Separatist Movements…

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the real question behind the separatist movements around the world is… do some people have the Right, or privilege, to bind others. The same question arises in discussions of slavery, victimless crimes and blue laws. Fundamentally, if some have rights others do not, then are they rights or privileges? In each example of a separatist movement, the local people want independence while people who live, often very far away, demand subservience. Clearly, those who live in places where they seek independence from a federal state have little power over that national government, which in and of itself is a primary motivating factor in any decision to separate from a national government. Speaking of motivating factors… it follows that the larger the state, the less power individuals have over it and the more power bureaucrats have over individuals. It is exactly that power over the individual, that drives freedom loving people to seek to separate from a government they feel no longer takes their freedoms seriously. Which brings us back to our original thesis but gives names to the players, in other words, do bureaucrats have privileges while the people have no Rights?

Catalan is in the news as the quintessential separatist movement today. The people of Catalan (Spain) are the economic powerhouse of Spain. Money is taken from them and redistributed to other parts of Spain and the European Union to help the stupid, lazy and foolish. Bureaucrats sometimes a thousand miles away decide what is best for Catalans, taking their money to redistribute, while they have no say whatsoever about what goes on in their own lands, let alone controlling what others do in their lands. Therefore definitionally, the people of Catalan have no Rights, (are essentially slaves), while those who make the rules, European Union bureaucrats, have privileges. The media claim if Catalan separates there will be a paradigm shift in Europe, giving wind to the sails of dozens of other separatist movements throughout Europe.

We have to ask ourselves, should someone who has never lived in an area and has no connection to it, have the ability to force those who do, to follow arbitrary rules? Often those rules make no sense to the people living under them because the people making them are ignorant. What about taking money from others at gunpoint for what is called a “noble” purpose? Make no mistake, that is what government does, fund itself through violence and the threat of violence. So, if I believe abortion is a terrible wrong, is it a good that I rob people to pay for lobbying and propaganda efforts, to save the lives of unborn babies? Does it matter what the supposed noble purpose is? What if I wanted to create a Star Trek type one world government… would it be acceptable then? Obviously those who take money to redistribute it, keep a fair portion for themselves, because would you deny someone working tirelessly to help the “disadvantaged” a place to lay their head, little girls for their diversion, unimaginable wealth or clothes fancy enough to represent their position in society?

People are self interested, we all look to our own interest above that of others, to deny that is to pretend unicorns exist. Is it reasonable then, that someone given absolute power over another will work in that other’s best interest… or their own? Of course not, those with power wield that power for their own interests, be that maintaining power, getting sex or amassing riches. Only a saint is capable of breaking that dynamic, and as we all know, saints are few and far between. So when states become overly powerful and large, there naturally sprouts and grows a separatist movement as a natural consequence of the state’s unchecked power, or put another way, the people’s powerlessness. Only in states with severely limited power can a nation grow to be large and stay that way. Until of course, the limitations are withdrawn and the state becomes autocratic. Which plants a seed…

I would argue, no one has the right or privilege to force others to pay for charities they do not hold dear, nor to participate in a government that denies their Rights for the privileges of another. It stands to reason however that a single vote, alone in time is insufficient to decide what the true will of the people is. In Catalan upwards of 85% of the people who voted, voted for independence. That however was a reactionary vote due to the excessive violence those with privilege visited on those without Rights. I would say that several votes should be taken over a reasonable period of time to separate, or to incorporate a region as well. This is simple common sense. Even if we take an arbitrary figure, like a ¾ majority, that majority is not fixed in time, it changes over time, and so to get a real representation of people’s cogent and thoughtful opinions, over time, several votes must be taken.

