Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg…

Monday, December 28th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, our leaders are trying to get us to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, to extract the gold inside. We live in a society and culture that teaches us to focuses on that which we don’t have, rather than what we do have, which makes us ungrateful, even dismissive about the gifts we enjoy, leading us to a state of perpetual unhappiness. Even the poorest in Western societies are rich, by world standards, yet even the rich in Western societies are resentful and unhappy. When we look at the standard of living of people in history, even those who live in impoverished lands as lower class today, have it at least as good as a Roman statesman. Our age is the age of plenty but we are less grateful than those who came before us and had it far worse. Our lack of thankfulness coupled with our arrogance is corrosive to our economy, culture and society. Sadly, it will be our children who pay the price of our childishness.

Thankful people are happy people and ingrates are always joyless. Gratitude comes from a sense that what we are and what we have is not intrinsic to us but comes from without. We may work hard for what we have, but gratitude is the acknowledgment and understanding that anything can be taken from us at any time, even our very lives. Arrogance is our lack of such wisdom, it is the belief what we have and what we are is intrinsic to us, it shows our profound lack of wisdom. Thanklessness is the natural outgrowth of arrogance. Think about it, have you ever met someone who was arrogant, covetous and ungrateful, who was happy? Have you ever met someone who was humble, generous and grateful, who was unhappy?

The Roman statesman had it pretty good for the day. They had the opportunity to be gluttons, they had the finest clothes and slaves to meet their every demand, but a simple cut on the finger could slay them, periodic plagues would wipe out large swaths of the population, Rome was in a constant state of war, they died at a very young age by today’s standards and they were limited in the knowledge they could learn. Even a Roman emperor had less liberty than the poorest in the US today. Yet Rome was the peak of human civilization until the industrial revolution. Other great civilizations had high standards of living and many were technologically advanced, but none had such a widely dispersed wealth we enjoy today.

None had the medical advances we take for granted and none was able to travel the globe in a day. We stand in an age where disease has been, if not eradicated, at least tempered. Small pox, once one of the largest killers of people, is essentially extinct. Knee and hip replacement is common along with many other quality of life enhancements. Even cancer is showing signs of retreat in the face of our medical onslaught. We can replace a failing heart or fix a defective heart valve but we are less human hearted than our ancestors. Moreover, these medical advancements are most available to the widest strata of people in the US, where there is no single payer healthcare.

There are less starving people today than any other time in human history, and those who are starving experience it due to war, war because someone or a group of people, want more and are ungrateful of what they do have. Famine due to crop failures today is almost unheard of. All the great famines of the twentieth century were due to wars to advance socialism. Our agricultural science feeds over 5 billion people on the planet, a figure that would be unheard of even a century ago. Today more food is thrown away than was produced during Roman times. Not only the staggering quantity that is available but the variety. Anyone in a western country can go to a supermarket and buy produce that is out of season or grown half way across the planet. Yet instead of being thankful for plenty we gripe our food isn’t sufficiently organic.

It is our lack of thankfulness and our arrogance at what we don’t have that is the greatest threat to our standard of living. Socialism thrives on a lack of gratitude, jealousy, arrogance and hubris. The metric our leaders use to measure the justness of our society, the gap between the rich and poor, is a metric designed to make us unhappy, jealous, and arrogant. The true metric should be the standard of living of the poor, not the rich. There will always be rich and poor. The rich will always have it better than the poor, but the real measure of the justness of a society is the standard of living of the poor. Are they well fed, clothed, have shelter, access to medicine, clean water, transportation and luxuries? In any advanced economy the gap between the rich and poor will be huge, what counts is not if a rich person can have dozens of luxury cars but can the average person have a car, not the size of the palatial estate of the wealthy but do the poor have shelter at all, nor the number of designer shoes of the magnate but do the poor have shoes.

