Posts Tagged ‘elite’

The Close Minded Left

Thursday, May 26th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, nothing says I have an open mind, like a refusal to hear contradictory opinions… or so that is the green movement’s stand, when they outlaw debate about man made global warming. The joke about open minds notwithstanding, the closed mindedness of those in the progressive, Fabian, Frankfurt school, socialists, communists and Marxists, are not just laughing stock but is a very real and existential danger. The global warming scam is but one of the many examples, where those of the autocratic anti property faction (AAPF) blindly follow doctrine, when in all logic they should know better. They claim to be the heirs of the enlightenment movement but in fact they are the philosophical descendants of those the enlightenment movement defeated. Brass tacks is this, the real debate going on in the man made global warming scam, progressing us to ever and ever larger government, and all the other scams the new class AAPF are doing, is based on two basic arguments, do you favor arbitrary rule or limited government, and do we bow blindly to the power of authority or settle argument by debate and reason?

For some reason, the AAPF eschews reason when it comes to testable economic policies, instead adhering to their old doctrinal stance. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, spectacularly in some instances, leading to the deaths directly related to the efforts to socialize the economy and usurp the power to implement those changes, of over a hundred million people in the twentieth century alone, and yet the AAPF in their hearts honestly believe it can work… this time. Every prediction of the man made global warming alarmists has shockingly, not come true, yet they still hold to the idea that unless government gets arbitrary rule and the supreme power of authority in all matters, the planet will burst into flame at any minute. If that is not religious fervor I don’t know what is! Their doctrine has been proven in the real world, over and over to be false, yet they cling to it like a drowning man a rope.

The debate about arbitrary rule or justice is not new to our time. The ancients debated these topics all the time, the difference is, the debate was withing the elite, since there were no means of mass dissemination information by books, mail, newspapers, email, etc… Also the debate was on topic, where today the debate is blurred by class warfare, false patriotism, fear, unending war, party loyalty, ignorance used as a weapon, etc… Moreover, the debate was settled in favor of justice. The weight of literature ancient and modern all take the side, both logical and philosophical, that justice is superior to arbitrary rule.

Plutarch’s Lives can be said to be a commentary on the debate between arbitrary rule and limited government as well as moral biographies. Plutarch’s epilogues to his biographies often balanced on the subject’s stance on arbitrary rule or justice. The life of Dion is illustrative of the open debate and gives ammo to both sides. Socrates actually debated Thrasymachus whether arbitrary rule or justice was best in The Republic. There has always been and always will be, a faction that believes arbitrary rule is best, that faction is always on the side of autocrats, dictators and tyrants, well, until they vie for the same power, then they become mortal enemies… Trump and Hillary for example.

The debate about relying on authority or argument as the final arbiter was supposed to have been settled by the Enlightenment. The advance was that the Church’s iron grip on what was acceptable to think, believe and say, was broken by academics, drinking in the new logic of the marketplace that instead argued, open debate and the free mingling of opinions, was the best way to answer questions, and voila, the age of enlightenment was born. Suddenly anything was possible. Scientific advances theretofore unimaginable were appearing in newspapers every day, the enlightenment freed humanity from the shackles of dogma, to endless possibilities.

You cannot convince someone who is closed minded to change their mind, that cannot be done, you debate a zealot to point out his closed mindedness, and thus show his arguments to be circular. The debate between arbitrary rule and justice has been settled and so it must be called something else, so those who support arbitrary rule can justify it by some other means, social justice (arbitrary rule by another name) trumping justice. Calls to authority, like banning debate on global warming, safe spaces in college where children never have to hear an opinion not sanctioned by new class intellectuals, double standards in criminal matters as well as every aspect of life, etc… will only get stronger the more the AAPF win the present debate and we get more arbitrary rule with less justice. Closed mindedness is a hallmark of those who defend arbitrary rule and authority, seeing who they are is as easy as looking at what they stand on. Anyone who demands we bow to authority and seeks arbitrary rule will have a closed mind and be zealous in their determination. Those are the people we must keep out of power.


John Pepin

Law is not the same as Morality

Wednesday, May 4th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, law and morality are a totally different species, the one coercive and designed to limit humanity, the second is an acceptance of other and results in unchaining mankind. It follows then that what is moral is not necessarily legal and what is immoral is not necessarily illegal. Many people in their ignorance believe the two are the same. Law exists to limit people’s actions, outcomes and ideas, it uses coercive force to manipulate people and is at it’s root, a selfish desire to control others. Morality on the other hand, smooths the interaction of man with man, protects human dignity, makes the world a better place to live and is selfless. A society devoid of morality cannot function, regardless of how draconian the laws are, but a deeply moral society without law functions just fine. Law is the reaction of immoral individuals, who wish to be as immoral as possible, without destroying the machine of wealth creation itself, and so limiting others so society can function.

