Archive for December, 2013

Looking Into the New Year

Monday, December 30th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, with the year ending it is time to look forward at the year to come. There will be economic news, tragedy will happen, terrorism will grace a few front pages and there will be happy stories, encouraging news and miracles. Next year could be the best of your life, so so, or the worst you have lived, but the possibilities are endless. If we are to gain the benefit of knowledge however, we must remember the past, so as not to relive the time we made bad decisions, but not dwell there. To get the best of what is possible we must avoid making the mistakes of the past. That is the way societies advance and not falter.

 

Expect good things, think good things and do good things and good things will come to you. When we do a good thing for someone else we feel better about our own lot. We are as we think, if we dwell on bad times and things, then we become mired in them and cede the ability to go on, maybe to something far better. Moreover we get what we expect. If we expect things to go wrong they often do. Possibly, do to our expectations we have a hand in them going wrong, but the same argument can be made for expecting good things too.

 

A smile is the best accessory anyone can wear. A smile is free to give, it carries profound weight and it improves the lot of Man. There is not one among us who is incapable of utilizing the musculature to muster a smile yet there are so few thrown around. Even if a nice smile to the delivery man doesn’t get a few cents knocked off the price, he or she might be having a bad day, because of that, someone else might get a smile, and your goodness will have cascaded.

 

When we see a failure of government, society and culture, is does not follow we should loose faith in our fellow man, only in those things which have failed us. People are people everyone strives to get ahead, to deny that, is to deny humanity. When people fail there is almost always a negative backlash. When an institution fails however, that institution usually offers up some scape goat. One that, to fix, will result in more power for that institution. This is the way institutions grow. They fail, get more power because of that failure, and fail again… People are not like institutions however, we pay for our mistakes, and so are more trustworthy.

 

Most of us just want to get along. I bet almost everyone would like to be a hero, if the opportunity is convenient, safe and public. The number who are malevolent in their hearts are few but we weigh all our fellows on that scale. Yet, common sense tells us that if people were as bad as the media makes us out, society would crumble. We are urged to trust those institutions that fail us all the time, with absolute power, while mistrusting other human beings to the point of demanding them disarmed. What we loose sight of in the culturally induced panic is what we really loose. It is by your neighbor having a gun that makes it ever so less likely that someone who is malevolent will break into your home.

 

Prayer is a great way to focus the mind on good and weaken evil. The Capitalist’s prayer is one that does just that:

Lord God,

I pray that somehow and in someway,

I improve the lot of all humanity,

And that my existence be a blessing on mankind forever…. Amen

In our system, where we compete to meet the needs of our fellow human beings. Those who meet others needs best can be said to have improved the lot of mankind. So we can say, in a market system, wealth goes to those who are a blessing on mankind. Wealth makes many other things possible.

 

A new year is an opportunity to make the future something different than what it otherwise would be. How often we are given that chance, always rejecting it to continue on a path we dislike, find repellant and lowers us. Think good thoughts, expect good things, do good things, Pray, smile, be more trusting of people and less of institutions. Don’t allow yourself to be corralled into group think that empowers the elite at our cost. Just as the carpenter uses chalk lines, to get a building straight, these are also tools, tools that each of us can use to get our own lives, and society, straight.

 

 

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Standards Based Society Versus Regulated Society

Thursday, December 26th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, standards are better for humanity than regulation, but regulation is better for the elite. Standards encourage commerce while regulations are, by design, intended to give some politically favored group, privilege. Standards drive people to self regulate. Observation shows us that as regulation grows standards drop. The same can be said of the reverse, when standards go up regulation goes down. We can also glean from observation that economies function best when standards are high and regulation is low. The economic history of the World is adamant that these assertions are truths. So why are we in a regulatory spiral that can only end in total government?

 

When asked what would he do if he were made emperor, Confucius said, “I would rectify the use of terms,” or in other words, standardize. Imagine if a gallon sold by a dairy was one size, but when the farmer sold it to the dairy the measure of a gallon was smaller, to help the farmer with his feed costs. Perhaps the amount in a gallon was different at the pump than it was for the refiner? That is exactly how it would work if a gallon were regulated instead of standardized. We have weights and measures that are standardizations not regulations. A gallon is a set amount of liquid or gas.