So what are we to make of these separatist movements around the globe? You have two choices, do some have privilege while others have no rights, because if you believe in privilege then you must come down on the side that loathes separatist movements, and if you believe in individual human Rights you must favor the separatists, given the vote is free fair and taken over time. Now, if you believe in individual rights to free association, then how do you feel about the American Civil war? That question comes down to what you believe that war was all about, if it was about States rights, (Upholding Rights rather than privilege), then by my definition I would be a rebel, however if it came down to outlawing slavery, (the destruction of individual human rights for privilege), then I would be a union soldier. So you see, while the basic question is simple, privilege or Rights, the minutia, who is actually fighting for Rights rather than privilege… muddy the bloody enterprise up pretty good.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Gap Between the Rich and the Poor.

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, what causes societal disruption is not the wealth gap, but that some are more equal than others. Over and over I hear, the problem with America is the gap between the rich and the poor. What all these pundits, philosophers and economists miss, is that the gap is no different than it ever has been, the first cause of societal anger today is that some people are obviously above the law, while others are obviously below it’s protections. That is what everyone is so mad about. That is the tension in society that warps the system of trust that is necessary for any culture to function. In Roman times the wealth gap was much bigger than it is today, yet until the patricians ascended about the law because of the bureaucracy, did the plebeians have enough. It is the same in every society, when the elite become more equal than the rest, the underlying system of trust between the ruled and the rulers is broken, and that in and of itself, is the reality of why the gap between the rich and poor appear to cause civil unrest.

Throenstien Veblen a socialist economist, when asked why the people don’t rise up at the great wealth inequality in America, (the robber barons of the time were far more wealthy relative to the average than the tech billionaires of today), he answered, because every American believes he could become rich, and they don’t want to damage their own interests should they… Imagine the magnitude of what Veblen said there. That not only was it possible to become richer than rich, for that is a precondition to people believing they themselves could get wealthy, but that the knowledge was so widespread constitutes a meme. Of course, Veblen did his work at the end of the nineteenth Century and the first quarter of the twentieth century, a time of both rapid advancements and booming economies, and of busts that threatened to upend capitalism itself. Clearly, when there is the widespread idea that anyone can get rich, that idea is true, and the reason for believing it is established by real life examples, that knowledge proves there is great wealth gap but little equality gap.

One of Confucius’ main tenets is that the people follow their leaders. We emulate those we look up to, and if those people are virtuous we ape them and are virtuous, and if the elite are vile we follow them into villainy… Obviously corrupt leaders want the benefits of a wealthy nation, and don’t want their countries to collapse in corruption, so the corrupt leader must pass ever more draconian laws to force the people not to follow him or her into depravity. The ruler who rules simply for their own self interest… will certainly not hold herself or her class to those draconian laws. To hold oneself to draconian laws, passed by you so you can remain utterly bereft of conscious, which maintains the economy by oppressing the people, would negate the advantage of being a corrupt leader in the first place.

Aristotle on the other side of the planet, pretty close to the same time said in Nicomachean Ethics, that there are three right forms of government, three wrong forms and one perfect form. His right forms all had in common that they served the interests of the whole of society, while the wrong forms served only the rulers, regardless of who the rulers are/were. It stands to reason that when the leaders of society are corrupt, they serve only themselves and therefore become by definition, a wrong form, no matter what type of government is constituted. This is another example where one could point to the disparity in wealth between the rich and poor, but in point of fact, the real source of the tension is that some are above the law while others are below it’s protections.

No matter how oppressive the law, if everyone is held to it equally, the difference between the rich and poor becomes less relevant the higher the floor becomes. To point blindly at the wealth gap as the primary cause, while ignoring the reason the gap has grown so, is to claim the phone pole next the highway caused an accident while ignoring the drunk driver. It is obvious when the elite become corrupt, the laws become ever more oppressive, a double standard starts and grows, and once the fact some are above the law while others are below it’s protections is undeniable, the gap between rich and poor grows exponentially… opportunity shrinks, meritocracy is destroyed, trapping people in their circumstances which cultivates anger to the inequality. The system of trust that underpins every civilization is been broken, government has become a wrong form, no matter it’s structure, and tension builds up in society threatening existential crisis. So clearly, it is not the wealth gap that destroys civilizations, it is when some are more equal than others.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nihilism and it’s Effects