Law is passed by human beings for their own naked self interests. The proof of this is the fact that the elite routinely get away with breaking laws that you or I would be severely punished for, were we to break them. The State of Vermont for example, just fined a friend of mine for making less money. She changed jobs and so ran afoul of an arcane law that says a taxpayer must withhold 100% of last year’s tax liability or 90% of this year’s expected liability. She moved out of the state and took a lower paying job, so her withholdings were less than last years and since she made less money, her withholding also were less than what the state had projected, (expected) her withholdings to be… so she was fined. The elite, like Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner and Hillary Clinton however, are never punished, even for major infractions of the tax laws or any other laws. When one is subject to a law and another is not, it can be said that the law is arbitrarily enforced, arbitrary enforcement is proof of arbitrary rule, arbitrary rule is proof of actual tyranny.

Morality is passed by God for the interests of all. While laws are passed… so a politically favored faction can get a leg up on an economic transaction, limit the potential outcome of people, control people’s behavior, punish a hated faction, etc… morality allows strangers to interact safely, helps economic activity, keeps children safe, defends our property protects our persons and creates harmony in society. Morality does not coerce, any negative consequences that come from immoral behavior are the natural outcome of that behavior. We all benefit when people are moral, we are all harmed when people are not moral. Morality is authored by God for the benefit of mankind.

Right laws are those that enforce true morality wrong laws are those that protect the interests of the elite. Laws against murder, stealing and rape are examples of right laws, laws controlling political spending, collecting rainwater, selling lemonade and keeping the workings of government secret are wrong laws. Laws that enforce morality are an temporal means of punishing immorality, but even they would be irrelevant in a truly moral society. Wrong laws exist to protect the privileges, power and prerogatives of the elect and make up most of the cannon of law in every nation, city state and kingdom that has ever existed on the planet.

The new class loves the old saw, “you cannot legislate morality…” because they seek to replace the normative effect of morality with the coercive power of law, laws that benefit them over the rest of us. The more immoral we become the more laws we will tolerate. The more laws we tolerate the more power we give to the elite. Corruption flows from the elite in society down to the people. The elite are the epitome of immorality in every way, but they don’t want the source of their wealth, power and privilege to collapse in the chaos that would result if everyone followed their examples, so they pass ever more tyrannical laws to keep the people, (us) from following them into vice. Unfortunately, like water, corruption cannot help but flow from the top down, and so no matter how draconian the law, when the elite are corrupt that society will become corrupted.

There is a huge difference between morality and law. It is important for everyone to understand this fact, Law is only as effective as the enforcement. Arbitrarily enforced, law is only a way for the few to control the many, for the benefit of the few. Morality is never arbitrary, it is self enforcing, since the negative outcomes are the result of the natural consequences of immoral actions. It doesn’t matter if the person cheating on her husband is the first lady, or a cleaning lady, if the immorality is discovered the negative consequences are the same. We all know what the basis for morality is, the golden rule, treat others as you would have them treat you. Law, on the other hand is the lead rule, he who has the lead, rules…


John Pepin

Individualism and Egoism

Monday, March 28th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the egoist demands liberty for himself but slavery for everyone else, while the individualist seeks liberty for everyone else and self control for herself. There is a tension that is inherent in egoism that results from this underlying conflict. The egoist demands from others that which he is unwilling to give. Individualism however lacks the conflict since the individualist demands of himself more than he demands from others. This vein in human relations passes through many other qualities of personality. Moreover, it has profound implications in the wealth of a society, it’s civility and social cohesion. Sadly, egoists seek political power to assuage their egos, while individualists humbly seek to live their lives in peace. This is why government is such a destructive force, those who should be in power are not and those who should not be, are.

Egoism is an immature human trait that has held humanity back since the dawn of time. Sociopathy and psychopathy are extreme forms of egoism but not the only ones. Egoism takes many forms. The egoist need not be unbalanced only selfish. The “great men” of the ancients had egoism in common. An emperor will invade a peaceful neighbor killing thousands, a king will execute a subject for something he does all the time, an aristocrat will order someone flogged for an inadvertent insult, and a bureaucrat will charge and fine or imprison someone for violating an arcane impossible to know regulation that the bureaucrat made up that afternoon, all without a spec of sympathy, remorse or humanity.