 

Have you ever wondered why a law passed by Congress and signed by the President has so many pages? Or why those pages expand so much once the bureaucracy gets hold of them? Especially as compared to the short description of any standard? This is because regulations are designed to benefit some politically favored group. Much of the extra wording is to make sure politically unfavored groups don’t get the benefit. But a standard has no exceptions everyone is held to the same code.

 

Since observation tells us that an economy functions best when standards are high and regulation is low, it would seem logical to move any society from a dependence on regulation, to an ethos of standards. Again, any examination of the history of economics shows that when regulation distorts any market, at some point the distortion becomes so great it overpowers the cohesive forces in that economy, blowing bubbles then bursting them or recessions, occur. All of economics is about trying to change this observation of reality.

 

Economists seek to gain control over the economic cycle so government can be the arbiter of who gets what. When an economist gets a Nobel Prize he or she has discovered some means to wrest the reigns of economics from the free market. The holy grail to the elite is total control over the means of production. If that were to occur, distribution would be according to political favor, and who has more political favor than politicians? They would get the lion’s share of the goods of society. If this seems presumptuous, because it rests on the egoism of the elite, I will remind you, President Obama argued; Some doctors are cutting off the legs of patients simply to get the money. How can anyone make a claim that rests so much on the villainous nature of Man unless he has that diabolical himself? Especially since the allegation was, and is false, but only propagandist rhetoric to push the masses. How much less does my argument rest on the egoistic nature of Man? They justify their means by their glorious ends, no mater the hypocrisy of it.

 

There is a faction of the World intelligentsia that believe more regulation and fewer standards is a good thing, they call themselves the Frankfurt School. Their philosophy is a direct contradiction of the largest part of philosophers, like Socrates, who argued in The Republic; justice is a good we do for the intrinsic goodness of it… thereby benefiting all of society, or Confucius, who contended the leaders must lead by example. The Frankfurt School follows the philosophy of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. The common threads among these philosophers are their belief in the materialistic nature of the universe, and that human beings can be “evolved,” Moreover, there can be no absolute truth or morality, due to their strictly materialistic view of the World. Nietzsche argued in, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that the way to the over man is under. Or that by the chaos created by crime, poverty and oppression, that would result from everyone doing whatever the hell they want, whenever they wanted to, because they are holding themselves to whatever standard they thought best, from saint to sadist.

 

The Frankfurt School believes that through changing the state, history, society and culture they can evolve human beings into super men, who are in touch with their social natures instead of our individual selves. This means are acceptable to them because, the means are the ends. Since they believe society will be best once people are forced to evolve, to whatever vision the holder has, and in the future all the ills that we find ourselves in will evaporate. Of course, the Frankfurt School’s whole thesis depends on the changing the very essence, of what makes us human beings. They presume to fundamentally change us by changing everything around us and in extreme cases killing those that hinder evolution. Standards are a road block while regulations pave the way. To that end, what would be more effective of gaining the power to evolve us, but by moving the paradigm from standardization to regulation? Because of the deprivation of people, the ends will have been made possible, by the means becoming an end.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Immigration Reform

Sunday, December 22nd, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the immigration bill that is winding it’s way through the legislature, should be called “The wage suppression act of 2013.” Let’s face it, the United States does not have a shortage of workers, we have a shortage of jobs. The labor participation rate in the US is falling at an epic rate. The US is in fact the only industrialized country that has a falling labor participation rate. Couple that tidbit with the fact that unemployment is still high by historic standards, and one can only conclude, that for some reason jobs are not being created in America today. Now, to a person with normal thinking, when a country is hemorrhaging jobs, that would be a bad time to introduce millions of new workers… wouldn’t it? Unless the elite think that the reason jobs are becoming more and more scarce is because wages are too high. If that is the case then those in power would do what they can to lower the wages of workers, for example, bring in millions of new workers to compete for fewer and fewer jobs, IE the wage suppression act.

