Archive for August, 2013

Opinion, Violence and Civilization

Thursday, August 29th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the moment opinion is met with death threats, there is no longer civilization in the land. What had been civilization has now become anarchy, and until the threat of death for opinion is removed, there will be no civilization… with all that portends. It should be clear to everyone, it is not the right role of government to empower those that meet opinion with death threats, because government’s role is to foster peaceful civilization, so the people can go about their days without being molested or having their property stolen. Those that meet opinion with violence are to be vilified, and if possible, incarcerated. They are the very real manifestation of a mortal threat to civilization and should be treated as such.

 

The role of right government is to create a framework so that commerce and social living can go on with minimal impediment. This is one of the reasons Machiavelli said that a stable tyranny is preferable, to the people, than an unstable democracy. A stable tyranny is just that… stable, while an unstable democracy is, well… unstable. People cannot walk down the street alone in an unstable society, women and children are always in danger from the criminal element, and property is up for grabs where instability reigns. While on the other hand, people prosper in a stable society, a woman can walk down the street or ride a bus alone in safety, and children can play without fear of predators. Clearly, from this we can see, the right role of government is to foster a stable society and shun that which makes it unstable.

 

Civilization itself is dependent on the free exchange of information. Much of that information is in the form of opinion. If certain opinions are met with threats of death, especially if they are carried out, they shut down the free flow of information. By definition and by design. Civilizations that have no debate quickly stagnate and die unless there is a source of outside income. Stopping the flow of information necessarily staunches debate. The reason staunching of debate is so bad for a society, is because various societies are intermingled, and in competition. They are usually designated by national boundaries, but sometimes cross those boundaries, the Kurds for example. Those countries that stifle debate, fall behind those that do not, in every metric of good. For example, poor performing economies, they quickly become tyrannies, and their state of general education declines, among many other negatives.

 

Those who are insecure in their beliefs are always those who seek to shut down the opinions of others. They unconsciously know the weakness of their arguments and instead of backing them up with logic, which is their opinion’s weakness, they back it up with violence. This means that no one in the debate, believes that the position who threatens violence is correct… even those that argue for it! If they themselves know there is no argument that can be made for their position, but have too much hubris to cede it, violence is their only resort. By doing this they discredit not only themselves but their very movement! That is not to say, once violence is started one shouldn’t protect themselves, it is natural rights, to meet violence with violence, but is far different from threatening death for opinion, that is meeting words with violent action. Words can be ignored but violent action cannot be.

 

Where civilization is in decline and instability rears it’s head… poverty and want can never be far behind. Those that threaten the stability of society and undermine it’s growth, are in fact leading directly to our civilization’s destruction, and therefore are a direct threat to us, our legacy and our children. The best thing to do, is to immediately point at the offender, whenever violence is offered for opinion. Let’s face it, offering violence for opinion, is evil, and if we all point at evil, evil cannot hide behind platitudes and spurious ad homonym attacks. The cumulative light of all of us, shining our own little beam on evil, must wither and dessicate it. Like a vampire in the old movies… evil can only live in darkness.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Empiricism, and the Existence of God

Monday, August 26th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, Hume’s argument against the existence of God is weak, in that if a single miracle can be proved to have happened, by his argument’s parameters, God must exist. Now, it is possible that God wants us to be able to prove his existence logically and empirically, but I think not. Despite our hubris, we are profoundly ignorant, and believe ourselves enlightened, patting our own backs in egotistic self deceit. Pride and conceit are the attributes of spoiled children. Once our civilization reaches it’s initial maturity, our self importance will max out, (as it does in a teenager)… further maturity will result in less conceit and pride with true awe and deep humility. Eventually, once humanity has actually become enlightened in the deepest sense, will we understand the role of God… or the myth of God, if such exists. That is both the way people mature and the way civilizations mature. That our civilization is so egotistic it believes it can empirically disprove God, or Prove him, is sure confirmation that we are moving into early adolescence.