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the nihilism that pervades our world, is making our planet and existence no more or less than a tire fire. Nihilism is the philosophy that nothing we do matters, not the good or the bad, our existence is meaningless. Of course this philosophy is ignorant in that it doesn’t take into account the myriad of miracles that we witness every day, the science of quantum physics, the prophecies that have come true nor the astounding nature of our very consciousness itself, but as unscientific and illogical as nihilism is, it has caught on. Both demoralizing and empowering, nihilism takes away from the adherent consequences for his or her actions both good and bad, and replaces them with naked selfishness. If nothing matters, why bother being good, why not do whatever it takes to get ahead. Nihilists believe we have only one shot in this world and after that we rot in the ground. You can see why nihilism is so popular today since progressive materialists have taken over the education system, and why nihilism creates the steady stream of disasters, terrorism, betrayal and crime we see around us today.

The materialist world view is that the universe is unchanging, always has been and always will be. Human existence is nothing but a mere aberration. Our consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or illusion as is free will and miracles. To the materialist we are just robots fooled into believing such things as God, mind and purpose. If the materialist is correct, the universe is only what we can see, smell, taste, feel, see and hear, then nihilism and materialism makes perfect sense. But how ignorant is the materialist mindset? Imagine if human beings had no sense of hearing. Add to it that no animal has a sense of hearing either. The concept of sound would be fanciful to us. Even measuring sound would be near impossible. Yet we know that sound does indeed exist. We can “hear” it. If we couldn’t however, the concept of sound would be absurd to a materialist because it could not be sensed, measured or understood.

That our multitude of senses, more than just the five commonly understood, like our sense of time, do not include the ability to sense everything possible, proves that there is more to reality than we can ever know. This alone makes the materialist world view absurd. It presupposes everything is observable with out senses. The inferred existence of dark matter, is but one example of the universe being more than we are able to measure, or even understand. As I wrote about before, the double slit experiment proves that reality has a conscious component to it, whether we want it to or not. Physicists model our universe in mathematics, which shows us there is far more to it than we know, and is much more amazing than we ever imagined.

Yet the nihilistic mindset is pervasive today despite our much improved understanding of the nature of reality. That destructive idea stands in direct contradiction of both science and religion. It denies the spirit, meaning and especially the epi-universal nature of human consciousness. Prayer for example, has been scientifically proven to be as effective as the well known but poorly understood placebo effect… even when the subject of prayer doesn’t know he or she is being prayed for! Our colleges teach nihilism, our culture nurtures it and our governments embrace it, because nihilism makes our sins irrelevant, our good deeds superfluous and our intentions nonsense. The nihilist can murder another with a clean conscious because everything is meaningless, they need not do a good deed, because that deed is no different in nature or quality than a bad turn. Nihilism lifts from the adherent the burden of feeling.

Therefore nihilism allows the government to become oppressive, since oppression is an arbitrary term that in the materialistic universe is meaningless, the nihilist can visit violence on anyone they disagree with, because that violence is no different than peaceful discourse, and hate becomes the primary motivating factor, as it is simply another subjective and irrelevant term such as, love. To the nihilist objective truth is that everything and everyone is meaningless. Playing the “knockout game” for the fun of it is not wrong, since nothing has meaning, running a business into the ground and bankrupting the shareholders and employees is irrelevant, because their feelings are subjective not objective, genocide is perfectly acceptable since people’s lives are pointless. Nihilism allows every sort of sin, and violation imaginable since the universe is purposeless.

The absurd philosophy of optimistic nihilism is a contradiction in both terms and logic. To be optimistic about the irrelevant in a pointless universe is insane. It is unscientific. Optimism is a subjective quality of human existence and presupposes meaning while nihilism denies all meaning. The optimist believes there is good in the universe and reality can manifest goodness if only we embrace it. While the nihilist cannot believe in anything of the sort. Which makes optimistic nihilism a trick, a means to fool the gullible into accepting the materialistic view of reality, and embracing pointlessness as a motivating philosophy. Obviously, in a pointless reality there is no point, and to be optimistic under such circumstances is the act of the unhinged.