We are born egoists and slowly grow out of that immature state to the wisdom of adulthood by the efforts of our parents and society. Of the two however, parents and family life are the biggest positive factor in our maturing. Philosophers have described the maturing effect of family life since the time of Socrates and Confucius. The destruction of the family has shown some of it’s pernicious effects in the rise in the percentage of the population that are egoists. With the rise in the population that are egoists, social cohesion must fail, our economy can only be depressed and our governments naturally become tyrannical.

Individualism on the other hand is a mature state of being. The individualist is tolerant because she seeks tolerance of herself, he is forgiving since he wishes to be forgiven, she is compassionate because she understands people are flawed including herself and he is honest since he wants others to be honest with him. The individualist seeks to be left alone and doesn’t seek power over others. It is learned in the family environment. We each learn to get along with our siblings by the give and take that family life demands. The actions that betray egoism are discouraged by our parents. Lying, stealing, fighting, etc… are all things immature children do. Those actions are punished by good parents teaching children not to be selfish but tolerant.

The vein of holding others to a higher standard than oneself, exposes itself when those with no tolerance demand their evil actions not only be tolerated, but appeased. An egoist will demand their antisocial, selfish and even violent actions be tolerated by others, while at the same time being intolerant of anything she doesn’t like, even the most virtuous actions. Simply demanding tolerance for the intolerable actions of an egoist is not enough but the rest of us must participate. Like the Mapplethorpe exhibits that were intended to offend Christians. Christian individualists tolerated that the exhibit existed but were upset that they were made to pay for it. Meanwhile those who forced Christians to pay to be offended, demand they not be offended by Christianity, let alone pay to promote it.

Political power is to the egoist as heroin is to a heroin addict. The egoist is an immature small person, who holds himself to a very low standard, if indeed he holds himself to any standard at all. Yet the egoist demands everyone else toe the line and will use violence to force tolerance and even participation in their childish antisocial actions. Government is the perfect place where the egoist can get her wants met. The coercive power of government allows the egoist to enforce her own twisted desires on the rest of society. The government’s monopoly on violence gives the egoist the security to apply violence to anyone who seeks independence from the egoist’s will. That is why government is such a powerful force for destruction, economic, social and civil, governments are populated by egoists and shunned by individualists. The exact opposite of what would form good government.


John Pepin

The Lesson of the Twentieth Century

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the fall of the Berlin wall was the period on the sentence of socialism, yet the elite have go all in for socialism. When the Berlin wall fell it was final proof that socialism was a failed economic system. The Soviets had tried for decades to make it work yet it failed. That failure of socialism was the end of a century of failure. Every time socialism was tried it ended in catastrophe for those who tried it. From the United Soviet States of Russia to Cambodia, socialism failed and failed spectacularly. The end of a century of failure was the fall of the Berlin wall, the final capitulation that even a nation with unbounded natural resources, huge population, committed socialists, powerful education system and was a superpower, failed. Yet today, the democratic party of the US is full blown socialist, Europe is run by socialists, and Canada recently voted in a socialist, it would seem that the world want to try socialism again. Of course it will fail again, but the elite are so in love with the system, they care not how many people will die of famine again, the deep level of suffering it will bring on, nor do they care about the tyranny socialism always brings with it, they are willing to inflict all these disasters on humanity so they can try it once again.

Socialism has built within it the seeds of it’s failure. The incentive to work is non existent in a socialist system. The socialist system, where everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work or even if they work, can only undermine the work ethic. In those places where the work ethic is very strong, socialism can last longer, but in the end, the people will realize they don’t have to work to get the same as those who don’t. This is a pernicious effect that cannot be mitigated. Sure, some have argued the lash can be sufficient substitute for the incentive to get ahead, but in the end the lash only further alienates the people and lowers the quality of their work, even if it improves the quantity. The incentives of socialism corrode it from within.

Planning an economy isn’t like planning a wedding, there are simply too many moving parts. Imagine all the information that must be garnered, categorized and understood. The mass of information is simply too large for any bureaucracy, even equipped with quantum computers to effectively gather let alone understand. How many socks to manufacture for example. The market system has the price feedback so a manufacturer knows, by the price he is getting for his socks, whether to make more or less, but in a socialist, planned economy, the number must be set by a bureaucrat. No matter how smart, well meaning or committed to socialism the bureaucrat is, she will never get the number, of even a simple commodity like socks correct. Now consider the style of socks people might want. The level of information about how much to produce quickly becomes impossible to assess, and so there are always huge gluts and shortages. Moreover, the style of what is produced is never what the people actually want.

