Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Individualism and Egoism

Monday, March 28th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the egoist demands liberty for himself but slavery for everyone else, while the individualist seeks liberty for everyone else and self control for herself. There is a tension that is inherent in egoism that results from this underlying conflict. The egoist demands from others that which he is unwilling to give. Individualism however lacks the conflict since the individualist demands of himself more than he demands from others. This vein in human relations passes through many other qualities of personality. Moreover, it has profound implications in the wealth of a society, it’s civility and social cohesion. Sadly, egoists seek political power to assuage their egos, while individualists humbly seek to live their lives in peace. This is why government is such a destructive force, those who should be in power are not and those who should not be, are.

Egoism is an immature human trait that has held humanity back since the dawn of time. Sociopathy and psychopathy are extreme forms of egoism but not the only ones. Egoism takes many forms. The egoist need not be unbalanced only selfish. The “great men” of the ancients had egoism in common. An emperor will invade a peaceful neighbor killing thousands, a king will execute a subject for something he does all the time, an aristocrat will order someone flogged for an inadvertent insult, and a bureaucrat will charge and fine or imprison someone for violating an arcane impossible to know regulation that the bureaucrat made up that afternoon, all without a spec of sympathy, remorse or humanity.

We are born egoists and slowly grow out of that immature state to the wisdom of adulthood by the efforts of our parents and society. Of the two however, parents and family life are the biggest positive factor in our maturing. Philosophers have described the maturing effect of family life since the time of Socrates and Confucius. The destruction of the family has shown some of it’s pernicious effects in the rise in the percentage of the population that are egoists. With the rise in the population that are egoists, social cohesion must fail, our economy can only be depressed and our governments naturally become tyrannical.

Individualism on the other hand is a mature state of being. The individualist is tolerant because she seeks tolerance of herself, he is forgiving since he wishes to be forgiven, she is compassionate because she understands people are flawed including herself and he is honest since he wants others to be honest with him. The individualist seeks to be left alone and doesn’t seek power over others. It is learned in the family environment. We each learn to get along with our siblings by the give and take that family life demands. The actions that betray egoism are discouraged by our parents. Lying, stealing, fighting, etc… are all things immature children do. Those actions are punished by good parents teaching children not to be selfish but tolerant.

The vein of holding others to a higher standard than oneself, exposes itself when those with no tolerance demand their evil actions not only be tolerated, but appeased. An egoist will demand their antisocial, selfish and even violent actions be tolerated by others, while at the same time being intolerant of anything she doesn’t like, even the most virtuous actions. Simply demanding tolerance for the intolerable actions of an egoist is not enough but the rest of us must participate. Like the Mapplethorpe exhibits that were intended to offend Christians. Christian individualists tolerated that the exhibit existed but were upset that they were made to pay for it. Meanwhile those who forced Christians to pay to be offended, demand they not be offended by Christianity, let alone pay to promote it.

Political power is to the egoist as heroin is to a heroin addict. The egoist is an immature small person, who holds himself to a very low standard, if indeed he holds himself to any standard at all. Yet the egoist demands everyone else toe the line and will use violence to force tolerance and even participation in their childish antisocial actions. Government is the perfect place where the egoist can get her wants met. The coercive power of government allows the egoist to enforce her own twisted desires on the rest of society. The government’s monopoly on violence gives the egoist the security to apply violence to anyone who seeks independence from the egoist’s will. That is why government is such a powerful force for destruction, economic, social and civil, governments are populated by egoists and shunned by individualists. The exact opposite of what would form good government.