The anger and ingratitude of our society puts the poorest among us at risk. To try to make everyone equal in wealth is the path to universal poverty. The driver of our immense standard of living is liberty. Liberty we should be grateful for, since it allows us to drive cars, eat what we want, live where we want, attend the church we want and most of all, produce what we want. Liberty tempered by the market system drives our standard of living forward. Our standard of living in not intrinsic to us, we don’t deserve it by some divine edict, it is the result of the system, individual liberty a the market system, people who lived before us built. Removing liberty and the market system, to make everyone equal, is to kill the very thing that propels our standard of living. To arrogantly try to extract the very thing that makes our economy so productive and out lives so easy, from a sense of jealousy and ingratitude, is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg, and we all know how that tale turned out. So be thankful for what you have, try not to covet other people’s stuff and be humble, that is the path to riches beyond your wildest dreams.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Philosophy of Liberty

Thursday, December 24th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, no man can have liberty while the government is at liberty, and answering the great questions, leading to the advancement of humanity and the human condition, requires liberty as a prerequisite. The great questions are, what is Man, why are we here and what is the nature of the universe, can only be answered by free human beings. The great questions are a dancing landscape, a right answer today may not be tomorrow, and there are as many answers as there are people alive. It is clear, to me at least, that the aggregate of individual intelligence far outweighs even the smartest, wisest and most virtuous central planner. The great questions require liberty to be answered, because, every human being has a say in them, we all have a part of the puzzle, if we are told what to think, then in trying to answer the great questions we are putting a puzzle together, missing almost all the pieces. Liberty is the only way we can advance as a species, exploiting the cumulative knowledge and intelligence of every man woman and child, to the benefit of humanity, and can only be achieved through liberty.

It is an old political axiom that as the power of the state grows the power of the people shrinks. It is empirically proven by the mass of human history. Individual freedom can only exist in those places and times when the power of government is restrained. Liberty of the individual requires limited government but where government has liberty the individual cannot. To argue in favor of arbitrary rule, as progressives do, is to argue that a few ubermen are smarter than the whole of humanity, are more wise and more virtuous and therefore can guide humanity to a more human hearted place. To argue against arbitrary rule, as libertarians do, is to argue that people are best equipped to make the decisions that effect their own lives, better than someone at a distance, who doesn’t necessarily have the individual’s best interest in mind.

The great questions, what is Man, what is thought, why are we here, what is the nature of the universe, etc.. cannot be answered by a few ubermen for us but need to be answered by everyone for themselves. Philosophy can help but in the end everyone has to answer those great questions for themselves. In doing so we move as a species closer to the truth. Each time someone thinks about these questions and answers them for him or herself, then acts on their answer in their own life, we as a people move away from ignorance and closer to knowledge. It is only through our individual probing, probing that can only be done in a state of liberty, that we cumulatively reach consensus. Yet that consensus is fluid. As humanity grows in knowledge and wisdom that consensus evolves with us.

No individual, regardless of his or her intellect, wisdom or virtue, can match the aggregate knowledge, intellect and wisdom of the whole human race. To believe one is so is to be truly ignorant and arrogant. As a rope is stronger than any fiber within it, the human race is smarter when all work together rather than one alone. The way to create a smart rope of humanity is not to marshal people by the threat of violence, economic coercion or demand for social unanimity, to one end, but by allowing each the liberty to make their own decisions, right or wrong, to our own ends. Yes some will make bad decisions and fail, while others will make good decisions and win, that is the nature of the human condition and is the way we achieve consensus of what works and what doesn’t.

To eliminate failure and victory is to undermine the very mechanism in which humanity evolves. Each of us is a test subject, each city is an experiment, each nation is a trial and together we test, probe and experiment ways of living. Then we pragmatically examine those individual experiments to glean answers to the great questions. If we are all forced to live as the state wants, experimentation stops and humanity stultifies. We stop evolving and our very strength, our individuality is taken away. It is only in empowering our strength that we could ever have a prayer of answering the great questions. It is only through experimentation that we can get ever closer to the truth. Each trial, each experiment and each test brings us closer. Those experiments however can only happen when we have liberty. That is why the greatest advancement of the human condition has happened in times of greatest liberty.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Islamism, Russia, NATO and WWIII