 

Are wages too high in the US today? If we look at wages for skilled and unskilled work in the US, adjusted for inflation, we find that wages are at a historic low. All wage categories, except upper management, bureaucrats, and politicians, have been on a slide down. Wages in the low skilled sector have taken the biggest hit but the high skilled sector has been stagnant for years as well. Engineers in the US, back in the nineteen eighties were at about one hundred thousand a year, and are still at that rate today. Many argue this is because companies like Microsoft, Google, Hewlett Packard, IBM, etc… have been hiring immigrants instead of American engineers. These firms claim there are no Americans capable of doing these high skilled jobs, and that is why these high tech companies are pushing so hard for immigration reform, but facts fly in their faces.

 

Today colleges and universities in the US are turning out record numbers of high skilled people. These new college grads are entering the workforce at a time when there are few jobs and less opportunities. As a case in point, ask the waiter next time you go out to eat, if he or she has a college degree. More likely than not they do. When a college graduate must wait tables, he or she dislocates lower skilled workers, and so lacking a job they fall out of the workforce. So, we must ask ourselves, why are so many skilled people working so far below their potential? Moreover, with wages so low and opportunities so rare, no wonder recent college graduates are depressed and angry, therefore they have the time and are willing to participate in the Wall Street protests.

 

This would seem to indicate that it is not wages that is negatively effecting job creation but some other factor. When Ronald Reagan was elected there was a similar dearth of jobs. Unemployment was high and wages had stagnated. The course Reagan put the US on was not one of raising taxes, regulation, government stimulus and creating new entitlements, what Reagan did was lower taxes, deregulate and ratchet down the entitlement mindset. Calvin Coolidge did the same thing. What was the results of these policies? High GDP growth, rising wages, lower crime, low unemployment and the creation of the term “yuppies.” If you don’t remember what a Yuppy was, it meant a young upwardly mobile person… an all but extinct species today.

 

Since Obama has taken office he has raised a whole slew of taxes, from income to fees and introducing a whole new tax regime, Obama care. His party has regulated everything they can find. Our banking system reels under the weight of Dodd Frank, and the trillion dollar stimulus went entirely to rich political hacks, who went bankrupt as soon as the government check cleared, with not a job to show for it. The Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars, to counter the negative effects of Obama’s policies, to no avail. The only people making out well are the uber rich, (you know, the people Obama claims to hate, but spends all his time on Martha’s Vineyard with), government workers and politicians. Washington DC is a boom town awash in money and power while Main Street USA crumbles.

 

So why import millions of new workers who will work for far less than Americans can? The only logical answer to that question is to lower the wages of Americans. Why would the government do that? To diminish the political power of the people and create disquiet in society. Remember, the worse conditions are for the people, the more power politicians get. Since power is their goal, not creating the conditions for a stable wealthy society, the unrest that… diminishing wages, resentment of immigrants, and the crime these beget, drives demand for more regulation, more government oversight, more police, more surveillance, in short, more power to government and the elite. Our compassion for the children of illegal immigrants, is being exploited to lower our standard of living, therefore enhancing the political power of the elite. This should come as no surprise, the new class’ goal has always been to reestablish the power they lost to the bourgeoisie a few centuries ago. Back to the good old days, when there were only two classes, the aristocracy and peasants.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Incentives, in the Long and Short Term

Thursday, December 19th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, incentives count, in every facet of human existence. People can be relied on to do what is in their immediate interests. Long term interests however, have less bearing on what we do, because the consequences are distant, while the consequences of short term actions are at hand, so they count more. As more negative incentive build up in society we can reasonably expect more negative actions by people. This is a fundamental fact of economics. That is why the incentives in a society are possibly the most important factor in the real standard of living of that society.

 

If the building you are in is on fire and you are trapped in a room on the 20th floor, what can you do? Jump out the window, landing is simply the next problem you have to solve. The world we live in demands immediate actions and our thinking has evolved to satisfy those needs. When we get up we think about the day at hand and not so much about the coming year. It is mere human nature. So when our immediate needs and wants are blocked by regulation, or encouraged by culture, we react within those constraints. The long term results of those actions are rarely considered.

 

Governments around the world have taken on a new role in the lives of people, to mitigate the negative consequences of negative behavior. Even a cursory look at the goal of most modern regulation and laws illustrates the point. Abortion free of charge and for any reason is one such example. It’s sole purpose is to allow people to engage in socially damaging conduct without short term consequences. What is the welfare state except a means to encourage men to abandon their families? Even a seemingly benign law like Social Security encourages profligate spending during the high earning years of a person’s lifetime, despite the fact it leaves people with insufficient funds to actually retire on.