John Pepin

European Villains

Thursday, March 24th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in Europe the Islamists have succeeded magnificently, abetted by the traitorous European leaders. Not simply because of the Brussels attacks but because of the perpetual state of marshal law that is oozing over Europe. The blood of the innocents killed, maimed and wounded in those attacks, isn’t on the hands of the Islamists, that blood stains the hands and faces of the European leaders. Partly because the traitors allowed unlimited numbers of Muslims, some of whom are perfectly decent people, but the wheat cannot be separated from the chaff, those with malevolent intent cannot be separated from the people seeking a better life. The leaders of Europe know this as does anyone with an operational cerebrum. Moreover those traitors are using the terrorist attack, attacks they helped happen, to turn Europe into an autocracy. Never ending marshal law, chaos in the streets, daily terrorist attacks and a collapsing economy all combine to make the natives of Europe into panicked sheep, ripe for tyranny

These attacks are the responsibility of the leaders of Europe. They destabilized the Middle East, seeking regime change there. Even after the catastrophic invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein, or maybe because of it, European leaders insisted on overthrowing Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar Al Assad. They knew that such actions would lead to a humanitarian crisis. If they didn’t they are too stupid to operate a mop. In full knowledge of what they were doing they created chaos, bloodshed and pernicious incentives for despots the world over, creating waves of refugees. Moreover, instead of sending those refugees directly back to their native countries, or countries that have Sharia law, European leaders gave them free food, spending money, housing, healthcare, smokes and women to rape. Thereby creating an impossibly strong incentive to flood into Europe.

The terrorist attacks were as obvious as wet ground during a rain storm. Hundreds of thousands of Islamic people, people who have no concept of liberty, tolerance, freedom of religion, democracy, equal treatment under the law or the market system can only lead to civil unrest. The leaders of Europe have embarked on a scheme to replace the Christian Europeans with Muslims. With clear malice in thought the leaders of Europe are committing genocide on their own people. Encouraging so many people to flood into Europe, who have some percentage of Islamofascists in their ranks is madness of the highest order… unless there is a plan for the violence they will foment.

Not so much the attacks themselves but the government’s reaction to them is what is truly telling here. France is under a perpetual state of marshal law. Belgium is soon to follow, Sweden is looking into radical measures, Germany is nearing chaos and Britain faces more beheadings on their streets. All it will take is a few more major attacks to take place and most of Europe will be under unending marshal law. Islamic State claim they have over four hundred terror cells waiting to be activated all around Europe, if that is the case, many more attacks will come. The native European people are facing terrorism in their neighborhoods, no go zones where Christians simply cannot enter, their government arrests them if they speak out about the invasion and now they have to endure under marshal law.

Every drop of blood shed by the Islamofascists is on the hands of Europe’s leaders. They created the situation and now have exploited it in their play for total authority. Europe is most certainly lost. Soon, all the beautiful places people loved to see will be no go zones, the magnificent cathedrals will be torn down so as not to offend the Muslims, the native European people will be slaves and the seat of the Enlightenment will become a throwback to feudalism and arbitrary rule. History will not be kind to the leaders of Europe, they will be held in the same, or even greater contempt than Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or the Marquis De Sade. Clearly, the bloodshed, rapes, chaos, collapsing economies and being judged villains by history is a price the elite in Europe are willing to pay… to become tyrants.


John Pepin

Political Correctness, the Tyranny of Imagination

Monday, March 21st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, many of us would rather imagine what a thing is, than examine it’s reality. There are all sorts of things that captivate our imaginations, movies, books and music, but when we use our imaginations to “believe” some aspect of a thing, be it religion, philosophy, a politician or a political system, we are doing ourselves and the world a great disservice. That is because our imaginations never actually capture the reality, the essence of a thing, our imaginations project an idea that may be in direct contravention of that thing, imbuing it with virtue or villainy that is simply not there. Not only do people do this about a myriad of things but once we have done it, many will fight to the mat that their imagined qualities are true, further harming our societies, economies and cultures. Political correctness is the legitimization of this very tendency.

To argue about the qualities of a thing is human nature. Three blind men approach an elephant, one grasps it’s trunk, another the tusk and the third the tail. Afterwards, they argue over what an elephant is… but at least they had some first hand knowledge about an elephant, each had only a portion of the truth but each had a portion. How much worse when one or more of the participants in a discussion have no real knowledge but only their imaginations to go on? How do you argue logic and truth with someone who holds his or her imagination above empirical reality? You cannot. Those who have imagined the qualities of a thing are the hardest to persuade, they refuse to look at evidence, they obstinately talk over you and hold you and your empirical evidence in contempt.

