Diffusion of Responsibility, Group Crimes and the Golden Rule

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if something is immoral for an individual, it is many times more immoral for a group of individuals, but here’s the rub, despite a group’s sin being orders of magnitude worse, the distributed blame is far more bearable. The person who pushes the button is just following orders, the person ordering him to push that button, well, he isn’t the one pushing the button, it is all merely theoretical. This is the way the greatest crimes against humanity happen. While the crime may be many times worse, those involved find the burden of that involvement much easier, due to the blame being distributed, and human beings having an innate way of passing the buck, even in our own minds, will wash away any personal sins, dissolving them into the group. I wonder how many Nazi death camp guards actually had Jewish friends before the war? The litmus test however, is that which is wrong for the individual, is then also wrong for a group of individuals.

Genocide would be impossible if not for people’s ability to let their personal culpability for crimes dissolve into the crowd. Otherwise imagine for a moment what a burden that would be to an individual. Such a burden would crush the normal human psyche. War is the most obvious example of how human beings can be coaxed into acting inhuman. PTSD is the manifestation of those who don’t effectively divest themselves of guilt at their own actions. At least at the time the burden of the responsibility for the immoral actions, ordered by government and carried out by individuals, is distributed back into the group, later the mind recognizes the magnitude of it’s blame. No one has to take on the conscious totality of his or her actions… unless their sense of right and wrong force them to. This ability allows people to be animals. Distributed responsibility is the lubricant for the most heinous machinations.

Other, more easily “justifiable” immoral actions, that if the individual did them, they would be called stealing, racketeering, home invasion, etc… are done by government, (a group of individuals), all the time. Most of us allow it and take it for granted, considering it is justified, because government is doing it. To say that something is justified because government is doing it, and that since government says it’s just, so must it be just… is begging the question. What is just can be summed up by the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” By simple logical extrapolation, we can conclude… that what is just, is that which we would have others do unto us, and what is unjust, is that which we would NOT have others do unto us. We are the subjective standard. Despite there being a multitude of us, the bell curve of the limit of what we would personally accept, and therefore what is just… is very narrow.

Dating back to Aristotle, the idea of “right” government was, that government who served the interests of the whole body of the people in it’s territory, and “wrong” government served only the interests of the rulers, usually at the cost to the rest of society. Clearly, a wrong form would regularly violate the concept that what is wrong for the individual is much worse for a group of individuals, because they lack a conscience, as is displayed by their selfishness in serving their own narrow interests ahead of those they are supposed to serve, and because getting the crowd to steal for them, is very very lucrative. The fiend can manipulate others into violating other people’s Rights, in the most personal and violent ways, and everyone involved can get a good night’s sleep after. Well… except for the victims. Oligarchs and democrats also experience the purifying distributed blame not available for autocrats.

Human government will never be human hearted, until it embraces the fact that what is immoral for an individual, is more immoral for a group of individuals. Not just the elite but all of society has to hold fast to the concept. Then after it is inculcated it must be protected on the level of a societal myth. Far from being a myth however, the enlightened idea that, what is inadmissible for the individual is more inadmissible for a group of individuals, frees Mankind by removing our government regulated shackles. Shackles that were forged by us, yet don’t restrict our baser instincts and instead restrain our ability to act, while our complicity in great evil is removed by diffusion into the group. Every instance of oppression, cronyism, usurpation and state violence can be traced back to violating the precept that, what is wrong for the individual is more wrong for a group of individuals, and that the test of what is just for the individual and even more so for the group… is the golden rule.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Trade Wars, Tariffs and Free Trade

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, trade wars are always really about political favor, and as such are oligarchical in nature, however, a system of absolute reciprocal tariff system would be fundamentally fair. No matter what form of political favor involved, the foundation of all trade wars is political, possibly the faction in power pays back it’s political backers with tariffs or import restrictions, to lower their exposure to foreign competitors, it could be strategic in the threat itself to pry some concession from a high tariff nation, or it could be in the name of populism, all of which are nakedly political. Anything that is political helps one faction and harms the rest, which makes it oligarchical. Not only are trade wars political and therefore oligarchical, free trade is the best policy if human prosperity is the goal. This seemingly inevitable trade war with China is no exception… in that it is political.

