists, doctors, and other professions requiring a bachelors degree or better should be controlled. The old class, the bourgeoisie, should be allowed their greed, so they can make the modern equivalent of wool coats available to everyone.


John Pepin

The Fallacy of Faction

Thursday, August 17th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… language is such a poor means of communication, it is barely utile. Certainly you can grunt out that you are hungry, follow, look a deer and shoot it, and a few other concepts and philosophies have come into it over the years, but most words are so hard to define, even when consulting a dictionary, they are almost useless. This is never more true than when the words are political in nature. Politics is, by it’s nature mercurial, and the language of politics is mercurial as well. We think we know what terms such as left, right, capitalism, communism, fascism and oligarchy mean, but we don’t. Not you nor I. That is because those words have different meaning to different people. A white horse is not a horse so to speak. Without a stable definition a word means nothing.

Capitalism is just such a word. The word means something different to anyone who speaks it. To some it means cronyism, corporatism, oligarchy, company towns, tyranny and exploitation. To others it means free enterprise, free markets, limited government interference, freedom, industry, industriousness, wealth and opportunity. Yet these are not the only definitions of capitalism, there is every shade in between those two extremes. The word capitalism is so mercurial it is worthless as a means of conveying a thought. Better to grunt “hungry,” You will get the point across.

The left/right political definition has become utterly absurd. A national socialist who believes in the planned economy is on the right, and a communist, who also believes in a planned economy is on the left. Both sides are authoritarian, the definition rests on whether the faction believes in globalism, (one world government), or nationalism, (the nation state), a globalist being a leftist and a nationalist being on the right. The only philosophy not afforded any room in that definition… is for people who believe in freedom, free enterprise and free markets. Which highlights another aspect of political speech, that philosophy you dislike can be marginalized, by drowning it within other negative definitions.

Certainly there are people who believe in free enterprise, that also believe in a one world government, and those who believe in the nation state as well. Both parts of that faction, who believe in free enterprise, are separated by the left right paradigm, rendering that faction less potent than it otherwise would be.

The terms liberal and conservative used to have some utility but have long since lost any use whatsoever. A classic economic liberal is what today in the US is called a libertarian or conservative, and a classic economic conservative, is what today is called progressive or liberal. Meanwhile what used to be a classic social liberal is today a progressive or liberal, as a social conservative classically defined, is what we consider a conservative today. Most people are lost somewhere in between the definitions making those terms to be confusing at best and fraudulent at worse.

Politics doesn’t like hard definitions. Politicians like to have their words mean different things to different people. The best politicians are empty suits the people fill with their imaginations. Like Obama was all things to all people when he ran for office, once he got into office, he became something else altogether. Politicians therefore have an incentive to destroy the meaning of words, muddy their definitions and conceal their implications. That is just the nature of politics. It is in our own best interest however to try to understand what people actually think then.

Understanding what others really think is made nearly impossible by the nature of our language. How many times have you or I argued about capitalism with someone when if we had both defined what we meant by capitalism we would have discovered we agreed on ninety percent? He was arguing against corporatism and I was arguing for freedom. Both of us hate corporatism, and both want freedom, yet we argue past each other over a word we never defined! The only real disagreement was on our definitions. Politicians want us to misunderstand each other, they want the water turbid and the air foggy, to keep us in small factions and thus easier to control. We should endeavor to clear the air, let the water settle and actually take the time to understand each other. We might find to our everlasting horror… we agree on far more than we disagree.


John Pepin