When Obama ran for office he ran on Hope and Change. He didn’t outline a plan for that hope and change, he didn’t qualify what it was nor did he allow any personal information, about him and his past to leak out. When some did the media that calls itself unbiased went to great lengths to obfuscate it. As a result people projected whatever they wanted on him. To a capitalist he would restore laissez faire, to a communist he would be the second coming of Mao, to the poor he would make them rich and to the rich he would protect them from the huddled masses. He was everything to everyone. People imagined what and who Obama was and voted based on their imaginations.

Many people imagine socialism as being more fair, more just and more humane than capitalism. They dream about how everyone will get along and work hard for the collective. To those who imagine a better world through despotism, any argument about history, reality or economics falls on deaf ears, they have made up their minds based on their imaginations. The further people get from real Marxism and , the easier it is to imagine what it is, rather than look at the reality of what it is. Reagan’s policies dealt a blow to communism, but without that example of a very real and undeniable socialist nation, where people fled at the risk to their very lives and their children to escape, has allowed people to imagine what socialism is.

Many who have never studied Islam claim to understand what it is far far better than Islamic scholars. In the face of the reality of Islam, after a mass beheading for example, they rush to the news programs and claim such acts are a violation of Islam, even as Islamic scholars claim otherwise. We are to believe the atheist, who imagines Islam as a light in a dark world, over those who have spent their entire lives studying the words of Mohamed. To do so is absurd. Do you believe that a witch doctor or faith healer can set a broken bone better than someone who has spent their entire life learning and working in medicine? To believe he who imagines what a thing is in that case would lead to a badly set leg, a limp for life and perhaps even death, how much worse to believe a politician is everything to everyone, socialism isn’t despotism or the realities of Sharia and Jihad?

Political correctness is the imagining what a thing is and forcing others to follow what is imagined not what is real. The market system teaches those raised in it to be pragmatic, look at the reality of a thing and measure profit against loss, not just in business but in our daily lives. Political correctness seeks to change that paradigm of the lesson of the market system. Political correctness will not broach the reality of a thing to enter the conversation, it demands blind faith in the imaginations of another. Arguments about reality can be derailed by mere ad homonym attacks to protect the imagined reality of the politically correct person. The market system , is a force for pragmatism, examining reality and weighing the profit versus the loss of an action or philosophy. Political correctness is the polar opposite of the lessons of the market system and as such will always be in contention with it. So what do you believe? Your imagination, or reality, you cannot believe both.


John Pepin

Keynesian Economic Crystal Meth

Thursday, March 17th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, economists have been seeking the holy Grail of nonstop economic growth for as long as there have been economists… but as with all natural complex systems, the economy must expand, sleep then expand again. The expansion part of the cycle is where new ideas are implemented, and the recession part is where old inefficient ideas are destroyed, to free up the resources for the next wave of new ideas. Like an animal or plant, an economy grows rapidly for a while then sleeps. If someone were to force a plant or animal to stay awake forever, as speed addicts do, the animal or economy becomes sickly. Economists and politicians want the laws of economics to bend to their will but like all of God’s laws they do not lend themselves to bending.

A politician may want to be able to eat belladonna, but no matter how much they might want to, the moment they do, they die. Someone else might want to fly without wings but jump from a towering cliff and God’s law of gravity enforces itself. The point is, God’s laws are not flexible, breaking them always has consequences. No matter if someone poisons himself, jumps from a cliff or snorts crystal meth to stay awake, God’s laws do not broach noncompliance. Trying to force an economy to only grow is just such a violation of God’s law of economics.

Great depressions are caused when government backed by economists try to stop the boom bust cycle of economics. FDR turned Herbert Hoover’s recession into a great depression by trying to force economic growth by fiat. Following Keynesian economic theory, Roosevelt attempted to force economic growth by controlling how much and what a farmer could plant, determining the prices retailers could charge, employing people to do absurd things like count the tips on maple leaves and huge government paid for engineering projects. What he got was a depression that lasted for a decade, soup lines, mass unemployment and a dependency class.