Tariffs say more about what faction is in control than anything about what is best for the people. Government tends to split into factions, that fact has been established for centuries, each faction vying for the best interests of it’s supporters. To that end almost all factions will, when in power, bestow favor on their political backers. If one of those backers comes to them and mentions, a tariff would restore domestic production of this or that, it is better received than if a stranger said the same thing. Initially domestic production might jump up a bit, but the same forces that quashed it in the first place haven’t been addressed and it will falter again. Those issues effecting the ability of domestic producers could be, lack of brainpower, regulatory hurdles that impede startups, cronyism, cultural hostility to new businesses, class issues, infrastructure issues, etc… none of which can be overcome by making domestic producers less efficient. Those issues need to be identified and addressed by any faction that pretends to follow right government.

The only kind of tariff system, that would provide incentives for all nations to lower tariffs and thus create free trade, is reciprocal tariffs. With modern computer technology such a system would be a breeze to set up. Simply establish an international standard of label that must be affixed to every container entering or leaving a port. The container would be scanned and the exact tariffs the sending nation applies to the receiving nation would be applied. The fees would be charged instantly. This would have the effect of creating a strong incentive for any nation that sought to increase it’s level of foreign trade to eliminate all tariffs on all imports. If the US conformed to a reciprocal tariff system, then all tariffs and restrictions on products from that much smaller nation would be eliminated, giving it’s producers a direct unhindered avenue into the US market.

Such a system would benefit all nations. A small nation that eliminated all trade impediments, to gain access to the US market, would then have the cost to consumers of some products drop. Which would increase the standard of living immediately. If the wages of the people can be made to go further, that is equal to raising wages. Nations that drop trade restrictions must also have a corresponding drop in the prices of those imported goods. Even as the demand for workers increased in that nation due to it’s unrestricted access and presumably lower wages, would drive up that wage, even as the money bought more. As long as the smaller nation addressed any underlying problems that prevent small businesses from starting.

Unilateral targeted tariffs are the most obviously political, and therefore oligarchical, but a perfectly reciprocal tariff system would be elegant, provide positive incentives for the US’s trading partners, make US firms operate on a more fair international playing field, hold down inflation, provide positive incentives for US manufacturing to become more efficient, and in the end increase the lot of Mankind. As long as Trump also addresses the problems that have held back US firms, over regulation, a legal system that has become a drag on the economy rather than a facilitator, a tax structure that puts US firms at a disadvantage, cronyism, and any other factor that inhibits small business start up and growth. While a trade war would be tragic and foolish, reciprocal trade would be enlightened and smart.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Meritocracy Versus Political Favor

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, those who are low in conscientiousness and orderliness, always seek to move society from a merit based system, to a politically based one. They do it out of simple self interest. Those not able to compete in the marketplace, if they are to get ahead, must change the system from merit based to something they can compete in… and that is almost always based on political favor. Alvin Gouldner hinted at this when he said, all Marxist revolutions are commanded by university graduates who couldn’t get a job. Those with a work ethic only tangentially participate in politics. They are too focused on their job and being good at it. Those who lack a work ethic however participate in politics as their main career. This results in a strong tension within our society. The one side pushing to politicize everything, and the other trying to keep merit, as the basis for getting ahead. Obviously, those who see politics as their be all end all, have more political power than others who focus on their work, and so society tends to evolve from merit to political favor as the measure of a man.

The market system is merit based while socialism is based on political favor. Capitalism is all about merit. All true capitalist transactions are a win win. The customer gets something he or she needs, in trade for something the firm needs, ie, money. Therefore, employers hire those with superior skills, work ethic and intelligence over those who are ignorant, lazy, and stupid. This is only logical since the role of business is to produce a good for the customers. If customers do not receive a good for their money, they will not purchase the goods and services the firm produces. The market system must operate on a strictly rational basis. Those work places that hire the ignorant, lazy and stupid, cannot meet the needs of their customers and therefore go out of business. This is a powerful motivator to give opportunities to those who merit them.

Empirically, merit based systems deliver a much higher standard of living than politically based systems, and that higher standard of living increases over time. When people who deserve their positions by their personal merit, get those positions, clearly, the jobs are done with more efficiency than if they were given out of political favor. This was highlighted during WWII, by both the German and Italian armies. The German army based promotions on the merits, coolness under fire, strategic thinking, intelligence and fortitude. The Italian army however based promotions on political merit. As a result, despite the fact that there was little qualitative difference between the German soldier and the Italian soldier, the German was commanded by officers who merited their positions, while the Italian soldier was commanded by poltroons, who lacked even a basic understanding of tactics. The difference was obvious, and the results were clear, by the fact the Germans had to bail out the Italians in both North Africa and the Balkans.