The more people embrace the anti scientific, anti religious and anti human philosophy of nihilism, the more horrific our world will get, in every way. Such a negative idea as nihilism is attractive to psychopaths and sociopaths, in fact it is the primary philosophy of people with that anti social disorder. As our society further becomes nihilistic it must therefore become more psychopathic. Nihilism is the id personified. Even in the face of our expanding knowledge that there is far more to reality than we know, or even can know, the nihilist believes himself the only sane one, and nihilism the ultimate in sanity. One must understand however, no one is as certain they are sane… as the insane. Which of course makes nihilism, insanity at best, diabolical at worst.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Path to Slavery

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, no wanna be oppressor or slave master, would ever allow their victims or subjects to have weapons to free themselves… that would be just stupid! This is why free men are armed while slaves are not. It is a prerequisite in order to enslave someone that they be disarmed. Notice Switzerland has never been enslaved, they are armed, evil people always look for easy victims, never dangerous ones. On an individual level, a mugger doesn’t look for a kung fu expert to attack, they choose an old woman or a weakling to pick on. If a mugger attacked a man walking three huge dogs, that would certainly result in an emergency room visit, and would clearly be counterproductive. Oppressors and tyrants are no different than common criminals.

Since violence is the language of tyranny and oppression, only those who are disarmed can be oppressed. This has been the paradigm throughout history. The strong pick on the weak, and if the weak become strong, they are no longer picked on. That is common sense. That is why the Arabs enslaved people from sub Saharan Africa and sold them on the world slave market. Those poor people didn’t have guns nor any weapon capable of stopping their enslavement. Their lack of weapons, far from protecting them from violence, only made violence against them and their wives and children certain. Do you suppose sub Saharan Africans would have been enslaved if they had weapons on par with the Arabs? Of course not, the Arab violence would have been met with violence, making the entire enterprise of slavery a null proposition.

This is one of the primary reasons less advanced people always become subjugated, when they meet more advanced people, the difference in weaponry. The Aztecs didn’t have guns nor gun powder and so when they met Cortez, who did, it only took thirty five Spaniards to conquer a nation of millions that had been oppressing their neighbors for centuries. Long before disease devastated the Aztec empire, a few men with guns, backed with a few formerly oppressed people… beat them in the battle for what is now Mexico City. Guns do not create violence, violence is in the hearts of men, guns protect those who seek peace from those who have violence in their hearts. If the Aztecs had guns Cortez’s landing would have come to naught.

A disarmed person is a victim while an armed person is not. Just like a mugger looks for the easy victim the tyrant seeks to make his subjects easy victims to his oppression. Sun Tsu said that the best battle is no battle, the only way for a tyrant to create these conditions is to disarm the people, so they will be easy to oppress. In order to do this the would be oppressor must claim to want peace through disarmament. The same paradigm holds true for war as well. A sly combatant will seek to get his enemy to disarm in the name of peace and once that enemy has voluntarily disarmed, the cunning enemy will then attack.

Far from removing violence from society by disarming the people, a disarmed people will certainly be subjected to violence, violence they have no way of stopping once they are disarmed. Even in Europe today, where the people are disarmed, we see the tentacles of oppression winding into society at every level. The Right to free speech is a joke in Europe where discourse is now illegal. Thought laws are on the books now in the US, Canada and Europe as well as North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and every other place oppression is on the rise. A man without the ability to defend himself must do, act, say and even think as those with guns tell them to, else violent will be used to bring him under control. Where in the history of Mankind has a disarmed people been free? No where and at no time.