Obama and his economic brain trust have attempted the same thing. He has had the good fortune of having a federal reserve that has kept interest rate at or near zero for the entirety of his term, he has run up a deficit greater than all the Presidents before, he has passed reams of new regulations and usurped a third of the national economy with the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, like FDR, he has had a fawning media cover for him at every turn. Today, the soup lines are hidden by food stamps which is at an all time high, the unemployment numbers are massaged by the BEA with terms like U6 unemployment, virtually all the jobs that have been created are low paid part time work and the stock market has expanded because of firms buying back their own shares, on margin, instead of organic growth by investors.

Now the latest gimmick the brainiacs are trying are, negative interest rates, helicopter money, bail ins, and banning cash. Negative interest rates are already being used in Europe and Japan to push demand. What they are, is exactly what it says, savers are charged interest to stash their money in a bank or by buying bonds! To keep people from pulling all their savings from the banks and setting on cash, which would drive the banks out of business, the masterminds want to ban cash. Helicopter money is where the Federal Reserve would print a few billion dollars, lowering the value of all the money now in circulation, and deposit it in people’s bank accounts. If all that fails to save the economy and threatens the banks, those of us who have saved money will have our money withdrawn from our bank accounts, and given to the banks.

Methedrine can make a tired person wakeful, the negative side effects will manifest themselves sooner or later. Keynesian economics, or demand side economics, is like using crystal meth to keep the economy awake even when it needs to sleep. There are two competing philosophies of economics that don’t seek permanent economic growth, the Austrian school which stresses the effect of savings on an economy, and Joseph Schumpeter’s boom bust theory. The Austrian school’s theories have only been used twice in the US, once during the 1920’s and then in the 1980s. The result was fast economic growth with short weak recessions. Meanwhile, every time Keynesian crystal meth has been tried, the long term effect has been depression and outright economic collapse. Gods laws cannot be compromised, no matter how smart a brainiac is, or how much she might want to. Isn’t it time for politicians and economists to grow up and follow the laws of economics? Just say no, to economic crystal meth.


John Pepin

Crime Unpunished

Monday, March 14th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… crime unpunished is crime encouraged. Remember when you were a child and you ran into the road? Your mother, father or both would give you the dickens. That was because they understood that if they didn’t, you would sooner or later run into the road and be killed. Because of their love of you they needed to change your behavior. Condemning the truck drivers will not stop a child from running into the road, a slap on the behind will however. Throughout our childhoods, those of us who had nurturing, loving parents, were taught to be civilized. It probably took standing in a corner, a slap on the behind and a few cross words, but the barbarian in us was molded into civilization. It does no good whatsoever to change the negative behavior with praise of the wrongdoing, blaming the victim or cry racism, when someone acts the barbarian. This is such an obvious truism you would think everyone knows it instinctively… but apparently many don’t.

Hsun Ching said the congenital nature of Man is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. By that he meant when we are born we don’t know, right from wrong, we don’t have empathy, we think we can just take what we want, etc… basically, we are little barbarians. Our empathy, virtue and humanity is taught us by our upbringing. Those who have been civilized operate well in any system while those who have not been civilized only operate well in a very structured environment, with draconian punishments and constant monitoring. Hsun Ching’s philosophy has a direct impact on adults as well.

An adult who has not had the benefit of being civilized will commit crime, that is obvious, but what seems to be not well understood is that when an adult is allowed to commit crime and is not punished for it, they are far more likely to commit more crime later. The more they get away with the more heartless and heinous the crimes they commit. In fact, blaming the victim, claiming racism or simply avoiding addressing the crime, empowers and emboldens the criminal. They feel they have a right to victimize others. The criminal becomes even more callous to the wants and needs of other human beings, and in doing so they become less human themselves.