The big five personality traits are, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and extroversion. The work ethic is based on orderliness and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and low narcissism are handy but are of secondary importance. Openness is mostly helpful in the creative pursuits, and there is utility in both introversion and extroversion, depending on the job requirements. Those who are low in conscientiousness and orderliness then, are at a very powerful disadvantage in any merit based system. They often are high in openness, and so will embrace any idea they see that helps them better their situation, as all human beings are self interested… regardless of their score on the big five. Open people, especially those with low conscientiousness and low orderliness, will gravitate to political favor as the basis of who gets ahead, and therefore those ideas that may have been shown to be antithetical to prosperity. Because they will both be open to the possibility of it working sometime in the future, and out of self interest, since their personal interests are served by moving the paradigm from merit to political favor.

This is why the political establishment is so full of people who believe that political favor should be the final arbiter of who gets what. They argue unendingly that their system is “rational,” when it clearly is not, but instead based on naked self interest. Their lack of conscientiousness allows them to work against the best interests of humanity as a whole, while their openness keeps them clutching to a glittering lie. They mistakenly believe they are the most empathetic among us. This is why we see those with political favor are above the law, while they hold the rest of us, below it’s protections. It is the reason we as a society are moving away from a market based meritocracy and to a politically based socialism. While these changes may be against the best interests of humanity, prosperity and civil accord, they do work to advance the interests of the ignorant, lazy and stupid. But that is progress for you, or is a better word for it… progressive?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

The Network Business Model and It’s Destruction

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc… monitoring their customer’s usage and using that surveillance to demonetize and even outright censor content, is like the phone company monitoring their customer’s calls, and shutting off the phones of people who say the “wrong” things over the phone. Companies like Twitter, Instangram, Youtube, electric companies and Ma Bell are networks. Another example of a network is a railroad. Imagine if a railroad decided what cargo to transport depending on the political affiliation of it’s various customers! The shareholders would go ballistic! Networks are mere roads if you will. A means to transport whatever the network is designed to carry. The phone company transports calls, the electric company hauls electricity, a rail road moves cargo, Youtube carries videos while Facebook and Twitter convey ideas. The side of the bread the butter is on is the customer’s good will. So why go to the huge expense of building a network then urinating on your customers? Doesn’t that seem a bit stupid?

Networks, as a business, are expensive to set up but cheap to run. Once they are set up and there is competition, that competition tends to become “perfect competition.” Perfect competition is where profit margins are squeezed by cut throat pricing, to gain customers at competitor’s expense, in a limited market. The railroads in the 1800’s faced just such a quandary. They cut their prices to the bone, then cut them some more, finally the government stepped in and regulated them to protect the politically connected railroad owners from competition. That resulted in the falling away of real competition and the railroads became government regulated monopolies. Each serving a certain geographical area exclusively… as they do today. Of course government only grants monopoly to those firms who pay for it through campaign donations, lobbying and graft. Modern networks might end up going that way as well. Facebook, Twitter, Alphabet and Youtube pay their tolls in campaign donations and spend gobs of money lobbying, but also pay graft in the form of censoring those ideas the elite want censored.

Networks like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube were very expensive to set up, but are cheap to maintain, once they are up and running. The paradigm of networking is exactly the same, the only difference is the traffic they carry. Facebook, Youtube and Twitter carry ideas, in the form of videos, articles, pictures and declarative statements. The people that produce the ideas are those firm’s customers and the consumers of those ideas are Facebook, Twitter and Youtube’s customer’s, customers. Since they are all vying for monopoly in their respective fields, to protect themselves from perfect competition, they must make the regulators happy, else regulations will be passed that grant the monopoly to others. So these firms censor ideas their regulators cannot themselves censor. They have become censors by proxy. While this is a tragedy for the free flow of ideas, it also endangers the investments of their shareholders. No firm, even one granted a monopoly by government, can withstand the exodus of it’s customers. Because why advertise on a network that has no viewers?

The most important factor in keeping a network profitable is by serving customers. While it is easy to believe the customers are the viewers, or the advertisers, that is not the case, the real customers are the content providers, as I said before, the viewers are the customer’s customers. Just like a railroad’s customers are the people and firms sending merchandise on their trains. If however, the railroads carried the cargo but wouldn’t release it to the end users, firms transporting their goods would turn to other means. In the case of Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, the ideas are the cargo and by outright censoring their customers, and demonetizing them, those networks are in fact refusing to release the cargo to their customer’s customers. That is why we see people scrambling for alternatives to those networks… that have sullied their names as a means to garner the favor of the elite. Even with their huge advantage in being the first to market, and the political favor they get from the elite, their customer base is starting to corrode. Which also means their advertisers will leave and the shareholders will at some time get fleeced.