All human Rights, true human Rights, depend on the people’s ability to defend those rights from others who have violence in their hearts. Is it unlikely that someone who is willing to do violence to another, to subjugate them, would lie? Of course they would! Only a fool of the highest order would argue otherwise… a fool or a would be oppressor. All human Rights hang on the penultimate Right of self defense. Take away the ability of people to defend themselves, and history is unambiguous about what happens next, the armed will enslave the unarmed. To that end, the diabolical will use every trick in the book to convince those he or she seeks to enslave, we need not fear for our security or liberty. In reality, if someone claims you or I need not fear for our freedom from them, are most assuredly those very people who seek to oppress us! Remember this, a free man is armed, while a slave is not, and the fastest way to slavery is disarmament…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Shocking Nature of Reality.

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, considering the results of the double slit experiment, one can only conclude that human consciousness has a direct effect on reality, thus negating the materialistic view of the universe. In the double slit experiment, the experiment that opened up quantum physics, it was discovered and reproduced many times, that a human being knowing a thing changes the very nature of reality. Shocking really, that the simple fact that a conscious mind knowing a thing changes or sets the nature of reality itself. Basically, the experiment proved that until a human being actually observed where a photon landed, it only exists as a probability! Physicists know this, it is not a secret, just look up the double slit experiment anywhere. Not only is everything is only a probability until it is observed by a person, if all knowledge of that measurement is forgot, it returns to a probability!!!! The next time it is measured it might take a different probable existence!

While this is not that hard to understand, it is not taught in schools, I wonder if that isn’t because of the implications. If, as the physicists say, the entire universe only exists as a probability wave function unless observed, only taking form once observed, then human consciousness is intricate to the workings of reality itself, in some ways it causes reality to become real, take form, emerge from probability to reality, etc… Of course consciousness therefore cannot be an emergent phenomenon, since it is a causal one. One implication is that God must in fact exist, maybe that ability of ours to change reality itself just by measuring it, knowing it and thus fixing it, for a time, can only descend from God. On the other hand it disproves the existence of God, because if we can change the fabric of reality itself, doesn’t that imply we ourselves are gods, perhaps with a little g?

Moreover, that human consciousness is able to fix and unfix reality itself, proves unambiguously that the universe, reality, is not materialistic, having always existed exactly as we measure it and will always exist as we have measured it, forever. The double slit experiment proves the unexamined universe is actually a sea of probability. Since it takes a mind, a human mind, to form reality from probability, the nature of the universe cannot be materialistic, ie, unchanging, it must be multi layered, material probability, conscious probability combining to make a spiritual probability. All three interwoven on some deep level of the universe, but once one takes form, the others are forced into reality fully formed, as if they had existed forever.

It solves the question of whether we are machines, angels riding machines or angels. It would seem we are angels riding machines of our own making, even if subconsciously. That our very knowledge of a thing effects that thing’s reality proves, experimentally, our consciousness is in some ways epi universal. Obviously the causal agent is superior to the agent acted upon, ie. only the unmoved can move, Tao De Ching. There is a factor to us then, that is outside and above the reality that we reside, in fact the reality in which we reside is largely a construct of our own making. It is possible that that underlying the waveform of potential, Morphic field as Sheldrake puts it, the Force in Star Wars parlance, Che or perhaps our souls, exists outside and above the physical universe,or is perhaps the structure that the universe molds to?

Some intellectuals are trying to make the case the are living inside a simulation because of the implications of the double slit experiment. This is only materialists trying to justify their blind faith in materialism, in the face of overwhelming experimental empirical and reproducible proof, the universe bends at least to some degree to human consciousness. Since they are zealots in their thinking they claim the universe is a simulation and that we are only programs in that simulation, in other words, our consciousness is an illusion. Yet, if our consciousness is mere illusion, how can it possibly effect reality itself? To answer that the materialist will say, it is part of the simulation, which is begging the question.