Humanity means to have compassion, to be kind to others and even animals, it is a quality of being a fully actualized, human hearted human being. Humanity can be grown by changing the behavior of those who act inhuman and it can be corroded by allowing crime to go unpunished. To have humanity is to understand that other people exist, have feelings, want pretty much the same things you do and are as flawed as you and I are. Accepting the flaws of others is part of being humane. A psychopath or sociopath is not humane and has no compassion for others. They are broken. Most people who commit crime however are not psychopaths or sociopaths, they are people who have not been civilized, and so lack some aspect of humanity.

When a society allows some to stand above law, morality and civilization, it provides a strong incentive for others, others who are civilized, to throw off the yoke of civilization and become barbarians themselves. Those with a deeper understanding will resist for awhile but the incentive becomes stronger and stronger the longer society encourages crime. People are adaptable, we will adapt to many things, barbarism is one of those things we can adapt to and in a barbarous society, adapt we must. Those who have virtue in a barbarous society will quickly be crushed. We see that society in the last few decades in the US and Europe has become ever more barbaric.

It doesn’t matter if the criminal is an immigrant from a far away land who thinks rape is perfectly acceptable, or a politician who claims there is no overriding legal authority to punish his open and flagrant crime, the result is the same, crime unpunished is crime encouraged. We are civilized by our parents, that is one of the greatest gifts they give us, after our very lives. Civilization in us allows us to function, socially, economically and personally. Those without the benefit of civilization will commit crime. That doesn’t mean they are psychopaths or sociopaths, it means they are not civilized. A society that fails to punish crime, is a society that nurtures an inhumane, brutish and violent people. People that require intrusive oversight, draconian punishments and onerous laws. Yet even the most draconian punishments, intrusive surveillance and onerous laws will do no good to bring a society to civilization. Once civilization is lost it takes centuries to return to it. Only the most vile, self serving and evil people would want inhumanity for humanity… so why are some crimes unpunished and therefore, encouraged?


John Pepin

Judicial Activism is Treason

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.

The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.

Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.

Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.

A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.

When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.


John Pepin

Liberty Enforced by Regulation

Monday, March 7th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to seek freedom by regulation, is like trying to breathe underwater. So many modern intellectuals foster the inane notion, more regulation will attain more freedom, it has become a meme. The Black Lives Matter movement demands separation or the races and requires regulations to enforce it, Campus student associations demand safe spaces enforced by rules so they don’t have to hear opposing views, gay and lesbian groups demand the freedom to marry by forcing others to marry them with laws, government claims it needs to have total surveillance of us so we can live the American dream, the list is tiresomely long and growing. People today swim in a swamp of logical absurdity. Regulation is to liberty as water is to breathing.

Almost everyone wants freedom. It is a basic drive of the human being. We seek liberty for ourselves and our children but at the same time desire to limit the actions of criminals and those with evil intent. Intellectuals use this basic conflict to get us to back more and more regulation. Despite the demonstrable proof that most regulation does the opposite of what it is supposed to do we continue to add to it. The amount of regulations we have to live under grows at an exponential rate because of this. Even as we desire more freedom we demand more regulation. We drown ourselves and our economy in red tape.

In a society of sociopaths no amount of regulation would be enough and in a civilization of saints no regulation would be necessary. In the same way, regulations don’t really stop the people with evil intent, Evil people care nothing for law and so laws just give the sociopath and psychopath a leg up on their victims. Alternatively, those of us without evil intent are severely limited by the regulations, since we follow the law, we have to live under them and so are limited in our economic, social and family outcomes. Greater regulations only help those with evil intent but damage those who are good.

More laws don’t stop crime, more laws create more criminals, because as the body of law increases limiting the possible actions of everyone, people will be forced to break the law either out of ignorance or malevolence. In a total state everyone is a criminal. Where everything is outlawed everyone must be a criminal, the closer we get to the total state, the more criminals there will be. Those who seek a total state will point to the greater criminality their laws create to pass more laws. It becomes a self effecting loop. The only logical end is the total state.