 

Hume claimed if there were free will then it would be folly to punish a criminal. Because under free will he would be untrainable, due to his free will, ie. No external control of his actions. Thus, we must not have free will. It is our ability to control ourselves that proves there is no free will. Therefore, punishing criminals proves there is no free will… But, to my way of thinking, if we are but machines, subject to programming and outside control, then why, even in ancient Athens under the laws of Draco… have there always been criminals?

 

His epistemology was based on the insight that logic does not necessarily comport with reality. This was truly an insight. He made the point that just because he let go of a pencil, that pencil could logically go up, instead of down. It is our experience, or custom, that makes us believe it will fall. This was an important discovery in the evolution of philosophy, because it showed that metaphysical logic can go very wide of the mark, unless it is based on empirical proof… in other words, the weakness of logic disconnected from observation. But, just as he claimed that logic allows for a pencil to fly, instead of fall…

 

He also claimed, by their very definition, miracles are things that are not custom. We never see those actions in our daily lives. In fact, he argued, in the more civilized places we never see miracles at all. Since miracles have only been seen in barbarian places, then they are most probably figments of imagination, superstitions and the like. Since the existence of God is based on miracles, like creation, Jesus’ resurrection, turning water into wine and so forth, and they are mere superstition… there is no God. This is simply arguing that observed reality should be discarded for theory.

 

It is like the Cartesian arguing against Newton’s Laws of Motion, because his laws required action at a distance, and thus were absurd. To the Cartesian, skepticist theory trumped observable reality, as it is for those who seek to make the purely mechanistic argument for the existence of the universe. They must discount evidence that disproves their theory, as superstition or imagination, by dwelling on the non repeatable part of the miraculous instead of the empirically proven examples. Isn’t that the true nature of a miracle though? Something that is not custom, did happen and is not repeatable? In discrediting miracles as superstition, they seize the empirical high ground, with spurious logic. In the end they could be right, but as history shows us, the theories of today are always supplanted by the theories of tomorrow. With a commensurate advancement of our understanding of our Universe and our role in it.

 

We, as humanity, have a long way to go before we can begin to understand such subtle questions, as the existence and nature of God, or even if there is one. It is the hight of presumption to argue there is no God, because, since we have miracles testified to and in some cases, as in miraculous cancer remission, empirically proven yet not repeatable, there is at least the strong implication of God… and that there exists far more to reality than we, in our profound ignorance, can possibly understand, let alone quantify. As our understanding grows, so do our questions, therefore we can know only this… that we know little. It is conceited and prideful of us to believe otherwise.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Socialist’s Hypocrisy

Thursday, August 22nd, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, socialists never seek to live under socialism, they want the rest of us to. To a man, or woman, socialists always want others to live in their social laboratories, like lab rats, in their notions of the perfect society. From Rousseau’s social contract [of indenture], to Joseph Schumpeter with his authoritarian socialism, none of them ever wanted to live under a socialist regime themselves, but explained in treatise after tome that we should live under socialism. Knowing the old adage, one should never eat food the cook himself won’t eat, this certain knowledge about socialists is more damming than any economic theory trouncing ever could.

 

Marx went on and on about the Bourgeois mode of production and the tyranny of the workers, but in his personal letters, what he himself really wanted, was to live as the elite did in his day. His wife complained about having to nurse her own child, since they could not afford a wet nurse, and how unfair that was. I maintain that Karl Marx was too lazy to work for a living and sought the patronage of Engels so he wouldn’t have to. Clearly, Marx would have recoiled at living in a society where he had to work every day in a mindless job, else face certain punishment by the authoritarian state. Not unless Marx was the authoritarian.

 

That, my friends is the rub, all socialists want to have a socialist state, but they all want to be the authoritarian… not the plebeian. Take Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. They planted bombs that maimed people in the 1960’s in the US. (Now they are college professors teaching your children). When asked by an undercover FBI informant, “What will we do when we take over?” Bill Ayers replied, they would install a communist state of course. When prodded that many wouldn’t just go along, Bill Ayers responded, he would have to kill about 25,000,000 Americans. This was said in a cold blooded matter of fact tone! Imagine his indignation, at having to submit to execution by someone else, for his political beliefs! What epic hypocrisy!