 

Economic incentives that are socially damaging abound. Regulations that demand banks lend money to people who cannot pay that money back directly led to the banking crisis of 2008, environmental laws that drive businesses into bankruptcy fill thousands of pages, while unemployment benefits are extended regularly, the Federal Reserve is printing billions of dollars a month to mask the negative effects of government policies, like high taxes and stifling regulations, savers are punished by the low returns driven by the Federal Reserve’s monetizing the debt while spenders are encouraged, class warfare are encouraged by the elite, while government officials are allowed to skirt their own laws with almost total impunity.

 

These are just the tip of the iceberg of negative incentives government rakes our virtues with. Many are a crass means to grasp political power, by manipulating our compassion, only serving to increase the very things they are supposed to eliminate. Perhaps the most pernicious thing about negative incentives is the way they lower the outcomes of individuals. There is a story about a woman in her 60s who lives in her father’s basement, while her father, in his 80s, travels the world. If we apply that story to the next generation, their economic outcomes will be lower than hers, and the next’s will be even lower. As government creates more and more negative incentives the economic future of each generation gets worse and worse. Eventually lowering the economic outcomes of Americans to that of the third world.

 

Young people, who are most negatively effected, get to have their immediate wants met. Sex with strangers at any time anyplace fueled by changing cultural mores and free birth control, if that fails, (or they fail to use it), free abortion on demand is the backup. This clearly leads to a promiscuous society. Those babies that slip past the abortionist’s knife are born fatherless, because the State is ready to step in and take his place. This leads to men who never mature. Why save when the savings of others are at your disposal? The elite have created a system where virtuous behavior is punished and bad behavior is rewarded. Is it any wonder there is so much bad behavior? It can truly be said that today’s young people will pay the highest price.

 

Now we stand here, reading the latest results of the negative incentives our society and government promote, aghast at the news we are assaulted with daily. The knock out game both horrifies and befuddles us, school shootings become more common, people have less money for retirement, wages get lower even as jobs get fewer, 60 year old women live in their father’s basement, while he travels the world, and our own government monitors us with increasing intrusiveness, to counter the negative incentives… and we sigh, how could this happen? In our hearts we know, but we are loathe to do what it takes to turn the ship around. The right thing is always the hard thing, because it is painful in the short term, for rewards in the long term.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Principles Versus Party

Monday, December 16th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, most folks will give up their beliefs for their team, but very few will give up their team for their principles. We all want our team to win. It is merely human nature. When we allow that want for connection to supersede our self interests then we become our own enemy. This happens in many places in life but no place more so than in the arena of politics. Too often we will subvert our principles for our party. If our party is caught lying, we forgive them, but if another party lies, we hold a grudge forever. While it is natural it is counterproductive. We follow out of a sense of connexion but as we do we do great damage to our self interests. It is through following principles that we protect our self interests, and the interests of society as a whole, party is only a means to that end.

 

Human beings need to be connected with others. Team sports is an example of this paradigm at work. We root for our team against all others. Like people in ancient times, and in less advanced societies allegiance to their clan. To a person raised in a capitalist society, where allegiance to clan is out moded we don’t understand their thinking on an intellectual level, but as human beings we are subject to it nonetheless. Those of us that live in a market system weigh the good against the bad and keep a mental tally sheet that guides us as to the right course of action. When we root for our party over our principles we fall back to a less evolved way of thinking.

 

We all would rather believe a glittering lie than an ugly truth but it is in facing ugly truths that we grow and mature. It is in indulging in glittering lies that we devolve as human beings, becoming a force for evil, regardless of the loftiness of the principles we have abandoned. Those that shriek about freedom to do this or that need to do the math. Weigh what we are all loosing for their team to win. Because what is a principle, if we don’t hold ourselves and our team, to them? They become nothing, but an egoistic means of controlling others, that we eschew ourselves. When we abandon our principles for political expediency, for the team, we participate in the destruction of those very principles. It is a hypocrite that expects others to follow his principles when he won’t follow them himself.