It is no coincidence that those who most vociferously call for more regulations, to create more freedom, are from the statist side of the political spectrum. Both the right and left have a statist side and an anarchist side. It is from the statists that we hear if government limits us we will have more liberty. The fall back is always to increase the power of the state. They argue that liberty can be forced on a society by law, morality can be enforced by regulations and honesty can be created by oversight. All of which are logical fallacies.

Honesty cannot be created by oversight, oversight simply undermines honesty by making the dishonest appear honest. Such a system undermines the incentive, moral and societal, to actually be honest. In such a society it is better to appear honest than to be honest. Morality enforced by fiat is an absurdity since morality is not extrinsic but intrinsic. Morality is something we incorporate within us growing up, not something that smothers us, like a regulation from without. It is either within us or not but cannot be injected like a vaccine. Most of all… the cause of liberty is never advanced by limiting law. Liberty by definition is a lack of government regulation. Law is the opposite of liberty.

Obviously I am not calling for anarchy, basic laws must remain else our civilization will devolve into a war between the immoral and moral, strong versus the weak. Civilization is fostered best where the people are taught morality, honesty and virtue as children. Human beings, you and I, are evil by nature, the civilization in us is a learned trait. Our intrinsic civilization in us is the result of our parents, religions and societal pressure. Law, regulations and punishments are only effective if kept to a minimum. Too much regulation and virtue is undermined, too little and chaos ensues. The social Fibonacci sequence then in civilization is to create a society where people are inculcated with self control as children. To expect people to be held in check by law, even onerous law, who are incapable of controlling themselves, is as crazy as trying to breathe underwater.


John Pepin

Democracy’s Achilles Heel

Thursday, March 3rd, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, people would rather believe fiction than the truth, especially in politics. Human beings have an innate ability to convince themselves of absurdities. Of course to believe a fiction over the truth is the path to tyranny, poverty and violence, but people believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is why democracy is so self destructive. Democracy within a republic is tempered but the elite always eventually become an aristocracy. As time goes on the people’s self delusion coupled with the elite’s misdirection combine to destroy any human government. We see this happening today with the election of Barak Obama and now the rise of Donald Trump.

Politicians become entrenched and hold power their whole lives just like the aristocracy of old. Like an aristocracy a ruling class rises up to hold power and pass it to their children. The Bush dynasty is one example but around the world political power is passed from father to son and daughter like an inheritance. Democracy is supposed to prevent such dynastic political power but instead democracy fosters it. One characteristic of any aristocracy is that they will evolve to oligarchy. They stop ruling for the benefit of the nation and start ruling for their own narrow self interests. The national interests are undermined by both a political class that has become aristocratic and then oligarchical.

An election is basically a beauty contest and in any beauty contest substance takes a back seat to appearance. In any beauty contest how the girl looks in a bikini is more important than her research into cancer. A political beauty contest is no different. A philosopher once said, put a beautiful man at a podium, let him speak with eloquence and a commanding voice and no matter the drivel he spouts, he will be called a genius, put another man, give him a drooping eye, high pitched voice and let spittle run from his mouth, and no matter the genius of his words he will be ridiculed a fool…

Empty catch phrases become a replacement for hard policy. Politicians understand the fact that people would rather believe a glittering lie rather than an ugly truth. Ugly truths require thought and energy while glittering lies delight the mind and require no commitment whatsoever. A simple mindless catchphrase like, “hope and change” can mean anything to anyone. To one it means restoration of constitutional principles and to another it means Marxism. The phrase’s definition depends on the listener, not the content, and so is mind candy without substance, which fits perfectly with our ability to convince ourselves of absurdities.

In the physical world self delusion quickly brings consequences. Jump from a cliff in an attempt to fly and it quickly leads to a horrible death, the consequences are immediate, but in politics, the consequences can be held off for a long time. It takes years of bad regulations to destroy an economy, years of gradually increasing intrusions to create tyranny and years of morality corroded by perversity to create social chaos. All of which are the results of self delusion of the electorate.