 

Joseph Schumpeter, who famously said, “Can capitalism survive? I think not…” devoted most of his book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, to advancing the notion that socialism is not only possible, it would be quite easy to implement, and would achieve at least the level of production of a similar capitalist nation. The USSR was active then, and never stopped immigration, only emigration, and so… Schumpeter was able to move to his socialist paradise any time he wanted. Moreover, as a noted economist, Schumpeter would have been awarded a hansom professorship in a prestigious Russian university in Moscow… But he didn’t.

 

I could go on all day with examples of the blatant hypocrisy of socialists but no use belaboring the point. This latest crop of socialists we have in government, are righteously outraged even to pay lip service to Our Constitution, let alone knuckle under to their own laws… that is for us to do. They poison the economy with crony capitalism and strangle it with bureaucratic regulation, then spuriously claim, capitalism has never worked! They expect the rest of us to forget the last 500 years of human history in general and the last 100 in particular. Socialists in the US government show, by their actions (and rhetoric when in certain circles)… they seek a socialist society, but I ask you, if they truly believe in it, or are just as egoistically self serving Machiavellians, as the examples I have mentioned… why did they all write themselves a loophole to get out of Obama care?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Efficient Means and Direct Means

Monday, August 19th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, from the biggest egoist to the most selfless of us, we all use a process I call, Efficient Means, to get our needs and wants met. Simply put, efficient means is the idea that we all take the most efficient path possible, to get our wants and needs met. Like water finds the easiest path downhill, or electricity flows through the path of least resistance, human behavior follows the same paradigm. The opposite of efficient means is direct means. The difference between direct means and efficient means is, to follow the law, mores and ethics of society is efficient means, and to violate the laws, mores and ethics is direct means. Most people understand this logic intrinsically but not overtly. It is important to understand this basic precept of human nature overtly so that we understand what makes our fellow men and women, as well as ourselves… do what we do.

 

The path we take from a desire to it’s being met is never a straight line. We place impediments in our own paths, as does society, culture, government and religion. That we allow for these impediments, is a sign that we are not simply egoists and criminals, it shows we are civilized human beings. The person who follows the rat maze of impediments we are faced with, can be said to be a rational maximizer, while the person who jumps the fence can be called an egoist. Some impediments are good, in that they standardize society and provide a framework in which to get our wants and needs met, while others are actually ways for the elite to get their needs met more directly… and in doing so, preventing us from meeting ours.

 

Governmental impediments, law and regulation, can be good or profoundly pernicious. They are good when they accomplish those positive outcomes outlined below, but when government regulation is used as a means to dole out distributive justice by political favor, they are harmful. This type of crony capitalism allows some to jump the fence, getting their wants met by the most direct means possible, regardless of the negative effects on society, the economy and good government. Unfortunately, almost all of us would use direct means, if we knew with certainty we would never get caught, and therefore, never be punished. This is reason enough for providing a framework, as does culture, society, government and religion. Moreover, that these institutional impediments to efficient means be protected, else no one’s needs, including our own… may be met in the future.

 

Religion places many impediments to meeting our wants and needs. Upon close examination however, those impediments are not intended to stop us, but to enhance our realization of those goals. Were those impediments not in place society would quickly breakdown. Right religion teaches us to be honest with people, regardless of their affiliation, to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do others, it teaches us to practice fidelity to our spouses and it instills in us the concept, this may not be the ultimate expression of our existence, in fact, this existence may be merely a precursor for a much higher state of being. Giving Pascal’s wager gravitas.

 

Cultural mores are another source of positive impediments to efficient means. They also provide a framework for getting our needs met, similar to a ladder that helps us reach places we couldn’t otherwise, cultural mores help us meet our needs efficiently and in ways that allow others to meet theirs as well. This greases the mechanism of human interactions, protecting us and our families from the violence of revolution and societal strife, that a large portion of society not getting it’s needs met would certainly produce. Societal impediments amount to the same thing, they standardize our means of reaching our wants and needs, so that we all can efficiently meet them.