Monday, December 21st, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if you beat a dog over and over, it will eventually become vicious, then to justify further beatings because the dog has become vicious is just plain evil. Russia is a nation that has been invaded many times and every time has lost a huge percentage of their population, had their economy devastated, industry burned and lost more liberty in the reconquering of their land. In short, Russia has been beaten time and time again, so now the Russian people have become vicious, and now our leaders claim we need to beat them since they are vicious? During the Cold War, global Marxism needed to be challenged and defeated, since the primary global sponsor of Marxism at the time was the USSR, NATO was an alliance that had utility. Today, global Marxism has moved into our own governments and universities and so NATO has lost it’s utility, but the elite want to keep the alliance growing, not to stem Marxism as it was intended, but to advance it.

To the Russians, NATO is a knife at their throat. They rightly see NATO as another approaching invasion force. Since they have become all to accustomed to invasion from the west they are rightly nervous about a growing NATO. As the buffer around them, that the monster Stalin built after WWII, shrinks and NATO gets ever closer to their boarder, Russia will inevitably become more belligerent. It is human nature. They see NATO has lost it’s stated purpose, to stop the spread of global Marxism, and is scratching around for a replacement. That is why Ukraine is at war with Russia, Russia took two territories from Georgia and the Russia people love Putin. All because of the deep genetic fear that their history has ingrained in the Russians.

Russia is not all daffodils and honeycombs. Russia is no different than other countries in it’s use of evil to achieve it’s goals. After the 1917 revolution the Marxists who ran the Soviet Union marched across all their neighbors. Soviet armies marched west conquering the Baltic States, east and south subjugating Ukraine, Georgia, and central Asia. Before Germany invaded the USSR in operation Barbarossa, the Soviet army had attacked Finland driving that Norse nation into the Axis. The crimes of Russia, especially during the Soviet period were heinous, and were more about expanding Marxism than protecting their boarders. The fall of the Soviet Union however changed the paradigm on the planet, to the chagrin of the new class intellectuals, Marxism had been proved a failed system.

Gorbachev and then Yeltsin moved Russia into the world community, they allowed the vassal states to cede and they opened the Russian economy to capitalism. This angered the intellectuals even more. That their chosen system had failed as bad enough, but adding insult to injury, the sponsor of their system had become a turn coat and embraced the hated capitalism. That is why instead of helping Russia overcome it’s transitional pains, the West turned the screws on Russia. The new class elite, who had always thought the USSR would win the cold war, despised the new Russia.

Meanwhile the elite had this powerful military alliance they had built for decades to defeat the USSR, and their enemy had simply crumbled from economic malaise. Loathe to disassemble that which had taken so long to build the leaders of NATO scratched around for a new mission for it. In keeping with the old axiom, the leaders of today always prepare for the last war, they retained NATO and even expanded NATO’s mission. Gobbling up nations, ever closer and closer to Russia, NATO went from containment to aggression. Every time another country would join NATO, the Russian people, out of a deep sense of historical perspective, would become more nervous.

Today, the US and Europe are in the unenviable position of defending the Islamic State against Russian attacks. Our tax dollars and military assets are being used to protect people who are committing Genocide against Christians, Jews and Yazidis. Our military machine is defending those who are raping little girls in ritual fashion and our children are put in harm’s way to stop the Russian’s from bombing monsters. Out of their blind lust for power, ideological hatred of Russia for proving Marxism a failed system and their backward mindset of fighting the last war, our leaders have put us squarely on the wrong side of history and human heartedness.

The former Soviet state have every right to be able to defend themselves from Russia, who they rightly see as a threat to their sovereignty, but expanding NATO, an existential threat to Russia, was not the way to do it. Missile defense systems, arms sales and strong diplomacy would have achieved the result without antagonizing Russia. Moreover, NATO should have been disbanded immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Our leaders have failed us over and over but this failure could lead to world war, and indeed it appears we are on the cusp of world war. Instead of alienating a potential ally wouldn’t it be a more intelligent move to embrace the Russians, and ask Russia to join the European Union, (although I sincerely doubt they would given the way Europe is on a mission to commit suicide), bringing Russia into the West?