The only way to prove beyond any doubt the epi universal quality of consciousness would be to encounter an alien species from another solar system, who had measured reality differently from us. If that turns out to be the case, then what significance would that be, and what implications? One thing is sure, the nature of the universe is far more complex and multi layered than any human being could begin to grasp. While it is too complex to to understand, our very understanding, such as it is, changes reality itself. From the point in time of our measuring reality, it is changed from potential to existance, simply by our thought. So, we, each of us is far more important than we ever realized before, isn’t it time for us to mold reality more to our liking, by being good people, charitable, courteous and hard working, we change reality itself.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in philosophy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why NFL Players Should Stand for the Anthem.

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, our culture is like a house, each part has it’s purpose, The window, the door, the roof, etc… The house, (culture) provides us with many goods like shelter, protection and cover… to burn that culture down, is to deny everyone else the protection, cover and shelter that culture provided, with no benefit in return… and so you could say anyone who seeks such an end is not working for everyone’s good. Now that is a mouthful, isn’t it? What I am speaking to is not just the NFL anthem fiasco, although that is the primary cause of this article, but all the attempts to destroy the Western culture. There are a few concepts here that stand to be explained and I will endeavor to define them in this article.

Our culture is like a house, a house is an edifice that we use to provide us goods. If it didn’t provide any good we would certainly not go to the cost of building and purchasing them, our culture also comes at a high cost in time and energy. Those goods our homes provide are similar to those provided by a culture. The layout of the home provides a structure to our lives as does our culture. We eat in the dining room, cook in the kitchen, relax in the living room and sleep in the bedroom. Windows are like the level of free speech in the culture and doors are the way out if we want. The roof protects us from diversity and the foundation gives our home support to stand. Burn down the house or smash the foundation and the house can no longer provide any of those goods, demolish the culture for some perceived flaw, and it no longer provides the goods it once did, and cannot easily be rebuilt!

Each part has it’s purpose, in a house the parts would be the foundation, windows, doors, walls, etc… in culture there are institutions that take the place of parts, the government, church, clubs, fraternal organizations, schools, etc… each has a purpose. Clubs like the Boy Scouts, to civilize and educate children, so they can be high performers in the society, others to catch those kids who fall through the cracks. Fraternal organizations to raise money for charity and bring human suffering to the eyes of the people. Churches to provide a moral underpinning to society, preventing people’s worst instincts from coming through, and government to provide order. While each in and of itself may not be the paragon of virtue they all are limited from the stock upon which they must recruit. Since people make up every organization there is, we bring our own flaws into them.

The shelter, protection and cover our culture provides us is the structure that we can utilize to meet our needs, the group in which we can melt into, they provide a moral underpinning limiting the effect of evil, allow for advancement, or not, depending on the culture, and in the case of the west a warped form of meritocracy. There is no disputing the results of the market system and the capitalist mindset on the West. The only truly scientific society that has ever existed, and has used the scientific principles discovered in the West, under Christian morality, has propelled the human race into a standard of living that would have been unheard of, even during the height of the Roman empire, by the emperor himself. A toothache could fell an Augustus while even the poorest have access to antibiotics. While our culture is not ideal it has been the most effective culture mankind has ever come up with.

So what if our oppressive, paternalistic, racist, war mongering society collapsed, burned to the ground by ANTIFA, BLM, the KKK, the Neo NAZIs, anarchists and the radical progressives? Because, it would be replaced by a much more paternalistic, far more racist one and would raise oppression to a new acme. Forget about a job, you will be struggling to get food for the day. Hiding your children against cold, hunger, fear, rioters and gangs roaming the streets. Every post apocalyptic movie you have ever seen would be your reality. The old western culture, you know the horrible one that brought us central heat, cell phones, women voting, people of every descent as citizens, relative security and a modicum of wealth, will have been wiped out. We will have gained chaos, suffering and unending oppression, which it could be argued and has, might create supermen… more likely if you ask me, barbarians.