To believe what you want rather than what is, is a sure path to economic destruction, governmental tyranny and societal upheaval. You might want utopia but in Greek utopia means nowhere. Real solutions don’t come from catchphrases they take real work and sacrifice. We may want some hansom, articulate politician with a deep voice to solve all our problems, but that is the surest way to making those problems much much worse. Moreover, by falling to the same self delusion, over and over, we install over us a new aristocracy, with all the negative baggage that comes with an aristocracy. We have deluded ourselves for a very long time now and the consequences are becoming manifested, isn’t it time to stop believing in modern absurdities and start believing in genuine truth?


John Pepin

Government’s War on Charity

Monday, February 29th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the new class seeks a government monopoly on thought, morality and culture, and so will not tolerate competition from civic organizations. Civic organizations have existed since the founding of the US and before. They have fed the homeless, clothed the indigent, cared for orphans, cleaned up roads, donated to charity, helped the aged and provided for our veterans. The good works of these organizations has made the lot of mankind better. Today, those in government are becoming ever more greedy for power, political, social and cultural. The means to this power is to control the people’s finances, minds and morality. The elite cast envious eyes at the social and cultural good will civic organizations engender and seek that good will for themselves. Make no mistake however, the elite care nothing to help the downtrodden, but to exploit their misfortune to advance their agenda of total control. One thing history teaches us, unequivocally, is that too much power concentrated in too few hands, leads to human suffering on a massive scale.

When a confidence man plays his victim with a scam, he never admits his self interest, instead he applies to the victims wants and needs. The scammer is always more virtuous, more caring and more honest then humanity as a whole. They gain the confidence of a mark and separate the mark from her money. Scores of novels, movies and television shows have been written with this theme. The elite today are running a confidence game on us. We are the victims of the scam. They pass absurd laws in the name of “fairness,” they regulate our every action to “protect” us, they grow the welfare state to “feed” us and they bully us to “help” us make better choices. The elite in government want us to believe they are more virtuous than us, more caring than us and more honest than us.

The drive for monopoly is the reason behind such laws and ordinances that make it illegal to feed the homeless. I know how absurd it sounds, that it is illegal to feed the homeless in some cities, but it is. People have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law for feeding the homeless in America! There are dozens of laws, regulations and ordinances that make charitable work illegal in the United States. The history of such law is very short. Only recently have the elite been passing laws against good works. Such laws would have been unthinkable even half a century ago.

The rise of the welfare state is one of the main ways the government usurps the good works of civic organizations. Soup kitchens have been replaced by WIC, food stamps and aid to needy families. Government has forced out charitable organizations. Another way the elite in government profit from the welfare state is that it undermines the family unit making people more and more dependent on government. People don’t bite the hand that feeds them. Those who are dependent are malleable in thought, action and judgment. The welfare state has been a boon to the government’s drive for monopoly.

The government has changed the law to allow government the power to legally propagandize it’s citizens. It should be self evident to any reasoning person that government propaganda is not a tool of liberty but of tyranny. That the US government had to pass a law to propagandize the people shows how pernicious such a law is. There is no legitimate role of government to mold the minds of it’s citizens. Such a tool as propaganda is self serving to government and it’s narrow interests. Moreover, subtle pushes here and minor tweaks there, have the power to change morality, culture and thought itself… and we see that it has.

Today, government is the arbiter of morality, having appropriated the role of religion. Obama care, the affordable care act, has forced churches to choose to violate their faiths or violate the law. The courts have been chaotic about their rulings. Some find that government cannot force people to violate their faith while others have forced churches to undermine their core teachings. The sanctity of life for example. The slippery slope of government in the business of deciding morality can only lead to a chasm of immorality.