By poking their customers in the eye, Youtube, Facebook and other networks insure they will be a flash in the pan. They might burn bright for a few years but alienating customers is a certain way to get them to leave and use another network. I have stopped using Twitter altogether. I tried to delete my account but Twitter makes it next to impossible, spending an hour in the attempt, but capitulated, and instead just don’t use it, and send any email I get from them directly to the junk folder. Others are going through the court system to force them to carry all content without bias, but in the end, I believe that is a fool’s errand. Because those networks are doing the bidding of the new class progressive elite, it is obvious the elite will not force their lackeys to go against their interests. Eventually however, producers of content will migrate away from those networks, to others that are not as hostile to their customers, and so will the advertisers. The market system that the elite so hate will force the issue. Until then, I would pull any investments in those networks. Why should an advertiser pay to put ads on a network with a diminishing users base? So it is clear that the wise investor should pull their investments in those platforms intent on destroying their own business model, and invest in others that are not polluting their own drinking supply… That isn’t rain you feel running down your back.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Faction

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we are living in the country Madison warned us of, in the Federalist papers. Notably, Federalist Paper number ten, Madison on faction. Today we have a single faction that controls the bureaucracy, Judicial branch, and legislative branch, as well as non governmental groups like the legacy media, entertainment and education. That faction is the progressive faction. Not only do they have absolute control of two branches, the very thing Madison told us would inevitably lead to tyranny, their control of the means of governing, the unconstitutional bureaucracy, means they can effectively stymie any attempt to return us to Constitutional rule. We see this happening clearly in the judicial branch’s over step today. Perhaps that is why the progressive faction is so intent on removing our last recourse to their unlimited power.

Federalist Paper number Ten is considered by many to be the most important in a long list of important letters. The founding fathers saw faction as being the permanent enemy of the good. They set up our government with the express purpose of limiting the power of factions. Madison argued that freedom is to faction like air is to fire. The answer he proposed however is not to limit freedom but to pit faction against faction. By pitting faction against faction he argued, no one faction could rise to the point of controlling two branches of government. The whole system was designed to insure this wouldn’t happen. Sadly, they never imagined a faction would rise up that is set against our constitution, because they thought the American people would never allow that to happen. Yet here we are, the progressive faction has total control of the judiciary, despite the fact “conservatives” theoretically hold the majority in the Supreme Court.

The three branches were to cling to their constitutionally enumerated powers to prevent one branch from gaining superiority over the others. Moreover, Madison said the judicial would be the weakest branch, but now it has progressed to become the ultimate authority on everything. They decide policy for the executive branch, they make laws for the legislative branch, and no one is allowed to criticize them for it. Meanwhile the legislative branch busies itself with congressional hearings which are nothing more than faux show trials to get votes. The legislative branch has given all it’s actual power to the executive, via the bureaucracy, and the judicial to legislate from the bench. The courts rule and the rest of government follows. Today the “weakest branch” orders the other two. The executive and legislative are placeholders only with no real power. Which makes our vote irrelevant. Like Mark Twain said, “If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.” Yet even though our vote has become so weak it’s effect is negligible, the progressive faction feels the need to water it down even more by promoting vote fraud and aliens voting.

Control of the media and education are the linchpins of progressive power. It is through education that people are indoctrinated into believing that, shall not establish a state religion means government must establish atheism as the state religion, that shall not be infringed means must be regulated, and freedom of the press means the media’s role is to forward the progressive agenda, any media that has the gall to shirk that role is attacked as “fake news.” In the government monopoly school system our children are not taught anything about basic economics, philosophy, limited government, the horrors of Marxism and socialism, nor are they educated in how to reason but what to think. Obviously many outgrow the programming once they hit the real world and learn in the school of hard knocks that what they were taught is absurdity with a cherry on top, but it is too late, they have already cast many ballots against their self interest. Do an experiment, ask your high school kid if socialism is a viable economic system. Their answer will almost certainly shock you. That is why the progressives cannot abide a voucher system, it would break the monopoly they hold on education.

Today we live under a governmental system that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the one the founding fathers created for us. One faction is supreme. Our judicial system and bureaucracy rule over us like any oligarchy. Separation of powers has become a standing joke, because every action of an executive who is not a progressive, must be adjudicated. The legislative branch is so lazy, they have given all their lawmaking powers to the bureaucracy, preferring instead to make speeches and hold hearings. Our children are dumbed down and programmed to be good little progressive slaves. All of it cheered on by the progressive controlled media. Even as the courts rule any return to Constitutionalism, is unconstitutional, insuring a peaceful return impossible. Maybe that is why the progressives demand our guns, and to that end, will tolerate killing of children to get them. If a convention of states fails, then armed rebellion, returning our nation to constitutional rule under the auspices of the states themselves, as our founders envisioned, will be our last hope, and once that is gone, so too is our liberty… possibly forever.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Is Democracy Viable?