The people there have suffered a century of Marxist tyranny, they have withstood multiple invasions from the West and they have persevered. The Russian people are tough and pragmatic, but have been kicked over and over, and so have become wary. Sure Putin might be an ass, although I have never met the man, but the Russian people deserve respect, even admiration. The same people that told us not to offend the USSR as it was tyrannizing it’s own people, are telling us now to be aggressive with Russia, and coddle the Islamists. Perhaps even the war in the Ukraine could be stopped, if instead of putting a dagger to Russia’s throat, we disbanded NATO.

Russia is like a dog that has been kicked too much, but is there any question that in a fight, the guy with a dog on his side will almost always emerge victorious? We have to ask ourselves, what do we want to happen in the world? Do we want war with Russia to defend the Islamists? Do we want Ukraine to keep bleeding? Or do we want to defeat the Islamists who are slaughtering their way across the globe, invading Europe and will soon take up Nazi Germany’s role in world history? Do we want to restore Ukraine to peace and prosperity? What we do, or more to the point, what our leaders do, will answer those questions.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Argentina’s Election of Macri

Thursday, December 17th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Argentina is one profoundly corrupt nation, and that bodes ill for any possible economic prosperity. This isn’t news from the perpetual failure, Argentina, is no exception it is the rule. Argentina seems to have an ability to choose the wrong path as an intrinsic attribute. The corruption in it’s government is as legendary as is it’s economic failures. Argentina has become the poster child for everything wrong with modern government. Lately we have prosecutors found dead in their bathtubs, who have the audacity to write up criminal charges against the former President over collusion with Islamic terrorists from Iran to kill Jews, and is it a shock to anyone that the new prosecutor and the courts refuse to hear the case? Such endemic corruption would be unthinkable in a market based country, but Argentina is a socialist nation, and so such corruption is merely the way to do business, which is the future of any nation that chooses socialism. Argentina however, has just changed course, for how long no one can tell but electing a capitalist is a start.

In 1900 Argentina had the same GDP per person as the US. Since then Argentina has gone down the path to socialism in a big way. All governments like to hand out other people’s money, it makes the government appear generous without costing the elite that run it anything. Argentina has taken that strategy to a new level. Their healthcare system is open to anyone who needs healthcare from around the world. People flock to Argentina from all over South America to cash in on it which costs the Argentine people tons of money. The costs are paid for by the people through lower wages, lower standards of living and a shrinking middle class. The costs are born by the people and the benefits are given to the elite.

This year Argentina elected Mauricio Macri who ran on a platform of economic transformation. He claimed he will change the direction from socialism, which has failed so spectacularly in Argentina, to laissez faire. We will have to wait and see if he does, but that the Argentine people elected someone who will change course from socialism to capitalism, is encouraging. With it’s history of socialism and the outright destruction of the middle class through many bouts of hyper inflation is worry some however. It shows the people of Argentina will likely be expecting an immediate economic miracle, which after so many years of corruption and economic absurdity, will inevitably be slow, especially since Macri will have to fight against the entrenched bureaucracy.

The corruption became even more evident after Macri’s election. The record office had a suspicious fire, which destroyed all the records of who is owed what from the Argentine government, as well as all the pay offs and corruption of the last regime. Convenient eh? Then dozens of armored trucks left the Central bank will all the Argentine gold reserves and foreign reserves delivering them to waiting airplanes to be whisked out of the country to private accounts only God knows where. Such shenanigans highlight the results of socialist governments. Socialism is not for the benefit of the people but for the elite. The elite live like kings while they steal everything that is not nailed down.

The endemic corruption within the government will not just go away because a new president has been elected, it will need to be dug out and excised, like the cancer it is. How such a feat can be done with people who are corrupt themselves will be an enigma, unless Macri can somehow get the government and people to agree on a Constitutional amendment that establishes a NUMA. Drawn from people outside government such a branch could effectively root out the corruption that has so hobbled Argentina. Anything short of a NUMA would be smashed against a wall of corruption decades in the making.