When someone is eating, I don’t have to be told they are eating, I can see it for myself. Even when they say, with a mouthful of food, they are not eating, I know they are. Just like when government slops at the trough of autocracy, while claiming they are only looking out for our best interests, the truth is obvious to anyone with open eyes. It is the same way with scam artists, who use subterfuge and misdirection to make their victims believe they are looking out for the best interests of their mark, even as they take the mark for everything. In the case of government everything is exactly what they demand and lust after. A monopoly on our thought, conscience and economy. Meanwhile we are awash in their clumsy attempts, the welfare state, laws forbidding good works, propaganda and government usurping morality. In their drive for monopoly, they are winning, while we are loosing. That is why government is waging a war on civic organizations… I wonder how much longer before we wake up and realize we have been taken? Far too late I am guessing.


John Pepin

Atheism, Socialism, and Tyranny

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a nation of atheists could never have a functional and efficient economy, because their lack of faith in God, demands atheists have control, while the religious have their faith in God and so can allow an economy to work laissez faire. Everyone desires a strong vibrant economy, from the ardent Marxist to the anarchist but the path to that vibrant economy is obscured by our personal preferences. That is why some take a path that can only lead to want, famine and suffering. It isn’t that some people want these things, it is that they see no other way, and this misplaced commitment is the result. Any clear examination of economics and economic theory must include an examination of the people that make up the economy. To disregard the people that make up an economy in an investigation of that economy is to study an ecosystem while ignoring the plants and animals that make it up.

If you believe there is no God everything is up to you. You cannot ever stop and relax because there is no one to rely on. The weight of the world is on the shoulders of the atheist. Any change the atheist wants in the world must be done by the atheist himself. Every problem must be solved by the atheist’s sweat. This doesn’t allow the atheist the ability to just let go and allow something to work. This is why atheism goes hand in hand with the command and control economy. Allowing an economy to work without oversight makes the atheist’s skin crawl. They cannot let go, since there is no God in their lives to let go to, and so they cannot fathom how a let it work economy could possibly function.

The religious however will work for the change they seek in the world but at the end of the day we understand that God has the final say. Our faith allows us to allow the world to work. People with faith don’t feel the weight of the world is on our shoulders and so have less stress. Both allowing the world to work and having less stress gives the religious the ability to allow an economy to work. This is why in those places where Christianity and Judaism are the primary religions laissez fair and liberty have been allowed. In those places where atheism and religions that demand people submit have command and control economies. Be it socialism or feudalism, such ideologies fall into tyranny, due to their reliance on man instead of God.

History is unambiguous about which economy provides the highest standard of living, most prosperity and greatest technological advancement, it is the same economic system that brought about the industrial revolution, that system is the free market. Since this is well known and understood, everyone talks about a free market but atheists always introduce the false premise of regulated free markets. Regulated is never free. The atheist cannot understand how allowing something to work without constant oversight could function and so they seek to “progress” the economy to socialism and then outright Marxism. Capitalism’s complex system that demands it be let alone is an anathema to the atheist. It is no coincidence that socialism’s founders and it’s most ardent supporters have all been atheists.

Since atheism is on the rise in western countries, so too is the rise of socialism, along with the negative effects of socialism. The atheist demand ever more powerful government. In all the spheres of human life the atheist’s innate need for control leads them to rely more and more on an ever growing government. History shows, as the people of Europe turned away from their Christian roots and towards atheism, the power of the state grew and their economies became more and more socialistic. Today the native population of Europe is largely atheist and elect socialists to power. Those socialists in power raise taxes, pass ever more restrictive regulation and lower the efficiency of the European economies.

A belief in God allows us to let go and allow things to work for themselves, since we know God will take care of the small things, but a lack of faith doesn’t allow for the atheist to let go, because to them if they don’t take care of it, no one will. This is a fundamental difference between atheists and the religious. History shows that fundamentally an economy works best, that is controlled the least, and those controlled the most, function the worse. The rise of atheism goes hand in hand with the rise of state power due to the innate philosophy of atheism. The slowing of Europe’s great economies coincides with the rise of atheism as a result. A free market cannot be a free market if it is controlled by bureaucracy or a tyrant yet atheism demands control. In this we see that a “rational” choice, atheism, leads to irrational outcomes, Marxism and tyranny.


John Pepin