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, one thing I haven’t heard anyone talk about in the Russia collusion investigation is the foundational presumption of it… that the elite believe the American people are utter and complete fools. That is the only way it makes sense. If the American people are not idiots of the highest order, then propaganda would have little effect, except at the margins, and if the American people only have brains enough to keep our hearts beating, then clearly that is an indictment of democracy as a whole. So, I wonder which it is, are we stupid beyond comprehension and therefore democracy is a sham, or are we rational and therefore democracy is viable. You cannot have it both ways. Since the bureaucracy, and the new class as well as the media have invested so much effort into the Russia collusion investigation, they must think we are stupid as rocks, so what does that say about the elite and their motives?

Hillary Clinton spent 1.4 billion dollars to get elected while Trump spent less than a billion. So at the outset Clinton spent half again what Trump spent. If we are as gullible as the elite and the media seem to think we are, wouldn’t that alone have been sufficient to get Clinton elected? According to the democrats and Mueller, 90 Russian trolls, who largely worked against Trump, after the election… were responsible for Clinton’s loss? I find it hard to understand how trolling after the election could have effected the election? Perhaps they are thinking in quantum terms ala the double slit experiment? Nevertheless, if we are the mouth breathers the elite and media think we are, then shouldn’t Clinton’s outspending Trump have been sufficient to guarantee her the victory? Or maybe we are not as brain dead as they think?

So far, despite the breathless media attention to the few indictments Mueller has produced, there has not been even one indictment that hints Trump colluded with Russia. The indictments are for tax evasion, process crimes like perjury, (which when Bill Clinton did it we were told everybody does it so it’s okay), and lobbying for Ukraine in accordance with Obama’s foreign policy at the time. I expect he will pass down a few in the near future that involve DWI, possession of regulated drugs and retail theft. Moreover, one has to wonder, if the FBI and DOJ narrative is correct, why would Russia seek Trump’s election, when Clinton as Secretary of State, sold them control of one fifth of the US strategic uranium supply? Wouldn’t that be stupid in and of itself? Why would any nation not seek the election of a President, who has shown she can be bought, over someone who is too rich to be purchased? That doesn’t make sense.

So we have to consider who is peddling a false narrative. Is it possible that people who consider the rest of us imbeciles, the media that calls itself unbiased, the unelected unaccountable bureaucrats at the FBI and DOJ, might believe we can be persuaded that up is down and left is right? Since if they are telling the truth and honestly believe that we were tricked into voting for Trump, by some Russian trolls, after the election, then they must consider us no smarter than bacteria. Otherwise they are connivers of the highest order. Either way, the elite in the media, DNC and the bureaucracy don’t look very upstanding. If they really think us dumb as rocks, then how can they support democracy, or if they are schemers, then they shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power. Both scenarios condemn the elite.

So in the end, does the democratic element of our Republic make sense? If, as the elite clearly believe, (if they are not villains), we are drooling idiots, then democracy is a fools errand. Yet, if they honestly believe we can be easily manipulated, to vote any way someone trolling us wants, and yet still preach democracy, then doesn’t that make them diabolical? Like I said before, you cannot have it both ways. Maybe they think we are too stupid to realize this basic truth? If so then doesn’t that make them stupid and therefore unable to effectively govern? Because after all, who wants an imbecile ruling over any nation? Logically then, the only conclusion that we can reasonably come to, is that the elite in the media, DNC and the bureaucracy are Machiavellian. Which speaks loudly that we need to address their malfeasance and rethink the administrative form of government. Maybe real progress is a return to Constitutional rule?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Arbitrary Rule and Constitutional Rights

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the greatest threat to our Constitution, are the very people assigned to protect it. The judiciary has abandoned any pretense of following our Constitution, and instead has installed itself as the premier branch of government. They have usurped the role of the executive, undermined the rule of law by passing laws from the bench and utterly abandoned Constitutional norms, in favor of the administrative state. The executive and legislative are no better, as they have taken on the role of undermining our Constitution at every turn. All three branches exploit the Constitution when it suits them but run from it the moment it is expedient. What makes this even more diabolical is that their very authority is derived from the document they so loathe. The elite today use our Constitution as a bludgeon, to beat the people into submission, which is exactly the opposite role it was intended.