The drive to advance efficiency is destroyed in a socialist system. If you come up with an innovation in a socialist system, is there any incentive to implement it, is there an incentive for a bureaucrat to implement it either? No, there is not, innovation is a pain in the butt for the central planner, it is simply too much trouble. Implementing innovation is hard work, if you cannot get ahead for your innovation, will you struggle to push it through? No of course not. If you push in a socialist system you are labeled a troublemaker and no one wants to be labeled a troublemaker in a socialist system! That can get you sent to reeducation or worse. Innovation, and the advancement of efficiency that comes with it is frowned upon in a socialist system.

Socialism always and everywhere must institute a tyranny. In order to plan an economy the natural rights of the people must be taken by force, the good of the society always comes before the good of the individual, and so your inborn natural rights are eliminated. Of course, the good of society is always in line with the personal good of the leaders. Under socialism everyone is a slave to the state except those who run the state, so in other words, the leaders of a socialist country own everyone within that country. Socialism is the modern equivalent of arbitrary rule. If the beloved leader believes your death will serve the society he will expect it of you. You have no right in a socialist system to the products of your labor, you are in deed and fact a slave, in a socialist country tyranny is the norm and must be the norm.

The twentieth century was a century that proved, over and over again, that socialism cannot work. The fall of the Berlin wall was the period to that sentence. All the arguments against socialism I have put forth are made moot, because the lesson of the twentieth century was that socialism must fail. Yet here in the twenty first century the elite are intent on creating a world government based on socialism. In their hubris they believe they can make the unworkable work, they are wise enough to fix the incentives, they believe themselves virtuous enough to prevent tyranny, they believe themselves to be gods. Our hope is that people will remember the fall of the Berlin wall, and the lessons of the twentieth century and forestall the insane plans of the global elite. God help us of we don’t, in a world government that is socialist there will be no escaping it, and the more it fails the more insane the leaders will get.


John Pepin

A Gun is a Tool of Liberty

Monday, November 16th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, for a society to be truly free, the people must be armed and be able to defend themselves, and for the same reason, before a people can be enslaved they must be disarmed. While it is obvious that a slave must be disarmed, the other side of the coin, that a person be armed and able to defend themselves, is not as clear. There are many who in their ignorance believe a helpless person can be free, such thinking is muddled at best and pernicious at worst. The state of freedom, by it’s core definition, is one of independence from coercion. A disarmed person is helpless and is at the mercy of anyone armed with intent to force submission. Therefore anyone disarmed is a slave. Only those people who have the ability to defend themselves can be said to be truly free.

Ignorance is the closest ally of the despot. Many people who have never been around guns falsely seek to limit their availability. In their ignorance and fear they can’t imagine the safe use of a gun. They believe their fellow man is incapable of virtuous actions. Maybe because they know themselves and judge others by that standard. Yet millions of people own guns and have never shot anyone. In fact, those who use guns for violence are the exception, those who don’t are the rule. The would be autocrat plays on the ignorance of people to get them to go along with their own enslavement. The elite know that sowing the seeds of fear is always a means to separate people from their Rights and ignorance is a breeding ground for fear.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. That a gun is a dangerous tool is evident, but many tools are dangerous and many people are harmed by their misuse. A chain saw is a dangerous tool, ignorant people are scared by a chainsaw’s noise and potential for dramatic harm. Many people are wounded badly, and even killed by the misuse of chain saws, but there is no call from government for their banning. ATVs are very dangerous, but not as scary, many people are critically injured by their misuse, in fact more people are injured in ATV accidents than by guns, yet there is no widespread call to ban ATVs. A ladder is a very dangerous tool, in fact falls from ladders is one of the single biggest sources of personal injury, but government doesn’t try to outlaw ladders. The argument that guns are dangerous and so should be controlled only by government is false, and is designed, not to enhance safety, but to enslave the people, because a gun is a tool to fell tyrants, while a chain saw is a tool to fell trees.

Those who have a mind to enslave others know that first the victim must be disarmed. You never see a thug tossing his victim a gun before the criminal robs him do you? Governments intent on becoming tyrannical understand this all too well. Since it is usually bloody and inefficient to try to forcibly take guns from the citizenry, subterfuge becomes the means of choice. Government, for example, can create conditions where the society becomes ever more randomly violent. As the people feel less and less safe, some, perhaps many, will turn to government to become tyrannical, to prevent the violence. That government which has a mind to become despotic will be all too happy to comply. Such a government could also vilify gun owners by sending guns to a neighboring country’s villains and blame the resulting violence on their own citizens. The elite could import hundreds of thousands or millions of people who they know will engage in crime, undermine the society and sow chaos.

Violence is a reflection of a society, not the tools it has. Where people have no stake in society, they will be more prone to violence, when violence is glorified the unstable will adore the excitement of violence, the less moral a people the more acceptable violence will become, and whenever a government condones violence against the most innocent, (as in abortion)… violence will appear honorable. Violence in any society comes from the elite, the cultural elite, government elite and business elite. A society that is violent is violent because the elite have made it so, removing the tools of liberty will never remove the violence the elite sow in society, it will only make the violence more personal.