 

Without values society crumbles. A society that is devoid of any real principles is a society cast adrift. Great nations, societies and civilizations rise in virtue and fall in vice. This is the sole lesson of history. A great people rise to power, wealth and prominence by following their principles and fall into weakness, poverty and ignominy when they abandon those principles. It follows like water flows down a hill. There is not one example where a people rose to greatness without principles, in other words a societal myth, or where a society thrived by ignoring those principles.

 

Apparently this is a lesson of history that needs to be taught over and over. The results are always the same, the factors that lead up to the fall are always the same, but humanity refuses to learn the lesson. The vast majority of human suffering that has been experienced has been due to this. Today we are no better than the Athenian who abandoned Solon’s laws, the Spartan who turned his back on the laws of Lycurgus, or Rome when it embraced an emperor instead of the consular system. We are no different when we abandon our founding principles, the market system, limited government and individual liberty.

 

Our society is no stronger than the Athenian, Spartan or Roman, because our system is made up of flawed human beings, who are more than happy to give up our principles, for political expediency. The new class seek to regain the power they lost to the bourgeoisie, when the new class was called the aristocracy, and so they need to destroy the principles that gave rise to the bourgeoisie, the market system, limited government and freedom. They seek to restore the old system of political favor, total government and oppression.

 

When we the people participate in abandoning the principles that brought us to such a height of technology, wealth, and freedom, we are as villainous as the politician who lies, connives and usurps. If our team is part of the problem, it is our duty to sand up and demand our leaders return to our foundational principles, else those principles will wither away leaving a destitute society that is controlled by the few using violent oppression, which is the normal case in human affairs. We will have delivered our children into slavery, by abandoning our principles for the team. So I ask you… is the victory of your team worth the enslavement of your children?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Republicans Need to GO!

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the Republican leadership simply does not get it, and they need to go. They stab their base in the back as soon as they are elected, then compound the wound by twisting the knife. They argue we must vote for them else a progressive will get elected. The republican elite must think us stupid. No matter who we vote for we get a progressive. Republicans have had ample opportunity to prove they are different from democrats and fail at every turn to do so. Tea Party republicans have tried to hold the line but are bleeding from multiple stab wounds in their backs as well. No democratic republic can last with only one party rule. Unfortunately that is what we have in the US, One Party Rule… progressive.

 

There are so many examples to cite I am at a loss as to which ones to bring up. Possibly the most egregious were the Bush years. Not the lying H, inheriting Reagan’s economy and an excited electorate, and who ran on, “read my lips, no new taxes,” then raised taxes as soon as possible, but W. He had a plurality of republicans in the House and a near majority in the Senate. What did he do with that political power? Did he lower regulations, taxes, put limits in place to the growth of government, or cut the deficit? No on three of those counts. He did lower taxes but that scrap came with a whole new entitlement and more regulations along with gobs and gobs of deficit spending.

 

Scott Brown was elected in the very liberal Massachusetts to stop Obama care. His election was made irrelevant by the Senate deeming the bill passed without a real vote or debate. Brown went on to stab his base in the back by voting for Dodd Frank, the stimulus and the assault weapons ban. Then was soundly defeated in his next election, by a communist who had fraudulently claimed to be an American Indian, to get special opportunities due to affirmative action! I will say this, not one republican voted for the monstrosity of Obama care. For that I give them some kudos. That was largely why republicans won the House in 2010. What have they done with the power that control of the House gave them? They have attacked… the Tea Party!

 

The ascension of Obama to emperor of America rang in a new era for the US. We now have a President who committed fraud, when he went to Columbia and Harvard claiming to be a foreign student, or is committing fraud now by claiming to be born in the US. We might never know. The birth certificates he has released have all been forgeries. Despite this obvious weakness the republicans have eschewed any oversight of his actions. The cave man, Bohener, caves at every opportunity. Where are the House hearings on Fast and Furious? What about Benghazi? The IRS scandal? These are only a very small number of the impeachable offenses Obama and Holder are guilty of, yet the republicans spend their time attacking their base, and the Tea Party, while they negotiate with Obama to lower our wages, by adding millions of illegal aliens to the immense number of people seeking work. Ouch, my aching back!