As they chip away at our Constitution, and thus their legitimate authority to rule at all, they move us, or as a progressive might put it, “progress” our government from limited powers to unlimited arbitrary rule. If you or I bring up the fact that governments throughout history, once their citizens have been disarmed, have slaughtered their way through whole swaths of humanity, we are called fear mongers because, “the Constitution protects us from that…” Which is begging the question, because how can a document that is not followed, is undermined at every turn and vilified by our leaders, in all three branches of government, protect us from anything? It cannot. Those that rule against our Constitution, except as a means to destroy it and our liberties, like “justice” Ginsburg, have in reality abdicated their authority, because again, that authority comes from the very document they are undermining!

Our Constitution was not put in place to limit the people… it was put in place to limit government. The freedom of religion is not to keep a valedictorian from saying a prayer at his or her graduation, it is meant to protect his or her Right to say it at their graduation! To claim otherwise is a perversion. Only a truly conniving person would argue that the statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof…” as requiring government to establish atheism as the state religion, and limiting the free exercise of the religious. This is just one example of how our Constitution has been perverted to limiting the people rather than the state. Another is, the Second amendment states, “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But today our judges, elite in the media, and congress, have decided that, shall not be infringed, means government should decide who, should own guns and what kid of guns we should be allowed to own.

We have the same political faction that has been responsible for the greatest atrocities against humanity, telling us we need common sense gun regulation. The same faction that was responsible for the genocide in Cambodia, Hitler’s final solution, Stalin’s gulags and purges as well as Mao’s state induced famines… socialists, Marxists and progressives, make up the deep state. That pernicious faction has infiltrated our judiciary, executive and legislative branches, and is actively undermining our Constitution in every way. Whenever another faction is elected, that threatens to return us at least partially to Constitutional rule, the new class progressive faction drags out the document they so despise, and get the Judiciary to rule… it is unconstitutional to return us to Constitutional rule.

Beware the power you give to the government, because no matter how much you might like what they are doing with that power today, you might not like what they do with it tomorrow, but then it will be too late, you gave them the power to do it in the first place. Now that our Constitution is merely a show piece that pretends to give legitimate authority to our leaders, why should they follow any of it they don’t want to? There are no consequences for undermining our Constitutional Rights, not even at the ballot box, where our very suffrage is under attack, by leaders intent on getting aliens to vote and engaging in widespread vote fraud? By their own actions they have destroyed the legitimacy of their authority, and in doing so have established arbitrary rule as the norm. Once they feel sufficiently empowered the mask will truly come off, and we will live the nightmare so many others have, at the hands of merciless administrators, that make 1984 George Orwell seem like a picnic.

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

School Shootings and the Second Amendment

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, those who call for the dismantling of our Constitution, especially the second amendment, cite the first when confronted with putting God back in schools. They seem to believe the Constitution is a self destructive document, parts are to be exploited only in the continuing chipping away at it, and it’s protections. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a constitution is and what they are meant to do. A constitution, not just the American Constitution, but all constitutions are a means to limit the power of the elite, to evolve government to tyranny. They are not and have never been put in place, to limit the options of the people, only the government. Yet progressives, who despise any limits to the power of the elite over the rest of society, promote the absurd notion that Constitutions exist to limit the people, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Some arguments against our Right to keep and bear arms is that guns have changed. Obviously guns have changed, yet the desire of the elite to oppress the rest of us for personal gain has not. The elite today are every bit as conniving, duplicitous, malevolent and egoistic as Caligula, Dionysus and the Marquis De Sade. The argument that guns have changed is a red herring. The Right to keep and bear arms is not to protect hunting rights, we ceded them to government the moment we accepted that government has the ability to license us to hunt, the second amendment is the final means to restore Constitutional rule if the government were to break from it. According to the Federalist Papers, under the auspices of the states themselves, the people, the self armed militia, are to rise up and overthrow any extra constitutional government and restore the rule of law based on our founding documents.

Other arguments against our Right to self defense is that the right to keep and bear arms is too dangerous, and since it is dangerous, it should be regulated. Yet this argument is based on a false dichotomy. If a Right can and indeed should be suspended if it is deemed too dangerous, than all of our Rights must be suspended in the name of safety! There is no Right that is more dangerous than the Right of freedom of expression. A man with a gun might be able to kill a thousand people under ideal circumstances, but a person with a pen can slaughter entire classes of people, or commit genocide, and have. The tragedy of the second world war and the genocide of the Gypsy’s and Jews was enabled by Hitlers Mein Kampf. The greatest loss of human life in world history was and still is based on Marx’ writings. Clearly then, freedom of speech must be curtailed in the name of safety!