A gun is a tool and only a tool… of liberty, those who are armed are free while those without guns are slaves. Slaves to their fear, their ignorance and their government. They are dependent on another for their individual security. We all know in our hearts that where guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns, and where only outlaws have guns, you are in constant danger, but in their ignorance and fear born of that ignorance, many are willing to subject themselves and their fellows to the slavery of criminals. Violence in a society is the fault of the elite, who sow it’s seeds, nurture the culture of violence and condone it’s use. That the elite benefit from violence in enhancing their power and enslaving a nation is lost on most. Villains prey on the weak, not the strong, to be disarmed is to be weak and therefore prey, to be armed is to be strong, and therefore free, therefore, only those people who are armed and are able to defend themselves can be said to be free, those without the ability to defend themselves are slaves, in every sense of the word.


John Pepin

Open Government

Wednesday, October 28th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when government works in the dark, someone is going to stub his toe. The US government more and more hides even it’s most mundane workings from the public. There are obviously grievous examples such as not showing congress what was in the Affordable Care Act, (Obama care) until they voted on it, when Nancy Pellosi famously said, “You have to pass it to see what’s in it.” There are alarming examples like the new Internet regulations that were secret, and concerning ones too, the National Atmospheric Administration hiding it’s correspondence from Congress and by default the public. Unfortunately secrecy has become the norm. Budgets are passed in the dark of night, news dumps Friday afternoon, blatant ignoring Freedom of Information suits and so forth. The workings of government are now almost entirely hidden, which poses a very real risk for our liberty, prosperity and even sovereignty.

Open government is a prerequisite of democracy. Our democratic republic looses it’s democratic function when government treaties, regulations and laws, let alone how they came to be, are hidden from the public. How can people intelligently vote for a candidate if his or her communications, negotiations and even votes are not recorded and available? Imagine working for a company that isn’t allowed to monitor your actions while at work. How can a person decide if government is working for the people or the elite if regulations are not published? Like The recent Pacific trade agreement, negotiated in the dark of night, and now that a draft has been leaked to the public we find that most of it is not about trade. Without knowledge, knowledge that open government provides, people simply cannot judge government, and therefore cannot vote logically.

When government works behind a veil bureaucrats become corrupt. This not only applies to bureaucrats but especially politicians and lobbyists. Think about it for a moment, if your employer was barred from judging your work, talking to you while at work or even monitoring your comings and goings, how long before you started taking advantage? At first you might make personal phone calls, later possibly pad your pay, then you might not even show up but put in for the time…. like many people actually do in government. Stories of Hack jobs for half witted brother in laws are rampant. Hack jobs that pay huge salaries. All made possible by the veil of secrecy.

Darkness undermines accountability. How can a politician, bureaucrat or judge be held accountable for their actions if no one is allowed to see those actions? As I explained above, corruption flows from secrecy in government, the reason is that accountability is lost. All the scandals that government and it’s officials have become embroiled in are all due to their being aired. Had no one heard about the House Banking Scandal, it would still be going on, if Fast and Furious hadn’t been discovered by the murder of Brian Terry, who had been killed by one of those guns, the number of scandals we see are dwarfed by the number that still go on, only because no one can see them.

Your liberty is threatened when government covers itself in darkness. Corrupt officials, lack of accountability and democratic institutions corroded all lead to the loss of liberty. Even as the machinations of government become ever more hidden, government requires every detail of your personal life be open to their ever staring eye. Government officials will say, “If you have nothing to hide why be afraid of government monitoring?” They make the claim they need to monitor our emails in the name of security, so I have to wonder, how is it that government knowing my pork pie recipe effects national security? When one watches another, and punishes them, especially arbitrarily, the watched is the slave and the watcher is the master… Liberty is lost.

If openness applies to us, how much more to a government that is supposed to work for us, but of course government no longer works for us, we work for it. We have to self report our income, they monitor our comings and goings, they keep tabs on every aspect of our lives, while at the same time hide even the most mundane of their own actions. There is only one place such a system can lead, to corrupt, tyrannical and unaccountable government, that works for the elite at the expense of the people. The polar opposite of a democratic republic. Indeed someone does stub their toe… you and I.


John Pepin

The “Refugee” Crisis is a Crime Against Humanity.