 

The republican elite along with an abetting unbiased media destroyed every conservative republican so the fatally flawed Romney could run against Obama. With Romney at the top of the ticket, the republican elite took Obama care off the table as a campaign issue, since it was based on Romney care in Massachusetts. Romney ignored his base and instead went for the “independents,” which he got by a land slide, but his base didn’t turn out, so he lost the election. Why should a conservative vote for a progressive? Because another progressive will get elected if we don’t? No matter who wins the base looses. So we didn’t turn out and Obama got back in. I wonder if that wasn’t the plan all along.

 

Meanwhile the republican elite attacked conservative candidates during that election while denying them funds. Then pointed to their loss as a reason not to even allow a Tea Party republican on any ticket! The latest example of the republican party stabbing a conservative/libertarian in the back was the Virginia election. The republican branch of the progressive party denied Ken Cuccinelli funding and backing. Cuccinelli had zero backing from his party, while the uber progressive Terry McAuliffe got unconditional patronage from the democrats… and still almost lost! The Tea Party republican came within a hair of winning despite being outspent six to one! (While being attacked by his own party as unelectable).

 

The republican elite are destroying that party more effectively than Obama and the New Class could ever hope to. The IRS scandal was child’s play compared to the efforts of the republican elite. (Perhaps that is why there are no hearings on that abuse of power). Recent history is littered with lost opportunities for republicans to prove their worth. The destruction of Herman Cain, Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and even Newt Gingrich, by republican hit groups, so that Romney could run, was despicable. Republicans deny Tea Party conservatives/libertarians funding, while they vilify their campaigns as unelectable, despite which, Tea Party republicans are the only republicans winning elections. Yes, the old guard republicans need to go. Put up serious candidates in the primary process and give the rinos the boot. Once the republican party stops stabbing it’s base in the back, republicans will start winning elections, and, I pray to God, will pull us back from the precipice Obama and the progressives have led us to.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Mandela’s Passing and South Africa’s Future

Monday, December 9th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, with the death of Nelson Mandela, the future of South Africa is in jeopardy. This was of course inevitable when that great man died, but now that his mortality is manifest, it is incumbent upon the forward looking to foresee what the results of his passing will be on the nation he loved. His Christian faith tempered his actions and thereby the actions of the African National Congress (ANC). Without his humanity at the helm, or at least mitigating the various political factions vying for power there, I am afraid South Africa will now start down the well trod path of oppression and violence.

 

It is interesting that South Africa went a different way than did it’s neighbors. When Rhodesia gained it’s independence it fell under the spell of socialism and retaliation. The white farmers were attacked in their homes, their land seized by the government and redistributed to poor blacks. The result of these policies of retribution and redistribution were universally bad. The country splintered and what had been the bread basket of Africa descended into world renowned poverty. To this day Zimbabwe, and Zambia are poster children of how to destroy a country and it’s economy.

 

That South Africa didn’t follow the path of it’s neighbors is a testament to Nelson Mandela. He mitigated the natural human instinct for revenge and instead channeled it to peace and reconciliation. The results speak for themselves. South Africa has the highest GDP of any sub Saharan African nation and continues to grow, albeit at a limited pace, due to structural problems related to regulation, taxation and political favor. As long as Mandela lived his cult of personality kept South Africa on the path of peace and prosperity. His demand for reconciliation further enhanced the wealth of South Africans.

 

The death of Nelson Mandela will result in a power vacuum. All the heretofore limited political players in South Africa will struggle for supremacy. Without Mandela’s Christian moderation I believe South Africa will descend to the atrocities that characterized it’s neighbors. The communist party is strong there and will now start to exert it’s political power. Power that was kept in check by Mandela. Communists brooch no sharing of power and will happily use violence to gain total supremacy. If the history of communism shows us nothing else it shows us this. It may take a year or two but political upheaval will result in violence.

 

Political violence never comes without cost. The fragile economy of South Africa, that was largely held together by Mandela, will collapse under the weight of the coming political upheaval. While the poorest have not gain much under the ANC’s rule they have at least not starved. When civil war breaks out famine will rear it’s ugly head. Communists care nothing for the predicament of the poor or workers. Communists, (the New Class), care only about their own political power. So the plight of the people will not effect their calculations one iota. Except to exploit that suffering for political leverage.