I find it most ironic, or would a better term be diabolical, that those who so worry about guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, excuse the slaughter by dismemberment of babies? In 2014, a year that the statistics are available, over six hundred thousand babies were dismembered, and all with the blessing of those who would disarm us. Are we to believe that people so dead inside have our best interest at heart? Are we that stupid? The same people who so revel in the blood of the unborn, excuse the mass murder of socialist regimes the world over. North Korea today is adored by the media that calls itself unbiased. They gloss over the death camps, state imposed famines and outright inhuman oppression. The same people sent back “news,” during the state imposed Ukrainian famine that starved to death, between five and fifteen million Ukrainians, that the USSR was a place of joy, prosperity and freedom. Upon further examination… I have to side with diabolical.

Progressives claim that the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or the freedom of speech…” means the government must establish atheism as the state religion and stop people from practicing Christianity in the public square, even as progressives seek to regulate speech on universities and in society as a whole, by the use of violence. They argue “Shall not be infringed…” means it can be regulated. So don’t think for a second that connivers calling for taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens have our best interest at heart. They seek to demolish our Constitution, establish an autocratic state, where the government makes every decision for us, like in North Korea, Hitler’s Germany and the former USSR.

Any unbiased examination of the subject of school shootings, shows that when the schools said the Lord’s prayer and taught Biblical wisdom, even as guns were ubiquitous in schools, those schools were a safe place for our children. Every pickup had a gun in their back window, and shooting sports were part of the curriculum, yet no one had heard of a school shooting. The only thing that has changed is the progressives have hijacked the culture and promoted evil as good. Today progressives have established atheism as the state religion, silence dissension, demand we get the government’s permission to speak, and seek to remove our final protection against their tyranny. Rest assured however, the elite will always have armed guards protecting them, it is you and I they seek to disarm.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

The Deep State and the Corruption of Government

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… as Abraham Lincoln said, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time… That wise adage has never applied to any presidency better than the Obama administration, which will go down in history as the most corrupt administration to date. From fast and Furious to the exploitation of the DOJ and FBI as political weapons, aided and abetted by the legacy media, there has not been a single administration in US history so bent on perverting the rule of law. Of course it would not have been possible without the help of the media that calls itself unbiased, and the foot soldiers of the bureaucracy. In the process, agencies that have heretofore enjoyed widespread admiration of the people, have so sullied their own name they may never recover. Few will escape with their reputations intact from the Obama administration. With the constant barrage of revelations about how the top echelons of the FBI and DOJ exploiting their positions for political purposes, the corruption gets harder and harder to deny.

So what do the elite do? They attack those exposing their corruption, and act as if even if they are corrupt they should be given a pass, since their role in society is so important. Which is utterly absurd, because if their role is as vital as they claim, it is all the more important to keep them free of corruption! Anyone can see that if laws are enforced depending on one’s political affiliation, law has become arbitrary. How is it to the people’s benefit when the Department of Justice is a political organization dedicated to the overthrow of our Constitution? That reality is near impossible to deny. Only people who are mindless slaves to their ideology and those unable to reason lap up the nonsense the elite vomit all over us today. They are the people that can be fooled all of the time. Such corruption is a violation of the very idea of a free country.

The two organizations that aid and abet the criminality of the Obama administration are the media and the bureaucracy. The media that calls itself unbiased are perhaps the most insidious, since while they claim to be unbiased, they are actually shills for a political faction. That reality is impossible to disavow. Since the election of Trump they have taken off the mask. Every news organization openly shows their revulsion for Trump and indeed our very Constitution that gives them the their franchise. Late night comedy has become merely vitriolic attacks on conservatives and Trump. Their “jokes” are nothing of the sort. Even “entertainment shows” today have become propaganda for the progressive faction. Stooping to such levels as normalizing violence against conservatives, as Law and Order SVU did when they aired an episode showing the brutal rape of a conservative woman… and justifying it!

The bureaucracy is the real power of the deep state, the true power in the west today, which is uniformly progressive. Unelected, unaccountable people, hiding in the shadows, pull the strings of our governments, progressing us to their perverted vision of a world utopia where they have slaughtered ninety percent of the human population, as they openly admit in the Georgia Guide Stones. The bureaucracy, which has the power to pass laws, enforce those laws and even rule on their own laws, undermine any semblance of justice, and the rule of law. The administrators, bureaucrats, pass regulations in the dark, promoting their masters will. They work tirelessly in their cubicles creating a swamp of regulations miring all of us in a mud hole of laws that stop all activity. Exactly what the deep state, the shadow government wants.