Argentina has a long hard road ahead of it to get their economy and government functioning again. The new President Macri is facing an entrenched bureaucracy that will try mightily to stymie his every effort at reform, corruption in every nook and cranny of the government, a people anxious for results, and a media that is at best hostile to his reforms. He does have the benefit however of presiding over a nation that is rich in natural resources, has good access to the ocean, has an educated people willing to work, and fairly good infrastructure. We should pray for the people of Argentina, that Macri’s reforms do the trick and that Argentina puts its socialist past behind it. Not just for the Argentine people, but as an example for all the people in poor countries beset by socialism and corruption.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Bigotry is Never Progress…

Monday, December 14th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, bigotry is alive and well today, and the very same people are responsible. They claim we need institutionalized prejudice to fight former institutionalized prejudice. Those people are the heirs of progressives of old, like Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and their ilk, who created the institutions of prejudice that are active today. The victims of their bigotry are different but their bigotry is obvious to anyone with their eyes open. Moreover, they use the term racist to quell debate and have bandied the terms, bigot, prejudice and racist so much, the despicable nature of the words and their negative connotation has lost most of their value. The reason progressives use bigotry is several fold, they get power from it, they get wealth from it, it allows them to own the debate, and most of all, they get a feeling of superiority from it. Humanity needs to move beyond such childish tactics before our philosophy can rise to the heights it needs to, to support our scientific and technological advancements, because unless our philosophy keeps up with our technology and science, those two legs will become unstable and fall, bringing our whole society down with them.

Science and technology require as a prerequisite, a philosophical underpinning to support them, else they falls over due to ignorance and bias. Civilization has three legs, philosophy, (which includes religion), Science and technology. Unless they grow together the civilization becomes unstable. If one shrinks as the others grow a fall becomes inevitable and most human civilizations throughout history have become unstable this way. They grow in science and technology as their philosophy becomes more human hearted, but once they have reached a new pinnacle of prosperity, the people are led away from their human hearted philosophy, by the elite who have become arrogant and egoistic. The leg of the philosophy supporting the civilization and society shrinks and the collapse becomes inevitable. In hind sight all civilizational collapses are obvious but the people within that civilization are blind to it, even attacking those who point out the obvious as crazy, like the Romans did Titus Livius.

Bigotry is any time people are lumped into groups by a characteristic. It is most foul when that characteristic is considered negative. Whenever someone says, “All of these people are…” they are demonstrating bigotry. It doesn’t matter who the group consists of nor the characteristic described, whenever someone groups people by a characteristic, it is bigotry. We can also deduce that group politics is based on bigotry. To factionalize the people and pit each group against the others is to use prejudice as a political weapon. Such scheming has been the progressive playbook from the beginning. There is no difference between Jim Crow and vilifying gun owners. Both pile dispirit people into a group, assign that group certain negative characteristics, and then pits society against that group for the negative qualities they have been assigned.

Progressivism cut it’s teeth on bigotry and racism, today progressives use it their fall back position, prejudice as a bulwark against debate. There is not a debate today where progressive don’t use their ace in the hole. They play the race card at every opportunity, sometimes to claim preferential treatment for this or that group, sometimes to vilify a group or to simply stop a debate that is skirting the truth about a subject. Progressivism is all about group politics. Without lumping people into some artificial group and either claiming that group is put upon or evil, progressivism would have no place. It is all about groups, like all socialism, the very term, socialism, means politics for the benefit of a certain group. Just listen to them deny the sovereignty of the individual for the group, “People need to start thinking about what is best for the greater good instead of themselves…” Such utterances put the group ahead of the individual and thereby are bigoted in the most general sense of the term.

The most pernicious form prejudice takes is when the bigot gets a feeling of superiority from his or her prejudice. This is perhaps the greatest sin of progressivism. Progressives get a feeling of moral superiority from their prejudice and bigotry. While denying moral authority that comes from the divine they find moral superiority in the banal. That is possibly the main reason progressives and all socialists, are so attached to prejudice, is that feeling of superiority it gives them.