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, it is hard to reason away culpability of the finger that pulls the trigger, but the progressive elite in Europe will try. They might argue the bullet bears all the responsibility, or perhaps that the victim shouldn’t have been in the way of the bullet, but the gun, finger that pulled the trigger and the man holding it are innocent… and if guilty of anything, the are guilty of having too much compassion. If you aim a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, you have started a chain reaction that is all too predictable, to argue it is not is to argue absurdity. The Muslim invasion of Europe is just such a gun, aimed at the head of Christianity and native Europeans, held by the hand of their own governments. When the gun goes off and the inevitable results occur, results that are all too predictable, the politicians will scrape and whine, “How could we have known what would happen, we were acting out of compassion, and it’s not my fault it is the bullet’s”

The “refugees” flooding into Europe are nothing of the sort. They are not refugees for a whole host of reasons. First, a refugee returns to his or her homeland when the war is over, does anyone think these people will? Most are not even from war zones but are instead seeking welfare and handouts, why else would they pass through Turkey, to go to Britain and Sweden? Most, if not all… are young men of fighting age, well fed and clothed… not your typical starving family in tatters fleeing war. They don’t meet any logical definition of refugee. They are looking for economic opportunity not asylum nor are fleeing war.

There are stories of working Germans being forced from their apartments and onto the streets to make room for “refugees,” who then complain the apartment is too small, the free television doesn’t get porn and the food isn’t good enough. Far from being thankful, these “refugees” are demanding and feel entitled. If they feel so entitled today, having just got there, how much more so after they have established themselves? With disturbing reports that “refugees” are being beaten severely if they convert to Christianity, by other “refugees,” the likelihood of any integration is extremely remote. History of past acceptance of Muslims into Europe show the newcomers don’t get jobs but live off the dole. Any argument they will add to GDP is therefore farcical.

Stories of the “refugees” raping women and children, like in Rotherham, are legion. Examples of integration are few, and where they congregate, their neighborhoods become no go zones for Christians. Gangs of Muslims roam the streets of many European cities, robbing, beating raping and terrorizing the native Europeans. Anyone who points this out in Europe are immediately arrested. So, to accept these “refugees,” the native Europeans will have to give up their homes, their Right to free speech, their religious liberty, their security, their children’s safety, their ability to go anywhere they want, their hard earned money and their culture. The chain of events is as predictable as when a finger pulls the trigger of a gun.

If the elite in Europe wanted to stop the invasion they could in a heartbeat. The moment a “refugee” shows up in any European country, feed them, give them medical care, and immediately return them to their native land. The moment that happened the flood would stop. Giving them free housing, welfare, free medical care, free laundry services, free television, free clothing, and even free cars is a strong incentive to come. Returning them would create a strong incentive not to come. The fact the elite are creating an incentive to come shows they want them. Europe is not accepting the Christian asylum seekers, people are being systematically exterminated, forcibly converted and raped, so why accept and indeed incentivize the people doing the exterminating, raping and forcible conversions, to come? Unless the elite in Europe want that in Europe too?

The results are so obvious, we must ask ourselves, why are the elite in Europe not just allowing it, but encouraging it and punishing anyone who disagrees? Since they have the best educations, ignorance cannot legitimately be claimed, therefore, they know exactly what they are doing. They must want a Christian genocide in Europe, they must want little girls and boys to be raped, they must want the European people subjugated and forced like slaves to work for the “refugees…” They are as culpable as the villain who puts a gun against someone’s head and pulls the trigger. Therefore, every rape, every child molestation, every beating, every murder and every crime committed against Europeans, will be on the hands of the elite in Europe. The blood on their hands will grow exponentially by the day. With full foreknowledge and intent the elite of Europe have committed, and continue to commit, a crime against humanity. The villainy of their actions will go down in history as sinister and they will be regarded as fiends. There will be attempts to argue away their criminality but only a fool will accept them. They are the finger on the trigger and they know full well what they are doing.


John Pepin

Cultural Suicide

Sunday, August 9th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the more civilized a society believes it is, the more susceptible that society is to violent factions. To maintain the veneer of civilization, government in that society will bend over backwards to prevent violence, in doing so they will empower that violence, and the faction that engages in it. Moreover, those who believe in moral and cultural relativity will also believe that those who are not violent but engage in liberty are the problem, since they cannot blame the violent person out of cultural sensitivity and multiculturalism, so they blame those who offend the violently disposed. This turns into a sort of cultural suicide, replacing civilization with barbarism. Those who would prefer to live in a civilized society should take this to heart, because to ignore this truth is a certain path to violence, poverty and oppression. I wonder however, are the elite so dumb they don’t already know this, or is there something more diabolical going on?