Today’s revelations proving this to be true are coming at an ever faster pace. They may seem slow to us who are in the moment but the revelations themselves are momentous. Now that we know the media cannot be trusted, to give us even a glimpse of what is really going on, the DOJ and FBI have been revealed to be partisans for the deep state and the bureaucracy is become the real power behind the throne, the very ground we stand on is quaking underfoot. The people at the top of our bureaucracies are being exposed as political hacks, put in place to destroy the biggest obstacle to the deep state’s plans for us, our Constitution. The Constitution which has become a mere chiffon dress covering the shadow government’s naked tyranny. Either there will be waves of criminal charges of dozens or perhaps hundreds of elite, and subsequent prison sentences, or we will become pawns of a world government dedicated to our enslavement. There is no middle ground. The next few years will tell us our children’s futures. Will enough of us be fooled, some of the time, for the deep state to gain total power… or not?

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

What is Progressivism?

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the core philosophy of progressivism, is that every and all decisions a society must make should be done by government. In their arrogance progressives eschew debate for authority, and in that way, progressives seek to return us to a time before the Enlightenment. Most of human history is characterized by deference to authority, it was only the Enlightenment that changed the dominant paradigm from decisions made by authorities, to decisions made by debate and discourse. Obviously, backsliding in our philosophy is not progress but is in fact regression. Perhaps progressives and progressivism are simply the complex system’s way to revert to the mean. No matter, progressives, at their core, believe in the power of the state to decide, how we should live, what we should spend our money on, who we should worship, even what we should think, and are more than willing to use the State’s monopoly on violence to force us.

This is why I don’t call progressives liberals. Liberalism is the philosophy of the Enlightenment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with authority. Progressives however have hijacked the name to hide their true intentions. After the catastrophic Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, with his full on attacks on both our Constitution and the economic wasteland his policies created, as well as the rivers of American blood that flowed from the First World War, the progressive name was so tarnished they had to find a way to hide who they really were, so progressives abandoned the name progressive and instead usurped the name liberal. This was a political ploy to remain in power while at the same time remove actual liberals from the political discourse. It worked very well. Only today, a century later have progressives embraced the name progressive again, since everyone who knew what progressives really are, were, have long since died, and our education system, dominated by progressives, do not teach history in context, but as a means to indoctrinate our children into their backward mindset.

The closest political theory to liberalism today is libertarian. Libertarians are the new liberals. In direct opposition to progressivism, libertarians have a live and let live attitude. Seeking only the minimum laws and standards needed to create the conditions where people can live and work in relative safety. Yet, while libertarians seek a return to Constitutionally limited government, progressives seek an autocratic state, controlled by bureaucrats… as the best means to order society. Where libertarians believe people should be allowed to speak, no matter their ideology, race, gender, religion, intellect or wisdom, progressives cannot tolerate speech by untermensch whom they disagree with. Progressives even believe thought itself should be regulated. Since they hold everyone else in such low esteem, progressives believe that their ideas are too important to be debated with fools, and so will gladly use the state’s monopoly on violence, as the kings of old did, to control their subjects thoughts, and thus actions and speech.

Progressivism believes people are too stupid to make their own decisions, and debate with someone who is, in the progressive’s mind, stupid, is a waste of time. That is why progressives have always been and will always be bigots. Their core ideals are indeed bigoted. During the Woodrow Wilson era, they openly despised Negros and created Planned parenthood to get Blacks to commit racial suicide by abortion. To this day abortion slaughters many more African American babies than any other race. Margaret Sanger, the lion of progressivism openly loathed Blacks. Woodrow Wilson showed the movie The Birth of a Nation in the White house and re segregated the US army. Today, while progressive still are racist and bigoted, against not just people of color, but everyone who is not a progressive, they are willing to exploit anyone they can manipulate to forward their diabolical agenda.

The primary difference between a progressive and a Marxist is the belief in the revolution. Progressives have abandoned the revolution in favor of progressing the world to a socialist government. Socialism, top down autocratic control of not just the means of production, but of our very thoughts as well, is both the Marxist and progressive’s end game. This is to be accomplished by creating the administrative state and getting away from traditional modes of government, like the correct forms, monarchy, aristocracy and polity, and replacing those with their opposites, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy… but controlled by bureaucrats, the new real seat of power, the progressive ideal. Bigotry is one of the foundational ethos’ of progressivism, and bigotry is always rooted in arrogance, but at their core, progressives seek to control everyone and everything by state violence. Not just what we do and what we can say but what we think as well. Progressivism is one of the two most oppressive political ideologies to ever arise in humanity… both serve Lucifer. One by demanding atheism become the established state religion and the other by renaming him.

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