At their very core, bigotry, racism and prejudice are comparative. “I am better than them because…” It is foolish to compare yourself to others, because there will always be those who are greater and lesser, and that leads to arrogance and anger. Bigotry, racism and prejudice have no place in modern society, especially as a political weapon. When you see it point it out, not as a means to stop debate, but to protect open debate and nullify the power bigotry has over us. In order to continue expanding in science and technology our civilization must advance philosophically. True philosophy is not bigoted, no matter the group protected or harassed, true philosophy is human hearted, inclusive and includes the divine, never the banal.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Freedom Must be Defended

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the moment opinion is met with death threats, there is tyranny in the land. Donald Trump, who is not my first choice for President, recently said we should stop all Muslim immigration to the US and that statement has caused a firestorm. The RNC has condemned Trump in the harshest of terms, the media that calls itself unbiased has gone into anaphylactic shock, and now there are death threats from the religion of peace. His opinion has resulted in death threats and so there is real tyranny, the tyranny of intolerance, censorship, blind ideology and outright hatred. Such outright tyranny should send a chill down the spine of every freedom loving person, in America, and beyond. Calling for the death of a person because you disagree with his or her opinion shows a presumption that boarders on the demented. Moreover, to presume to call for the death of someone else because of their opinion, by reciprocal attribution, means anyone else has an equal right to call for another’s death for their opinion, which is a road to chaos and violence.

Carter not only stopped all Iranian immigration in the 1970s but forcibly shipped back all those Iranians who were here legally! His measures were not called draconian and there were no calls for Carter’s death. Many of the people, if not most, were horrified that the Shaw was overthrown and the crazies won the government. I had a friend, Sayeed, who was here on a student visa. He cried at the thought of going back, but the government came, arrested him and sent him back to certain death. I asked him why he was so afraid of the new government, and he told me, “They are more crazy than you can imagine…” Sayeed didn’t agree with the Ayatollah nor was he a nut job, he was a good person who happened to be Iranian and had to be arrested and shipped back because of Carter’s decree. Agree or disagree with Carter, no one called for his death, even though he went way beyond what Trump called for.

There is an old saying, “If you want to know who your masters are look at who you cannot criticize.” It can also be understood as if you want to know who wants to be your master look at who refuses criticism and calls for your death if you do. Here in the land of the free our forefathers have always resisted would be tyrants. To accept such rhetoric as calls for the death of people is tantamount to accepting the yoke of slavery. Such intolerance has no place in our society. Not just calls for the death of Trump because he has an opinion that some find unacceptable, but all calls for the death of others, like Black Lives Matter calling for police to be “fried like bacon…” or Louis Farrakhan calling for 1000 murderers to kill white people, such rhetoric demands tyranny over others and is the antithesis of freedom.

Indeed it is our very freedom that has allowed our society, based on the free exchange of ideas and opinions that has propelled the world into the heretofore unimagined standard of living we enjoy, the globe over today. Those places where opinion and ideas were met with death threats have always been backward and barbaric places where the advancement of civilization, science and culture has retreated. Humanity has only advanced when individual liberty has been protected. It is not unoffensive speech that needs to be protected, but offensive speech, otherwise civilization corrodes and the human condition worsens. Freedom, of action, speech, self protection and thought are the cornerstones of civilized man, censorship, intolerance and oppression are shifting sand that will collapse a civilization no matter how well it is constructed.