 

In the end we are civilized animals that live best when we self regulate. The society who’s people self regulate, for whatever reason, be it religious ethics, societal mores or cultural norms, that society will enjoy wealth, peace and political equanimity. As children grow they are matured, as were we. This maturity is getting slower and slower while those restrictions like religious, cultural and societal mores are stripped away, by an elite drunk on the notion of materialism and mechanism. Given our natural proclivity for direct means, when these impediments are taken away, coupled with the slower maturation rate of our children, the result must be… no one’s needs will be met, and our society will suffer, poverty, war and political upheaval.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Moderate Extremists

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, what is called moderate today is actually extreme, and what is called extreme is actually moderate, that most people don’t intrinsically understand this is cause for concern. That progressives claim their stances on every issue no matter how out of the mainstream, moderate and the libertarian argument as extreme, is their modus operandi and has been since their inception. It is the monopoly on the flow of information that progressives have that makes their perversion of the terms moderate and extreme so dangerous, especially since so few in our society recognize it. The results for our republic is that it will inevitably rot into a despotism. To be sure, it is our duty and responsibility, to protect the republic and point our united fingers at threats to it’s very existence, in this case overt, to enlighten our fellow citizens to the threat.

 

Language is the transmitter of information. Language has it’s flaws however. Kung Sung Lung wrote his famous treatise on, a white horse is not really a horse, to prove the weakness of language as a transmitter of truth. This has been known for millennia among the learned of society but the people have remained ignorant of it. We rely on language every day and in every possible way. Therefore the truth that language has fundamental flaws is lost on most of us. This ignorance is used against us by the elite.

 

Those who control the language therefore control the transmission of all information. Since language has inherent flaws it can be manipulated to change meanings, and the main reason for transmitting information is to convey meaning, this power can be exploited to control everything. The elite don’t have to change the wording of our Constitution, they simply change the meaning of the words. In the case of moderate verses extreme, the elite don’t change the meaning of the words, but the context of them.

 

Take the debate between conservatives/libertarians and progressives regarding “Death Panels.” Sara Palin was excoriated in the unbiased press for her characterization, of what are now widely recognized as… death panels. She was called extreme for her opinion. There was no corner of the unbiased media that didn’t pillory her for it. Yet today, only a few years later, everyone knows that those panels will decide who lives and who dies… and progressives even admit it. But Sara Palin was labeled an extremist for her stance, while those that disemboweled her for it, were, and still are, called moderate. History clearly shows that she was the moderate and her detractors were the extremists… and the theater goes on.

 

Now President Obama claims republicans are out of touch and extreme in their positions. His rhetoric is as vicious as it is prevarication. One example is that Obama maintains he has the power to arbitrarily enforce the laws as he sees fit. While some in the republican party, (the non progressives), disagree. They claim Obama must follow the Constitution, enforcing every law Congress passes, to the best of his ability. The position that the President has the arbitrary power to enforce law as he sees fit, is called, but more importantly considered, moderate, while the Constitutional argument is called extreme.

 

We are not quibbling about the meaning of a few words here, we are discussing the future of liberty in our country, and the World. If we allow the language to be controlled by a single faction in our society, we already have tyranny, in fact if not in name. Absurdity, like the switching of moderate and extreme, needs to be pointed out, else those who are lazy thinkers will accept the false label and act accordingly. Once that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, we are condemned by our silence.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Solution to Obama Care

Monday, August 12th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the solution to our health care dilemma, within the framework we are given, is to create a new standard for providers and insurers while standardizing policy choices. This would be coupled with elimination of as much regulation of the industry as possible. The goal is to create system where the feedback of the market is restored, the granularity of information is smoothed out and most of all, the quality of health care will continue to make leaps and bounds. If the republicans were to offer such a system to replace the pending train wreck that is Obama care they would find the people behind them. Since we will all need health care at some time in our lives this is a critical question for all of us.

 

The feedback mechanism of the health care industry is broken. That is obvious. The cost of services is not a factor in a patient’s decision where to go for treatment, or what course of treatment to follow and as a result, the cost benefit of various plans. Couple this elimination of the normal cost benefit feedback of the market system and costs must rise at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation. This is as evident as gravity when we drop a hammer on our toe.

 

The system where by people find a doctor, with very little knowledge of how good that doctor is compared to others he is competing against for patients, and what he charges compared to his competition. This information is important if a patient is to rationally decide on a doctor or other provider. Today we decide by anecdote not empirical information. Clearly anecdote is a far less reliable means for answering any question than cold hard facts.

 

To replace the feedback mechanism and asynchronous information a simple set of standards will do. Have each provider of health care services offere a cost performance sheet, of their charges for various treatments along with their results, charted against the industry average and the local average, against the results for that provider. There would be several standard health care options for every insurer but they could at their own discretion offer plans with greater or lesser levels of service. This cost performance sheet would be available in the offices and on their web page. Another measure would be, all insurance companies would have to agree on a standard form for treatment providers, that all insurers would use and accept. Lastly, the transmission of market feedback would be, insurers would give patients a small percentage of the savings, if patient’s choose a lower cost treatment and/or provider.

 

If patient’s were rewarded, in cash, say… 10% of the savings between options, we would choose the lower cost option more often, lowering the ultimate costs to insurers. The synchronous knowledge provided by the cost performance sheets, would allow patients to logically decide options such as treatment and provider, as well as to choose to get the bonus cash, if we choose a lower cost option. The feedback mechanism would be restored driving down costs and pushing up quality. Research and development would be channeled more efficiently and might yield results faster due to the efficiency market forces bring to an industry.

 

The giant catastrophe that is Obama care must be done away with, else we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Government interference has always yielded disaster. Never has any government brought rationality to anything it has ever taken over. Political favor becomes the top motivating factor in every decision, pushing logic and reason further and farther back in priority, until all decisions have no connection with reality at all, and are insane as a result. History is as adamant on this subject, as it is on the opposite being true, regarding the market system. Pragmatically, we have to take the logical path, especially when the consequences are so dire for us and our children if we choose poorly.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Laws of Economics

Thursday, August 8th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the laws of physics, (God’s laws) are inviolate, when someone breaks them and is hurt by the result, the person becomes a victim, of his or her own foolishness. The laws of physics are only one example of this, there are other laws that are equally as inviolate, the laws of economics for example. The elite have been trying to overturn the laws of economics for generations now. Every time they try, millions starve to death, suffering fills the land, families are torn asunder and societies crumble. The people who’s lives are ruined and lost are the victims of the elite’s attempts to violate the laws of economics. The end follows as assuredly as water flows downhill, no matter the intentions or political power, human suffering is always the wage of violating the laws of economics.

 

Rene Descartes came up with the idea that natural philosophy, (science) should divest itself from all handed down philosophy, and instead measure, observe and interpolate from the observations of the particular to the general. This idea is the foundation of modern science and the scientific method. All the goods we enjoy today that are based in the advancement of science came from this idea. The scientific method makes use of Cartesian logic as did Adam Smith. Both observe events, they measure phenomenon and apply what they had seen to create a general theory. That theory is then tested until it is proven false or stands up to empirical experimentation. Since this is the established method of scientific inquiry, it seems strange that in every area of human endeavor this is the standard, but in the sphere of economics it is eschewed for political expediency.

 

The empirical examples of the twentieth Century should be sufficient to establish some knowledge of which economic policies work and which do not. Socialism has been tried at least four times in that century. Woodrow Wilson implemented a whole host of socialist ideas, not the least of which is the administrator form of government, a form that lives with us still. His economic policies ushered in a recession that dwarfed the one Obama inherited. Capitalism was said to have failed and was considered of no more value.

 

Then came the election of 1920 and Warren Harding. He died far too early in his Presidency to make a difference but his Vice President, who served out his term, Calvin Coolidge made a huge difference in people’s lives. President Coolidge eliminated the income tax, he deregulated and cut government spending. The progressives at the Federal Reserve were incensed at these innovations, so they raised interest rates, to undermine President Coolidge’s attempts to improve the economy. As we all know from history books and popular television the 1920’s were roaring. The United States saw a period of GDP growth that has never been equaled by any President before or since.

 

After the republican progressive Herbert Hoover, destroyed the economy with Smoot Hawley and other socialist programs, Franklin Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt ran as a Calvin Coolidge cutter. He resided as a progressive socialist however. His policies regulated everything, even sending a man to jail for selling underwear, at a price the government didn’t allow. The result was the Great Depression. No amount of government spending got us out of that period of economic malaise, until the Second World War changed the entire economic paradigm of the World.

 

The next progressive to wreck the economy was Jimmy Carter. His profoundly misguided economic policies were so crippling the Federal Reserve had to lower interest rates to such an extent they brought on inflation. Carter’s policies of regulate, tax and spend exacerbated the inflation and the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates to keep up with inflation, and we got the term, stagflation.

 

The only other attempt to follow the laws of economics was Ronald Reagan. He took the bull by the horns and deregulated, cut taxes and tried mightily to cut spending, but with a democrat House and Senate, cutting spending was impossible. Paul Volcker wrested inflation down, and the 1980’s became another time of high economic growth. I recall MacDonalds was offering $9.00 an hour to start! Given the dollar has lost more then 50% of it’s purchasing power since then, that is equivalent to $18.00 an hour today!

 

Lastly we have the example of Obama, the taxer, regulator and spender of epic proportions. Obama immediately implemented a whole host of spending to get the economy going in the face of a recession, he raised taxes and continues to do so, to balance the budget and his regulations have no peer in the history of the United States. Obama’s policies are in direct contrast to President Coolidge’s as are the results. Now we have another time that is called great… the great recession.

 

Today many are saying that capitalism simply doesn’t work. They are called geniuses and sages by the unbiased media, yet history, empirically observed, proves them wrong. If I have a car and I put sugar in the gas tank, is it logical to argue that the automobile cannot work? If I did put sugar in the gas tank… I would be the victim of my own foolishness and not of any malign intentions of the car… or of physics. Is an economy any different?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Hate Speech

Monday, August 5th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, progressives use the pejorative, “hate speech” to stifle debate on issues they know they cannot logically argue. Hate speech has become a euphemism for any pointing out any weakness in the progressive lexicon. This has worked pretty well in the past because no one want’s to think their arguments are based in hate. Progressives understand that their points are illogical, and that if people actually thought about their rhetoric, progressivism would wither on the vine. This is unacceptable, because political power is their God, and that power is based on lies, fear, and most of all… envy.

The absurdity of the progressive arguments are so clear to anyone with an open mind they cannot be defended with logic, only emotional rhetoric. Progressives constantly claim their policies and programs are “for the children.” But, how can someone who advocates execution by dismemberment of children, simply because the name has been changed from baby to fetus, ever claim to be for children? Would they argue for the same treatment for a dog? What if we changed the name dogs, to grundlsnitch… would that make dismembering a grundlsnitch acceptable? Anyone who points out the irony is called a hater, even though it is the person who advocates dismemberment for babies that must harbor hate in their hearts. To say those who seek to protect the most innocent are haters, and those who seek to dismember them are not, brings absurdity to epic heights.

The race baiters in our society are universally progressives. They gin up hatred for Jews in every statement they make. Louis Farrakhan is a perfect example. He absurdly claims the Jews are responsible for all the problems of his people. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are other examples of blatant racists who spew hate and vitriol. They rant against other people, not for the actions of those individuals, but the perceived group transgressions, the race baiters can exploit to political and monetary advantage. Just like their ancestors in the progressive movement did.