 

I pray I am wrong and that clear heads will prevail but history is adamant. The death of Nelson Mandela will show the World the weakness of the South African constitution, you know, the one Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the US Supreme Court Judge… said would be a better example to follow for a new Republic, than the US model. The nation that great man worked so hard for, will be torn asunder by the same political forces that destroyed Rhodesia, Angola, and Mozambique, with the same results… poverty, oppression, civil war and famine. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments not withstanding.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Commodification of Human Suffering

Thursday, December 5th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, human suffering has become a commodity, to be traded and exploited for political power. If someone’s suffering can be misused to that end, it is displayed in neon lights, but if it serves no political purpose, or works against the elite’s design, it is ignored. In this truly diabolical scheme, the media are the major players, acting at the behest of the political elite. Both of which are members of the “New Class.” Our innate repulsion at suffering is being played upon, to steer us into a course that is profoundly against our own interests, but in the presumed interests of the elite… or in other words, the New Class.

 

We have an innate revulsion to suffering be it human or animal. It is a human thing, that when we see someone in pain we are made uncomfortable, (except for the sadist). When something makes us uncomfortable we try to make it go away. In the case of human suffering we turn our eyes from it or we do something about it. The political elite know and understand this vulnerability of human nature and use it to manipulate us as best they can. It is up to us then, to be rational in our assessment of what we are shown, judging what is real and what is being used for political purposes and act accordingly.

 

The commodification of suffering is why we are reminded of certain misery constantly, often fictitious ills, like the tragedy of a lack of unlimited access to birth control paid for by someone else, but true human suffering, like the deprivations of Mao, are ignored. The “war on women” is an example of fictitious human suffering, while the genocide against Christianity, that is happening around the World right now, is ignored. The first serves the new class’ objectives while the second undermines it. The fact of illegal immigration is abraded like a perpetual cold sore, so the elite can lower our wages and water down our vote, while the evil of abortion and the suffering it causes, is not only ignored but anyone who points it out is vilified. Our compassion for the uninsured was the tool the elite used to jamb Obama care down our throats. These are only a very few examples of human suffering that the new class uses to promote a political agenda, and that which they keep us ignorant of.

 

Yet the political elite constantly use the suffering of others, to guide us to making decisions that are not only against our interests, but will actually create more suffering of the type they propose to stop! The war on poverty, was ostensibly a means to eliminate poverty, but the results are the opposite. Despite spending trillions of other people’s money the war on poverty has created more poverty than has ever existed in the US before. This misguided program, where the State took the place of the father in the familial relationship, has led to an explosion of out of wedlock births. Out of wedlock births are the biggest source of poverty there is! This malicious program has made millions of people incapable of engaging in the market system, and thus escaping their poverty, locking generations into a cycle of dependency and want. Yet our society was guided to making this terrible decision by the elite playing on our compassion for the impoverished.

 

It seems reasonable that those in the new class, who have had the benefit of the very best education, should have known the logical outcome of disrupting the nuclear family. Otherwise they are stupid and shouldn’t be allowed in charge of a MacDonalds. If they did know, and used our compassion as a tool to get us not only to damage our own interests, but to damage the interests of the very people they purported to help, then it is clear evidence they have malevolence in their hearts. If we look into this one example further, we can see that the only people to really benefit from the war on poverty, are the elite and their minions…. the bureaucracy.

 

To exploit human suffering as a political tool is evil. Human suffering is not a tool like a hammer or wedge, it is a wrong that good people should try to stop. Those that exploit the pain of others to forward an agenda are psychopathic. To do so requires a certain level of malevolence and enjoyment of that suffering. Moreover, to purposefully ignore true human suffering because it is damaging to a political agenda, is sociopathic. To lack a conscience. I think we can all agree that sociopaths and psychopaths should be barred from holding any power over the lives of other human beings at all.

 

I am sure you can easily think of many other examples, where human suffering has been exploited for political advantage, and where human suffering that works against an agenda has been ignored. The pain of another human being is never a tool and to make it such is diabolical. To make suffering a commodity, like oil, gold or lumber, is the very definition of evil. Those that exploit human suffering for their own narrow objectives, should be thrown out of office and barred from holding any power over our lives ever again, and in a sane World… they would be.