To presume to control another’s speech, thought or liberty is hubris of the highest order. Such hubris forgets that if one believes he can control another, then that other has every right to control him! Any attribute foisted on me, I can reciprocate, and foist back on you. Call for my death and I have every right to call for yours. That my friends is the path to chaos and violence and can only result in the lowering of the human condition. Take a long look at what people say. If they call for the silencing of others, limits on liberty, thought laws or religious fidelity, especially with threats of death, they serve chaos and violence and have no place whatsoever in modern civil society. They are an anachronism that belongs in the dark ages where people had slaves, burned others at the stake and beheaded people for idolatry. Those that call for the death of another because of the other’s opinion should be forcibly rounded up and shipped away, or denied entry, because such attitudes lead to retribution thereby becoming a spiral to unrest, famine and want. Whether they are college kids, radical racists, the media that calls itself unbiased, climate change alarmists or Islamists, they have no place in the land of the free. They can go live in those places that have earned the wages of tyranny and intolerance, to practice their tyranny and intolerance.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Atheism, Belief and Morality

Monday, December 7th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if you think all there is to our universe is what you can see, smell, hear, taste and feel, you are irredeemably foolish. Sadly, many only believe in what they can sense despite all the evidence that most of creation is not sensible. Can you see, hear, taste, feel or smell an amoeba? They exist nonetheless, indeed even most of human science describes that which is insensible and only understood by association. Dark matter and dark energy are examples, yet many believe in Dark Energy but not God, because they claim there is no proof of God’s existence, while standing in the midst of the ultimate proof, the universe. While science can describes a lot of our universe it falls short in most ways. Science only describes the world, it doesn’t explain it. Science has become a religion unto itself, and like many old religions it is a religion of the temporal, not the spiritual. To worship that which is worldly, like trees, Earth, the Sun or the Moon, is to abandon the spiritual for the temporal, and is a path to a miserable, short, unfulfilled and violent life.

Atheists always claim they are moral people but refuse to recognize where the morality they claim to espouse came from. Atheism in and of itself has within it no morality. In fact, atheism is the direct opposite of morality, since it teaches that the here and now is all that counts, so why put off your personal gratification for anything, why not just take it from another? Atheists will argue they have compassion and that is why they limit their actions but where does that compassion emanate from? All human morality comes from religion and the teachings of true religious leaders. Jesus Christ taught to love thy neighbor as thyself, Confucius taught the golden rule, Buddha taught actions create Karma, etc… the morality that atheists claim to have within them is actually from the religions they claim to be above.

Morality must come from a place of epiconsciousness or spirituality. A monkey has no morality… it eats, sleeps, has sex, excretes and fights for more. A monkey has no spirituality, it cannot think on an epiconscious level, it is an animal that, while very intelligent, cannot understand a greater purpose then itself and it’s immediate needs. Morality comes from the human being’s ability to grasp there are those things which we cannot see, that we cannot taste nor really understand. We can understand that we have a purpose, veiled from us to be sure, but a purpose that transcends our individual lives and makes us more that we are otherwise. Morality is the recognition that we are not the center of the universe but a cog in it’s workings. To believe the universe is only what we can measure, is to ignore all there is that we cannot measure, morality is that measure and comes directly from religion.

Modern atheists actually follow the teachings of hedonism. Pleasure of the flesh is paramount. Some follow the philosopher Epicurus but without his spirituality. People who only seek pleasure of the flesh or of worldly things cannot be truly happy because those pleasures can be taken from them at any moment. Even a stumble down the steps to your front porch can result in paralysis and thus end all hedonistic pleasures. The atheist will fall apart and take his or her own life while the devout will grow spiritually from it. To be a hedonist is to be shallow and live a life unfulfilled. Some atheists will fight on this point and say they get their pleasure from music, reading poetry, philosophy or great works of literature, but the ability to enjoy books and music is just as fleeting as the ability to enjoy sex. It is the nature of the human condition that this is true.

An Atheist can be a very good, loving, honorable and moral person, but that isn’t because they are intrinsically good but because they have been taught morality, morality that comes from the very thing they eschew, a belief in God. They ignore the transcendent for the temporal and in doing so they have retreated back to the stone age where people worshiped the Earth, Moon and Sun. While many are happy they miss the fulfillment of knowing there is something more, they have value they cannot understand and have a purpose that transcends their humanity and existence. Knowledge of these things, and dare I say, belief, gives a person solid ground to trod rather than shifting sands of a hedonistic lifestyle, that could throw them to the ground at any moment. Belief is a rationally self interested attribute that, even if it is not true, makes the human condition better, for everyone, especially the believer, even the unbeliever.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Obama’s Policies Against Islamofascism