Sweden considers itself a bastion of civilization. They believe their inclusiveness, embracing of multiculturalism, progressive politics and social welfare is the height of civilization. They have been on a path to diversity for a generation and they have got it. Sweden has imported millions of people who do not share their love of Swedish civilization, laws, ethics or people. The inevitable result is that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe, where once Sweden was one of the safest places on Earth, for anyone, now there are places that are very dangerous even for Swedes. No go zones where Swedes, if they are caught, they are beaten up or worse. The government will not punish the violent faction that engages in violence, but is all too willing to punish those who offend, by their mere presence. In their race to be inclusive, Sweden is committing cultural suicide. The wages of those policies will be poverty, violence and oppression.

Indeed all of Europe is in the throws of cultural suicide. They are rapidly replacing their native population with people who despise them, their culture, heritage, ethics and liberal policies. They allow violence in the name of multiculturalism. They encourage intolerance in the name of tolerance. The welfare states of Europe are beginning to teeter, from the weight of the huge masses of people who go there to get on the dole, and undermine European civilization. In fact, the European people are funding their own demise. Those who work, support those who hate them and have nothing but antipathy for their culture, society and liberality. That the average European is working to support their oppressors, in ancient parlance, that was called the slave/master relationship, today it is called inclusiveness.

The US is no better. The overt policy of the US government is to change the demographics of the nation since the 1960’s. In the parlance of Marxists, the intelligentsia, (new class) are the brains and the proletariat are the heart, but f the proletariat will not step up and accept their “historic role,” then a change in the proletariat is in order. This is what the US is engaged in, changing the proletariat to one that is more convenient to their plans for the country. In doing so they accept violence from certain factions, blaming the actions of that faction on the victims, and claiming that violence doesn’t paint the whole of that faction, while any violence done by others is claimed to be indicative of everyone in that group. The inevitable result will be poverty, violence and oppression.

Now, those in the new class are pretty smart people, just ask them, they will tell you they are much smarter than you and I. Since they are so much smarter than us, does it seem possible they are ignorant of what they are doing? Is it possible that the elite in Sweden don’t know their policies of coddling a violent faction, and indeed importing millions more, is a form of cultural suicide? Could it be that the new class leaders in Europe are unaware that replacing the native European population with those who despise that culture, people, ethics and liberality, can only result in poverty, violence and oppression? Maybe the new class politicians in the US are not aware that changing the demographics to people who will step up and accept their historic role in the revolution, will result in revolution? Or maybe, just maybe, those in the new class know exactly what they are doing? There are only two possibilities, the new class is filled with imbeciles, or villains.


John Pepin


Sunday, July 12th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the new class tosses words around like bombs, they are intended to blow up, terrorize and distort the perceptions of people, tricking us into believing a thing is bad, when it is in fact good. There is no end to the examples, but I want to focus in on the term, “austerity.” Most people had never heard the word, austerity, five or ten years ago. That is one of the advantages of using it as a political bomb, the usage and meaning are fluid in the minds of those who have never heard it. Since we use context to understand words we don’t know the meaning of, and in that context we assign them a definition in our own mind, we can be manipulated by them. Often that definition is based on a false premise. These properties of human language are exploited by the new class to motivate us into doing damage to our own self interests while advantaging them. Your self interest and that of your children are profoundly effected by such chicanery.

Governments, from time immemorial, have over spent. It is the nature of government. The reason is that those who get to spend the money are never the ones who had to work for it. They take it, often at gunpoint, and spend it to enrich themselves, their cronies and expand their power over the people. Such a situation works fine for awhile, but eventually the economy that supports the spending must become hollowed out and collapses. As the economy gets closer to the eventual fall, the elite become panicked that their gravy train might not pull into the station tomorrow, and use every trick in the book to make sure it does. They sock as much money away as possible, to protect themselves from the calamity they created, while gutting the people they are supposed to serve. To do that they have to manipulate us into allowing them to continue the spending until the whole thing collapses.

So, what does “austerity,” really mean? It has basically two meanings, the first and the one most people today assign to it is; “sternness or severity of manner or attitude,” the second and the one that makes the most sense in usage as it pertains to government is, “extreme plainness and simplicity of style or appearance,” and the third which is related to the first is, “conditions characterized by severity, sternness, or asceticism.” You see, what the elite are trying to make you believe by using the term austerity, is that severe, hard, and by association, mean… measures are being taken by government, for no reason other than to make poor people suffer. The reality is far different however.

Using words with a negative connotation like austerity is a way of fooling us into going along with the elite’s wants. Notice how whenever the word austerity is used… it is aimed at our interests? Moreover, when austerity is actually implemented, it is always tax increases and never meaningful spending cuts? The elite, who don’t have to pay taxes but do get the primary benefit of spending, always fall on the side of tax increases. When those tax increases lower Gross Domestic Product, they point to that evil austerity as the reason, never at the spending, it’s pernicious incentives or the negative effects of taxing an economy to death. Remember, tax is synonymous with friction and burden. They want to keep the gravy train rolling so they terrorize us with words.