The ripping down begins in subtle ways, a murmur claiming a culture is unjust, our society factionalizing into armed camps, protests against the very culture and foundation itself, erasing history by removing monuments, teaching kids socialism could work while ignoring the lessons of the Twentieth Century… and not standing for the anthem. While a sovereign human being has the sovereign right not to stand, or do back flips at any time, it is the mark of civilization to to control oneself. The lack of which shows the person to be either uncivilized or intent on destroying our culture… a villain. A person could at a business meeting, start doing back flips, now and then upending tables and such, maybe accidentally kicking a secretary in the face. While it would be his right to do that, no business is forced by human rights to commit corporate suicide, nor should the NFL be compelled to self harm by uncivilized at best, villainous players at worst… let alone our culture itself which is the real target.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How You can be a Superhero!

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a lot of people after seeing television shows like, The Defenders, Superman and Batman, as well as movies like Goldfinger and Limitless, would like to fight for goodness and defeat evil, but sadly, they think they themselves lack the superhuman abilities that would allow them to. Of course we all have superhuman abilities, to fight the forces of evil and defend truth, justice and the American way, we just don’t know it. The answer my friends is in the thousands of tiny decisions we make every day. It is in those decisions that we can crush evil and befriend good. Every time you decide not to do a bad thing, whenever you choose to help another, you are the superhero, just as whenever you decide to do a small evil, you become a mini me Dr. No.

Courtesy is one way to fight evil. When you are courteous you not only help the person… you change the world. We all tend to mimic the behavior we see. When we are subjected to courtesy we therefore pass it on, and that courtesy that you display, in a moment without thought, effects people you never see and goes much further than you can imagine. Maybe even stopping someone from domestic violence, since their sense of humanity has been acknowledged, which is often the catalyst for such violence. On the other hand, when you slam the door in someone’s face, they will mimic that behavior as well. Maybe they will go home and yell at their children, slam the door in someone else face… or set a bomb on a train. Simply by being courteous and not rude can you be a force for good.

Trash talking is one way to become a little agent Smith and create other Agent Smiths. When we back stab people we not only damage them but ourselves as well. The damage to the reputation of the target of our vitriol is obvious but the damage to our own reputation is less obvious. Those who hear our diatribes have to worry that we are bad mouthing them when they are not around, and so they see us in a negative light. When we refuse to engage in backstabbing we show that we are above such childish behavior. We become a capacitor for goodness absorbing evil and dissipating it. Obviously gossiping is never beneficial, but it is fun, as evil often is. When we refuse to engage we become super heroes, we might not be able to leap tall buildings, but we are a force for justice.

When you see injustice, it is up to good people to point it out, especially evil masquerading as justice. Edmund Burke once said, The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That doesn’t mean you have to don a cape and fly over the city looking for injustice, all it means is that when you see it, point it out. Evil is like mold, it grows in the dark and sunlight is deadly to it. Often evil covers itself from the deadly rays of light, by pretending to be goodness, as it did in Burke’s time. It takes discernment however to see evil for what it is. In Burke’s time many people thought the French Revolution would, in fact could only, result in a good outcome. Burke pointed out that it would end in a violent, bloody horror show, as it did. Sadly, often the heroes are called villains and villains are called heroes, usually by those that promote evil. Isn’t it the sign of a champion, one who does what is right, regardless of the slings and arrows?

Being a force for good is easy as pie. It does not take the ability to fly, stop bullets or even telekinesis, it only takes a tiny bit of effort. Our world is the result of trillions of little decisions, made by everyday people, every moment of every day. It is the aggregate of those decisions that make our world a good one or an evil one. You and I have the power to change the world by making right decisions rather than wrong ones. I am sure you can think of many areas in your life, as do I, where we can make a small change that will result in a small good. But that is all it takes! Just make one less bad decision today, and two less bad ones tomorrow, you only need to move the ball a little at a time down the field. It may not seem like you are making a difference, but changing the world is not a matter of defeating SPECTOR but of improving our microscopic corner of it.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Problem of Evil

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Modernism is Diabolic

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Atheism and Morality

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Leave a comment