Thursday, December 3rd, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the Obama policy of making friends with Islamofascist terrorists has been an utter failure, in every way and in every sense. Say what you will about Bush, and I have plenty, but after 911 he did keep the nation safe from terrorist attacks by Islamofascists. Obama on the other hand has overseen dozens of Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. Obama’s only cogent policy for preventing terror attacks on American soil… is to call them something else. The classic example, and you have to admit, it was classic Obama, was to call Major Nadal Hassan’s terrorist attack, workplace violence. It really is hard to get your head around that one. The difference between the results of Bush and Obama is startling. Without making judgments about the intention, and giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, the results of his policies have made the US and the world far more dangerous. It would appear that coddling Islamofascists, arming them, overturning national governments then supporting their rise to power and refusing to name the enemy, shockingly, hasn’t hindered the spread of that violent version of Islam but emboldened it.

Before Obama was elected talk about a new caliphate was considered absurd. Glenn Beck said there were people who wanted to start a new caliphate and was lambasted for it. The media, on all sides, was aflutter explaining how insane Beck was for saying the Islamofascists want a caliphate. Everyone attacked Beck rather than debated him, because, unspoken everyone understood a caliphate would lead to slaughter. Since the idea was so scary it had to be wrong. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood who have in their charter the demand for a caliphate! When Obama unilaterally pulled out of Iraq, all generals and policy experts said a vacuum would be created that would lead to chaos, he did it anyway. Well folks, there is a caliphate and it is called Islamic State. The Islamofascists who run the caliphate have wiped Christianity from that part of the world. Every dark fear of what a caliphate would be has come true.

Obama’s obvious weakness has not disarmed our enemies but heartened them. The media that calls itself unbiased has maintained that fighting Islamofascists only makes more of them, while Bush and others argued that killing them, made it seem like a dead end career choice to be a terrorist. Moreover, in every foreign policy question Obama has chosen weakness instead of strength, in Syria when he made the red line a chemical weapon attack, leading from behind in the Libyan debacle, puling the anti ballistic missiles from Poland unilaterally, bowing to every despot he could find on the planet, etc… I could go on and on. By his weakness in the face of aggression, Obama has again proven the old maxim true, “If you want peace prepare for war.”

Despite his utter failure to stem attacks on US citizens in our own nation Obama is importing tens of thousands of potential terrorists. Now he is doubling down on his failure to protect Americans, his number one job, by uprooting whole Somali villages and planting them in the US, allowing thousand upon thousands of Muslim refugees while denying any Christian refugees entry. Obama continues to put Americans in jeopardy by his failed policies. Some people have the capacity to learn it is clear Obama lacks that most basic quality of most human beings.

Obama has bent over backwards to make Muslims feel good about themselves. Remember when Obama ordered NASA to change it’s goal from human space flight to making Muslims feel good about their contribution to space flight? The White House and it’s apparatchiks refuse to call Islamic terror, Islamic! He claims the Caliphate, Islamic State, isn’t Islamic! Obama didn’t stand with Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s usurpation of power in Egypt and then turned a blind eye to their attacks on Christians and churches. Obama has bent over backwards to avoid angering Muslims but what has it brought us? More terrorism than ever before! More terrorist attacks, more recruitment for the caliphate, more demands for sharia law and more of everything he said would go away when he kissed their derrieres.

In contrast to Bush’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil Obama’s policies have met with total, utter and complete failure, getting more of what we don’t want and less of what we do want. Islamofascists are marching across Africa and the Middle East because of Obama’s failures. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, and for the sake of argument, say he wanted to stop Islamic terrorist attacks, by any measure, his policies should go down in history as epic bungling on a magnificent scale. So, Obama is either a fumbling fool, or to deny him the benefit of the doubt, he is a villain of the highest order.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Why the Elite Do Such Absurd Things

Monday, 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.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

NATO, Turkey, War Crimes and Acts of War

Thursday, 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.

Sincerely,

John Pepin