 

 

Sincerely

 

John Pepin

 

The Persistence of Prejudice

Monday, December 2nd, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, people today have no real concept of racism, bigotry and prejudice, in fact our definition of these terrible social ills has been corrupted by bigots who peddle prejudice, by calling others racists. Prejudice has been with us since the dawn of time. It is rooted in the human ability to group things. We recognize similarities and group things, and people, according to what we see as their basic properties. That is how we come up with the grouping of various plants and animals. What is a mammal, a reptile or a sedge? They are artificial human descriptions based on our innate human ability to group things. In many ways this has served us well, but in others it holds us back and more perniciously, stifles debate and is a means to illegitimate political power.

 

The fundamental definition of prejudice is to group people. We all do it to a greater or lesser extent. Those Red Sox fans are all… or, those darn lawyers are all… . As I explained above grouping people and things is an innate human trait. It becomes prejudice when we interact with people we have pigeon holed based on our narrow definition of the group we have tossed them in. If we hate Red Sox fans, because they are Red Sox fans, we are being prejudiced. Moreover, when we hate someone due to the group we define them as being in, we are engaging in bigotry.

 

Bigotry is prejudice based in hate, envy or in a false sense of superiority. When we hate someone solely due to an artificial categorization then we are being bigoted. No matter if that bigotry is rooted in envy, or superiority, we are being bigoted. This social and most human of evils is part of why people can justify slavery. Those that are enslaved are inferior, because of some group they belong to, IE… Romans enslaved Aqueans and Aqueans enslaved Romans, despite their both being Italians. At least “they” don’t belong to “our” group. This allows all sorts of evils into the world, justified by bigotry. When this bigotry is based on a person’s race it is racism.

 

Racism is perhaps the oldest form of prejudice. We categorize individuals as members of a race and give all members the same attributes, wants, motivations and morality. This is simply another form of prejudice, and when it results in hate for members of that artificial group, then it is bigotry. As I said earlier, this has been used many times and in many places to justify all sorts of deprivations, slavery, forced migrations, and genocide along with many other evils. All these evils are based on bigotry rooted on a racially defined group.

 

Prejudice doesn’t always have to be negative. We group ourselves into virtuous classes and sometimes castes. We polish our own egos by saying to ourselves “we are superior because we don’t do this or that,” or “we are better because we do this or that.” We might say this race is better at math, that race is more athletic, or those people are more philosophical. These are all false categorizations because no human defined group is a monolith. We are all individuals and to be truly virtuous we must interact with all people as individuals. The moment we group people we are engaging in prejudice, whether for the good or the bad.

 

This is why prejudice, bigotry and racism are evils that we should strive to eliminate. It may not be possible, like it is not possible to actually be as godly as Jesus, but it is the duty of all Christians to try. We are called to act kindly to one another and ignore our artificial groupings. Grouping people, and then interacting with them based on our narrow definition of the group we have tossed them into, is despicable, and lowers us.

 

Today, prejudice, bigotry and racism are at the same time less obvious and more pernicious than they were in the past. Bigotry is still acceptable… if it is against politically disfavored groups, as it has always been. “The rich” are despised in many sectors of human society. “The Jews” have been the subjects of racism and bigotry for millenia and still are. In many places on this planet today it is still acceptable to call for the extermination of the Jewish people. “Tea Baggers” are vilified as racists and bigots proving the claimant a bigot him or her self.

 

Around the World and throughout time, the political elite have regularly grouped people, vilifying all members of that group, simply to amass political power. Communists have done this extremely effectively. Bigotry can also be a tool to silence discourse… by the artificial charge of bigotry and racism to a group, when a reasonable observer could only come to the conclusion, that the person who groups others… is the real bigot. Hate has always been a powerful tool to gain political leverage against one’s political adversaries, especially when it is rooted in emotionally based prejudice, because emotions cannot be reasoned with.

 

To categorize people as, those greedy rich, conservative hate mongers, tea baggers or homophobes, and then limit debate on important social and political issues, based on that artificial grouping and derogatory definition, is no less bigoted than to openly hate Jews, Blacks or Hispanics. In fact, it is worse, because it is pernicious. Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is an unmistakable evil, and almost everyone sees it, but calling someone a tea bagger is politically acceptable. (Even President Obama has made this defamatory claim about American Citizens without public outrage). Yes, racism, bigotry and prejudice are evils, because grouping human beings is sinister… and should not be exploited by bigots to stifle the free speech of individuals or amass political power.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin