Posts Tagged ‘change’

Change as a Political Mantra

Sunday, July 23rd, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, political movements that proclaim change as their universal immortal mantra, must always create suffering, want and drama, in order for their message to sell. Obviously, in a time and place where there is Nirvana, the economy is going gangbusters, government is all but non existent, crime is something read about in books and the kids all have carefree childhoods… no one would want change. Therefore, those who peddle change need the economy to grind along sufficient to keep from collapsing, but poorly enough so that want strides the land. Social unrest and crime sell change better than any ad agency ever could. Place government right at the heart of the problems and change is a winner all around.

Change is especially attractive to the young. Kids in school believe they are the smartest people who ever lived and those who have an inflated sense of self are the easiest marks. You did and I did, we all believed we were the wisest people on the planet when we were young, and many of us still do. It is only through the tempering of the raw knowledge we gained in school by life experience, and most of that, mere propaganda, before someone is able to recognize a scam, especially one packaged so beautifully. The very idea of change is exciting to youth. Young and unwise people romanticize change, dream about how much better everything will be after, imagine themselves as the benevolent autocrat ruling for the betterment of mankind and picture how pristine the planet will be once fossil fuels are forbidden.

That is why change always leads to a worse outcome for everyone but the politicians. Politicians peddling the snake oil, change, will have the starry eyed youth manning their trenches. Loyal soldiers who are immune to any barrage of reason or empirical evidence contradicting their beloved change. Riding the swell of youth acting against their own interests, politicians peddling change then can make the situation such that everyone will want change. The worse they can make everything, the better their message of change will resonate, not just with the youth but with everyone who has lost their job, wife, husband, healthcare and dignity.

It is against the self interest of people selling change then to improve things. I think at this point we can all agree, people act in their own perceived self interest. That is why people are so happy to vote for the politician who will use the power of the state to take from another to give the themselves. They see it in their self interest to receive money for their vote. Outside of any discussion of if it is in one’s self interest, rightly understood, to do so, we can see that people do it because they perceive it to be in their self interest. Politicians who peddle change are acting in their self interest as well. The message sells, once in power it is easy to pretend to try to change things for the better, while working to change things for the worse. Since it is always much easier to change things for the worse, that politician who hawks change will always be able to create the conditions where that message sells. It is in their self interest to make things worse as they pitch change.

When you hear someone selling change, you know the change they are selling is always for the worse. Generally, people peddling change will help their core constituency at the cost to society, since doing so gets both their core constituents paid off for their support, and creates conditions where the message of change resonates. In the long term however, change always makes even the most politically favored group’s fortunes lower. Eventually only the top political echelon have plenty while everyone else has little. People act in their self interest and so those who gain power based on change will always seek to make conditions such that change is a winner.

This paradigm only works as long as the people are ignorant of the game. Once those pitching change have become so brazen people cannot help but to see, even when they seek not to, the message is seen for what it is. Usually far too late to do anything to stop the inevitable destruction. People will become angry once the charade is discovered and some will become violent. This has happened many times in history when the elite have been discovered for who they are, those same great men Thrasymachus so admired in The Republic. Those selling change will have their Marie Antoinette and Benito Mussolini moments, not because it is just or right, but because they have striven so mightily to deserve it.


John Pepin

Change is the Nature of the Universe

Monday, June 29th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, everything is transitory, even those things we see as bedrock. Even bedrock eventually wears away into sand, silt, and clay. We hang our hats on this or that seemingly solid manifestation but when it turns to sand, as everything does, we are thrown into chaos. The ground shifts beneath our feet and we are put off balance by it. No one has such balance that they are immune. Change is the nature if this universe and that change will always keep us off balance. Our very lives are transitory. We struggle through, trying to be good people, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure as best we can, but in the froth and turbulence of life we only hold on as best we can. The answer is not to be so strong we break, or so weak we fold, but to bend when it is required, have the wherewithal to get back on our feet when we are knocked down, and we must stand hard against the vicissitudes of life we can defeat.

Change is the nature of this universe. Even the stars themselves have limited life spans and so how much less our realities? Once there were dinosaurs roaming the Earth, now they are gone, through no fault of humanity, but because all things have a beginning, a middle and an end. There is nothing other than God that doesn’t follow this pattern. Change is everywhere you look. A billion years from now the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun and life on this planet will become impossible. Nothing is permanent… but change.

Change is the quality of our existence. Perhaps that is why life arose in the first place, because life is nothing but change. Every aspect of life is change. We eat, digest the food and excrete it out, every step is change. We are born, we live and then die, changing the whole time. The very molecules within us change to make our existence possible. Even our thoughts, emotions and spirits exist by changing, thought by the changing of electrons and proteins, emotions by the changing of our fortunes and our spirits grow and thereby change as we age. Life, being so intricately involved with change, is the epitome of the nature of our universe.

Maybe that is why the market system is so effective, it is noting but change. In the free market, innovations changes the way business is done, it changes how things are made and it changes peoples fortunes, some from good to bad and others from bad to good. Those how have it good seek to stop change, through regulations taxes and monopoly, but they struggle against the very nature of our universe. The market system is constantly changing, which puts it in alignment with the nature of the universe, while socialism seeks to stop change, putting it at odds with creation. To contend with the nature of the universe is to fight an unwinnable battle.

To seek to stop change is to seek to stop the universe. You might as well stop the planets from orbiting the Sun. People dislike change however, the weather changes and we go from hot to cold, the seasons change and we go from sowing to reaping, our fortunes change and we go from poverty to wealth or visa versa. Change is difficult for us because it causes disruption, and by definition we must adapt to that disruption, we cannot force it to adapt to us. Innovation is a form of change and therefore is resented by those who are comfortable in the present paradigm. That is why so many of us struggle against change, even to the point of accusing humanity of being the author of change, that is a ludicrous charge since nature is the author, we are merely spectators.

Since change is the nature of the universe, it is the height of foolishness to expect to stop anything from changing. To stop the globe from heating or cooling is to spit in the face of nature, to stop economic innovation is to expect the universe to bend to us, and to demand that morality not change is to be Pollianish. Change sometimes is good and other times it is bad. Changing morality will lead to lower standards of living, persecution and eventually a collapse of our civilization, but that is also change. The best we can do is try to mitigate the negative results of change, or guide it to a better result as best we can, but change is inevitable.

The pendulum of fate swings from good to bad, it cannot be held to good forever, that would violate the nature of our universe. Even the Bible’s description of the Millennial reign says it will change, after a thousand years Lucifer will be loosed on us again, and since the author of the Bible is the same as the author of the universe, change is written into it too. Today the pendulum swings to bad, as it must do, but rest assured, while it will get much much worse, that same pendulum will eventually swing back to good. Only God knows when, but it will. How do I know this? Because change is the nature of the Universe.


John Pepin


Can We Count on Foundational Climate Data?

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the back story about the German 6th Army’s destruction at the battle of Stalingrad is an apt metaphor for how global warming is being inflated.

After thee Russian Guards Armor had encircled 6th Army under Field Marshal Von Paulos, OKH and OKW were keen to free them. 6th Army was the spearhead of the German Army and contained the most battle hardened units. A communiqué went out to Von Paulos asking how much reserve supplies were at hand for a breakout.

Paulos then sent a communiqué to his commanders who then sent them out to their subordinates. The subordinates knowing that whatever they reported, more would be asked of them than their reported supplies would allow, so they withheld some from the tally… as a buffer. The commanders then added the reported amounts, then subtracted some, to make up for the fact that more would be asked than the supplies would allow. Then Paulos did the same thing. By the time the supply report got back to OKW and OKH the amount of supplies reported was a fraction of what was available. Making the picture more grim than it in fact was. The total amount was under reported at every step of the way to the point that, a breakout was not ordered, and 6th Army perished as a result.

Global warming is similar in that all it takes is for the ground units to inflate or deflate their reports a little. In the aggregate the slight over reports add up to a great over report of temperature rise. Each person thinks he or she is helping by showing the crisis is urgent and so is buffering the data a little. Just as the subordinate officers of the German 6th Army under reported their supply situation to “help” by being able to do the impossible if asked, some modern weather data collectors might inflate their numbers a little. Inflating the foundational information and skewing the reported rise in global temperatures dramatically.

For example the National Weather Service reports the Heating Degree Days. The heating degree day is a scalar of how much the daily average temperature was above or below 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

To illustrate, I have taken some days from December 2009 that were reported in the Burlington Free Press, the paper of record for the State of Vermont;

dec18 2009 wsscm 2

On December 18, 2009 the National weather service reported 48 heating degree days for December 17th 2009. The High was 9 degrees and the low was 1 degree. 9+1=10 10/2=5 The average temperature for December 17th 2009 was 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Burlington Vermont. Subtract 5 from 65 to get the heating degree days and you have 60. But the National Weather service reported only 48 heating degree days for that day. Under reporting the actual figure by 12 degrees. Last year that day the Weather Service reports that the high was 31 and the low was 30. So 31+30=61 61/2=30.5 round up and you have 31. The average temperature for December 17 2008 was 31 degrees. Subtract 31 from 65 and you have 34 heating degree days for December 17 2008. The Weather Service reports exactly 34. The averages for December 17 are 32 for a high and 17 for a low. 32+17=49 49/2=24.5 round up to 25. Subtract 25 from 65 and you have 40 heating degree days for December 17th on average and that is what the National Weather Service reports is normal.

The question I have is why is December 17 2009 so underreported for heating degree days? The heating degree days as I have show were actually 60 when the National Weather service reported only 48. That would have made the average temperature on that day 17 degrees. Double the highest temperature seen on that day. This skews the seasonal heating degree days by showing less than there really was.

I have included another day to compare. December 21 2009. They under reported the heating degree days for the year prior;

dec 22 2009 wsscm 2

What do you think about that? I have found that at least once a week the heating degree days are under reported or, in the summer, the cooling degree days are over reported The heating degree day figure is a foundational figure used in computing global climate change. As the heating degree days are under reported and the cooling degree days are over reported it skews the IPCC’s reported global temperature increases. In the aggregate, all the little over and under reporting adds up to a lot, due to errors in the “original” data. At least the data that hasn’t been destroyed.

Check it out yourself in your local news papers. The math isn’t hard. Maybe it’s time we started looking into things for ourselves… and stop trusting people who have shown themselves over and over to be untrustworthy. Under tyrannies, the people have no means, in the democratized countries we have the means. Until we give it up to the global warming panic mongers.

Lets hope and work so that the little buffers, don’t have the same result on us… as it did 6th Army.

Global Climate Change as a Trojan Horse

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009


Dear Friends,
It seems to me that sending 67 billion dollars to Africa to recompense Africans for “global warming” is absolutely absurd. Here are a couple proponent articles on the subject; and
Who in their right mind believes that the money will help anyone who isn’t a member of the African Elite. Corruption is rife in African governments. I cannot think of one single African leader that is not corrupt and incompetent. Can you?
Every penny of the money, if sent, will go into the pockets of already rich tyrants. I am wondering how enriching evil dictators, who do nothing but lower the lot of the people in their care, will help global warming? If African tyrants have more money to spend on terrorizing people perhaps the people will forget about global warming… because of their suffering.
One thing I find interesting is that the global elite that claim we must act now have such an obvious agenda… to destroy individual sovereignty. Every prescription they offer will result in a global government. One from which global tyranny can sprout. The global Elite stand to gain a great deal. But you will be ridiculed if you mention they are greedy for power and money. When you think about it… aren’t we better off without self determination? Elite politicians can make all our decisions for us. Who knows better, what we as individuals need, but people we have never met and care nothing for us… or us?
The global Elite don’t really know if the planet is warming or cooling. They have renamed the phenomena global climate change because of their ignorance on the subject. They are spending billions of dollars, of our money, to study what will happen if the planet warms. Even as the planet cools. They don’t know if the planet is heating or cooling, but they do know one thing… whatever it is doing, it is our fault. 
They even discount the sun as a determiner of climate. The recent global cooling episode we have been in science 1998 is discounted as an anomaly. The lack of sunspot activity apparently has no affect on our climate. Just as the access of sunspot activity and the sun’s overpowering certain radio frequencies during the 1990s had no effect… according to the global Elite. 
I bet that if mankind were wiped from the planet now the temperature of the planet wouldn’t change half a degree. But, f the sun were removed from the solar system, the temperature would change drastically. Yet the Elite claim the sun has no effect on climate. Maybe I am wrong… maybe the planet would heat if the sun were removed from the solar system.
What about the planet Mars warming in virtual lockstep with Earth until 1998? How is that explained by the global Elite? The planet has changed color. I remember something in high school science class… Chemistry. There is some law that states color changes are a sign of a chemical reaction. I ask… what chemical reaction has taken place on Mars recently that didn’t happen over millions of years to now… why now? What is the cause? My Hyundai? 
But enriching African tyrants is critical! It must be done immediately! Else we are doomed! We have no time to think. We must act! Look at the track record of the global climate change alarmists. They were the same people who predicted the population bomb. Remember… the one that was a dud? Even third world countries have seen a fast decline in human fecundity. In the industrialized world fertility has reached an all time low. Articles are appearing warning of the graying time bomb. Not enough workers to provide for the many old people.
I am still waiting for the silent spring. DDT was outlawed resulting in thousands if not millions of deaths from malaria. But the world was saved. Slow death by malaria is the price others have to pay for the ideas of the Global Elite. You and I should be excited to die a slow sucking death for the ideas of some rich half wit moron with far too much power and too little wisdom.
I do understand how impoverishing Americans and Europeans will cut down global carbon emissions. We will have to go back to subsistence farming (if the Elite let us) after we transfer our wealth through the Elite to Africa. Really… don’t you feel good about sending your hard earned money to some evil tyrant in Africa so he can rape children, kill indiscriminately and ethnically cleanse areas of his country?  I don’t, but then again, I am an evil greedy capitalist, who believes in sovereignty of the individual… not Stateism.