Real austerity, austerity that is of the second definition, “living in a Spartan like manner, austere, eschewing comfort, living simply, etc…” would be cutting spending. That is never the way it is used though, is it? The word is tossed out like a mad anarchist bomber throws an explosive into a crowd. It is used to terrorize and disperse people. Real austerity in Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain, Italy, the US and elsewhere, would be to cut spending. That spending will eventually have to be cut, because sooner or later there will be no one left, stupid enough or rich enough, to cover it. The people will become impoverished, the banks will go belly up and those elite who have made the most, will have their money in an ivory tower… guarded by people who’s allegiance is guaranteed by the fact they would die if they were thrown back into the burning building that will be our economy. Until then, austerity will be a dirty word, after that, real austerity, cutting spending, would have been the only thing that could have averted disaster.


John Pepin

The Knife In Our Back

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when you seek to stab someone in the back, it is best to get them to focus their attention on something other than you. While the libertarian/conservative movement dwells on policies, their outcomes and reason, progressives hold our attention on character assassination, innuendo and jealousy. Of course, they have to, since their policies are all designed to crush our nation under the jack boot of regulations, taxes and socialism, (stab us in the back). In any debate with a progressive they will immediately go on the offensive against someone’s character. Sometimes defending one conservative, to appear open minded, while attacking another, then turning and attacking that other conservative as well. That means of winning elections has worked very well for Marxists, progressives and socialists for a century, the results have been poverty, famine and tyranny. If we don’t wake up and see a villain for what he or she is, we along with our children will inevitably find the knife of communism in our backs as well.

By our very nature we like to gossip. We talk about this or that bad thing he or she has done, with an eye to mitigating by context the bad things we have done. He runs around on his wife and so my glancing at a pretty skirt now and then is nothing, she is a drunk, and so when I get a bit tipsy in front of my kids it is nothing. Gossip allows us to justify our actions by context. Progressives and Marxists know this and use it against us to gain power over us. They point at how terrible a political enemy is and destroy his character. They move the debate, from what they are bringing our nation to, to what a bad person the other guy is. Since we are gossipers by nature, enough of us fall for it, so the Progressive gets into power.

In The Republic by Plato, Glaucon asked Socrates, is it better to be just and be known as unjust, or is it better to be unjust and be known as just? Thrasymachus, (who favored arbitrary power) argued it is better to be unjust and thought of as just, so the elite can gain more power at the cost of the little people, who put their faith in justice so they can live their lives in peace. While Socrates disagreed and argued justice is a good in and of itself. That question was the whole point of The Republic. We are engaged in the same debate today, we just don’t do it openly and in public. Instead the elite are as unjust as they can be while claiming the mantel of justice. Most of us have never read The Republic, let alone understood the arguments it contains, and so are ignorant of the reality of politics. In short, the elite, and especially the progressive elite who make up the new class, are as unjust as possible while claiming to be pure as the driven snow, and anyone who threatens their drive to despotism is scum.

We have all heard the monikers the progressives, Marxists and socialists throw out, right wing hater, racist, rich, etc… They also condemn by association, she is against this legislation because she wants children to starve, he wants you to loose your healthcare, etc… To ensure there is never a real reasoned debate about the policies and the probable outcomes of those policies. In the last Presidential election, Romney was a deeply flawed candidate, but despite his flaws the unbiased media, run by new class progressives, kept the debate away from Obama’s policies and their results, instead focusing on how rich Romney was, the innuendo Romney didn’t pay taxes, how he put the family dog on the roof of his car and how he murdered a woman because her husband had been laid off a year before she got cancer and so she didn’t have health care. Romney himself participated in the meme, in the debates with Obama, Romney agreed with Obama at every turn, even saying Obama is a nice guy, as Obama was saying Romney is a rat.

It is hard, even impossible to stab someone in the back if they are facing you. It becomes much easier if you can convince them the threat is from the other side. Then they will gladly turn their back to you. Character assassination, exploiting gossip, and innuendo, drive people to focus on a person instead of the policies. The progressives have learned the lesson of The Republic very well, seeking to appear just while being absolutely unjust. Ask anyone if this is so and they will say, I know I know, but are then immediately herded into the trap. This is why we keep voting for “nice” people, and our liberty, republic and economy corrodes away. We focus where we are told to and turn our back. Is it any wonder there is always a knife in it?


John Pepin