The heroes of the progressive movement were universally racists. Take Margret Sanger. She advocated for abortion because, she claimed, African Americans would kill their own children and render themselves extinct as a result. Can anyone argue she didn’t nurture hate in her black heart? Woodrow Wilson was a well known racist. The movie, Birth of a Nation, a blatantly racist movie written by the Klu Klux Klan, was originally aired in the Oval Office for Woodrow Wilson. The list of progressive heroes that were evil man and women is endless.

Progressives don’t seem to realize, when they point the finger of hatred at someone else, three fingers point back at them. How do progressives argue any point? They use derision and envy to motivate. Both emotions are based in hatred, and can only motivate people to damage others, never uplift them. To do this requires as a prerequisite hatred in the heart of the person who does it. Damaging the interests of another cannot ever be called love, it can only be inspired by hate.

Calling someone who harbors love in his or her heart, a hater, is very effective at stifling debate. This has the effect of stunting the growth of society and culture. When good is shut down by evil, and evil is allowed to go unchallenged, evil must grow and good must shrink. It is only when good people call the progressives out in their spurious rhetoric that we can resume honest debate. People must be allowed to have open and honest conversations, else we all fall back into the dark ages of hatred, envy and racism. Those that pit groups of people against other groups are the political descendents of Hitler, Mao and Stalin. That progressives advocate for the exact same policies is proof enough, but that they use the same tactics of envy, hate and shutting down honest debate… should be a wake up call to every person on the planet.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Political Age

Thursday, August 1st, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me that we live in political age. Historians refer to various eras and ages in human history by the predominant source of change, for example, the Iron Age or the Bronze age. Iron being the underlying efficient cause of innovations in technology during the iron age, as was bronze in the bronze age. Today, politics is far more than merely efficient cause, it has become final cause, or the reason for it. Politics in our society has reached the level of a self justifying end.

 

Politics has become ingrained in our lives even if we personally don’t follow them. The invention of the welfare state has given the government so much more reach and perception into our lives, we have become puppets of it, and so, no matter how uninterested you or I may be in politics, politics has a keen interest in us. From our tax rate, to whether we get that building permit for our new firm or home, politics is integral in our needs being met.

 

The invention of mass media is one major reason politics has become so ingrained in our lives. Mass media has allowed politicians who have great charisma to become cults of personality. It would have been unthinkable a week before Marconi turned on his first radio for such a thing to happen. There have been a few larger than life figures, but, to a man they have been generals, like Alexander, Pericles, Caesar, and Kublai Khan.

 

Another reason politics has become so important it deserves to name our age, is a point I touched on above, the insidious way government has oozed into our lives. This has made every facet of our lives subject to political considerations. Your job could be made illegal by the government at any time if the elite see fit to do so. Your children are watched at school for any sign you might not be a “good” parent. (Not to say that there are not bad parents out there but the number is extremely exaggerated by the elite in education). As I mentioned before, if you want to build a home you must go to government, if you want to get married you must get a government license, if you want to become a hairdresser you need a state license. Think about the personal information you have to give the government every year in your IRS form, and we all know that trust would never be used against us for, say, political reasons. The list is as intrusive as it is endless. There is no part of your life where government doesn’t have some hand.

 

It doesn’t stop there however. As government takes over the health care system, and let’s face it, that is where we are going, it will make your most personal decisions for you. If, God forbid, you or I get cancer, government will decide if you and I are valuable enough to give treatment to. Perhaps we could be put on a waiting list for a few years to lower the costs. Even decisions about childbearing will have the thumb print of government. You may have exceed your allotment of funds for childbirth and since all hospitals are government hospitals…

 

But most importantly, as we move closer to World government, that must inevitably turn to global tyranny, fewer and fewer people will be making more and more decisions for everyone else. The elite will have unprecedented power over the lives of the human race. Power Dion couldn’t even have dreamed of. Politics will be the most important aspect of everyone’s life. Because your very life will hang on politics. Like Socrates’ did.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin