Posts Tagged ‘Law’

On the Death Of Fidel

Monday, November 28th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, it is informative to see which politician laments the death of Fidel Castro, and who doesn’t. You can tell how someone will turn out by the friends they keep. Those who praise Fidel clearly are sympathetic to his cause while those who denigrate him are not. Obviously, if one is saddened by the death of Fidel, they must have common cause in their struggle with Fidel’s. So we have to ask ourselves, what were the policies and goals of Fidel Castro? Moreover, those who express their love of Fidel must either condone or at least not condemn Castro’s actions. Once we have answered that question, we can understand the policies and goals of those politicians who praise him and lament Castro’s passing. From this we can decide if we want the same things for humanity or something different.

Fidel Castro was the atheist Marxist dictator of Cuba. He came to power by bloodshed and held power by terror, abuse and force. His policies were to enslave all humanity to the state. Castro instituted a policy of atheism in the schools supplanting God with Fidel, where school children would be asked if they believed in God, when they said yes, they were told to bow their heads and pray for candy. After a suitable period of time they were told to open their eyes to see there was no candy on their desks. Then they were told to pray to Fidel for Candy. When they opened their eyes there was a piece of candy on every desk. Likening back to Caligula, Fidel demanded not only fealty but adoration. There is no telling how many people Fidel turned away from God, sealing their fates, to burn in Hell for eternity.

Fidel Castro was instrumental in turning generations of Cuban people away from God. There is an old joke… a priest and a Jewish taxi driver stand at the gates of Heaven. Gabriel asks the taxi driver’s name to find his place in Heaven. The Taxi driver tells Gabriel, “My name is Saul Goldman.” Gabriel says, “Well then, we have a palatial mansion with a golf course, many swimming pools and game rooms for you!” Gabriel motions and Angels carry Saul to his reward. The priest is next and says, “My name is Father O’Brien.” Gabriel smiles and says, “We have a lovely condo for you father O’Brien.” The priest gets a bewildered look on his face and asks, “Why did that taxi driver get a mansion and I only get a condo, when I devoted my life to God?” Gabriel answers, “Because when you preached, people slept, but when Saul drove, people prayed…” besides the obvious, this joke tells a deep truth, those who turn people to God are rewarded heavily while those who turn people away from God are punished. Fidel devoted his entire life to turning people away from God.

Castro favored arbitrary rule as do all Marxists. Arbitrary rule as defined by the ancient Greeks is about the absolute power to the ruler over everyone else. Many in the past favored arbitrary rule their tales are told in the pages of Plutarch. Under arbitrary rule, the dictator can order anyone to do anything and that person must, else be executed. So under arbitrary rule a king can order a mother to kill her only son and she must else be executed, the autocrat can seize money or land from anyone, the tyrant can order anyone to work at whatever, for however long he or she decides without regard to the subject’s physical abilities. There is a name for people who live under arbitrary rule, slaves. A slave is subject to the whims of his or her master no different than a subject who lives under arbitrary rule. Basically, Fidel Castro believed everyone else should be his personal slave.

As do all dictators, Fidel lived the life of a king while his subjects live as paupers. Forbes magazine named Fidel Castro as one of the richest men on the planet since Fidel basically owned everything and everyone in Cuba as his personal chattel. Every house, street, store and farm was Fidel’s personal property, every citizen was subject to every whim of Castro and the Cuban children were his personal property. Fidel was very angry since dictators loathe their fancy lifestyles to be made public. Castro was the epitome of selfishness, envy, egoism and hate. Not only his policies prove this beyond a doubt, but the results of his policies are the polish to his life’s work, enslaving the people of the world to arbitrary rule, denying mankind the benefit of Heaven and fighting God’s plan that people have free will. In short, Fidel Castro, by his actions, was a very evil man.

Who is it then who is praising Fidel’s life’s work, who is it that supports subjecting humanity to arbitrary rule, atheism, elimination of free will and free enterprise? Trudeau the Prime Minister of Canada, the entire media that calls itself unbiased, Obama, elites the world over and most notably Pope Francis. Clearly, to praise a man’s life’s work is to agree with that life’s work. To argue otherwise is to argue water is no longer wet. Since these people and organizations support arbitrary rule, atheism and the slavery of mankind, any thinking person who wants liberty, prosperity, free enterprise as well as a possible eternity in Heaven, must not only ignore the words of these evil people, but actively fight against them in every way. Those who praise evil are themselves evil and should be hampered, reviled and spat upon at every opportunity. All it takes for evil to gain the upper hand is for good men to allow it to happen. This is your chance to not allow it to happen by recognizing who is evil.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Struggle Between Liberty and Tyranny…

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, all of human history can be described, not as class warfare… but between those that seek tyranny and those that prefer liberty. There have been times when the proletariat have sought liberty, and others where the masses have preferred tyranny, the same holds true of the Bourgeoisie and the elite. Both sides are self serving, those that seek liberty however, serve the needs and wants of all of society, while those who favor tyranny only serve their own narrow self interests. Once we understand that history is actually a struggle between the forces of autocracy and freedom much of human history comes into focus. Allegiances, wars, economic policies, socialism, free enterprise, and every other policy governments have come up with, are merely battles in the greater war between liberty and tyranny. Each seeking to hold mankind in it’s sway forever.

Class conflict is always based on the struggle between liberty and tyranny, the factions may change seats, but the conflict is always the same. The hoi polloi have great power in their numbers but are like a herd of cats, dangerous, sweeping but uncontrolled. The elite are fewer in numbers and have political as well as economic might, but to keep those attributes, the elite must constantly be wary of the people. Most often the people seek liberty but usually live in tyranny, while the elite almost always enjoy liberty but usually seek tyranny. Occasionally, the people have sought tyranny while the elite have hoped for liberty, as in the case of the founding of the US. The people wanted a king but the elite wanted limited government.

If we examine history through the lens of a struggle between tyranny and liberty much of human history is made less opaque. The various wars are obviously a struggle between tyranny and liberty, but other historical events can be described as the struggle as well. Economic policies for example, socialism is all about promoting tyranny while free enterprise is all about forwarding liberty. The French Revolution was ostensibly about restoring liberty to France but resulted in tyranny. How did that happen? Because the people who overthrew the aristocracy and king never had liberty as their goal, the revolutionaries never sought freedom, instead they wanted to be the tyrant themselves. The struggle between liberty and tyranny can be applied to every time and place, while Marx’s dialectic only describes the European feudal state, and then not very well.

With the insight that the struggle between liberty and tyranny gives us we can examine the roles of the various players in human history. We can place them in which faction they go and in doing so we can understand the arc of human history. Like the French Revolution the players usually don’t let their actual positions known, because those positions would undermine their effort to succeed, in establishing tyranny. Robespierre wrote about liberty as a means to fool the people into following his form of tyranny. While those who sought tyranny backed the French revolution, others who understood the struggle wasn’t between classes, castes or other social station, but between those who sought tyranny and those who prefer liberty, like Burke, correctly predicted the outcome. Not based on a supernatural understanding of human nature, but of the fundamental nature of the struggle, and that most of the participants wanted to replace the tyranny of the king, with tyranny of the proletariat.

Those few occasions where and when liberty won, ushered in the heights of human philosophy, science and human heartedness, plus, they have raised the lot of mankind, socially, economically, politically and culturally. The results of the few victories liberty has tasted, show it to be exponentially better for the human race and indeed individuals themselves, than tyranny. Yet the pull of tyranny is uncontrollable for some people. Some might trick themselves into believing they will be benevolent tyrants, others know just what it is they seek, but to them tyranny is a siren call, unavoidable, inevitable and too powerful to resist. The people who prefer tyranny usually understand that liberty is better for humanity but the pull of unlimited power over others cannot be resisted.

If we as a race start to understand that we live in a constant struggle between the forces of tyranny and liberty, we can start to get more liberty, and less tyranny. To do so however requires an understanding that most who claim to stand for liberty actually seek tyranny. The way to tell the difference is to look at the policies they propose. The cause of liberty is never helped by more regulations, more laws or more control, just as tyranny is never promoted by more freedom, more autonomy from the state or limited government. Those that claim their form of “liberty” demands more control of our actions, thoughts and even how we worship, are those who seek tyranny, while people who promote less government, less control, freedom of thought, and religion, are those who fight on the side of liberty. Human history is one long fight between the forces of tyranny and those of liberty, if we want a better life for our children then it is time to take sides, side with liberty.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Liars, Propaganda, and Free Speech

Monday, October 17th, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, those who peddle lies, cannot abide free speech. The first thing a liar will tell you is how truthful he or she is. Exclaiming from the rooftops how honest and how trustworthy they are. The consummate liar will never admit she lied even when caught in it. Since there is such coercive power in government… liars naturally gravitate to it. Government’s ability to tell a lie and claim it is truth, by fiat and legislation, is very attractive to a liar and is both a means for government, and the liars within it, to amass more power and defend it’s ill gotten rule. One thing that allows a liar to get away with his lies is a willing and complicit media. When there is the convergence of a complicit media and bold faced liars in government, all within the same faction, free speech becomes detestable to them, and is under great threat of extermination.

The single faction that controls all three branches of government, the media, businesses and set our civilizational norms, is the new class. The new class is our modern version of aristocracy. Instead of birthright, yet, the modern aristocracy, new class, is based on education. University professors are the intellectuals of the new class, and lawyers, journalists, doctors, business executives and most politicians are the intelligentsia. The professors, intellectuals, set the agenda and the rest, intelligentsia, bring it about. The new class has wrested the means of production from the bourgeoisie, overwhelmed the culture with their version of reality, undermined our limited government by conniving and warped our culture with perversion. They are mostly progressives who cling to the Frankfurt schools ideology, and apply Herbert Marcuse’s theories how to implement Marxism without the revolution, ie, by hook and by crook. The new class, as a faction, has as it’s main philosophy critical theory, where truth is to be subverted, families are to be destroyed, religion is to be ridiculed and hedonism is to be embraced, as a means to destroy everything western free enterprise has created… all based on lies.

There was a show on NBR, (National Public Radio), called On the Media. On that show the new class overlords of the media, discuss their power to effect culture, society and policy. I used to listen to it. When I listened, the theme of every show invariably was, the media should claim to be unbiased, that even if they are biased they must hide it, to “protect journalism.” In other words, lying to protect their reputations and lies. Have you noticed how the media always claims it is unbiased? How they tell the unvarnished truth and exclaim from the rooftops how honest and righteous they are? All of which, claiming to be unbiased, shouting down their detractors with ad homonym attacks, loudly claiming to be truthful and never admitting when they are caught in a lie, are how liars operate.

Free speech is corrosive to lies. Wherever there is freedom of speech, liars have to compete with truth tellers, for the eyes, ears and minds of the people they are trying to round up and capture. Freedom of speech allows people to dispel the lies. Remember when Dan Rather conjured up a story out of whole cloth describing how George Bush was AWOL constantly during his time in the National Guard? It was a blogger who pointed out the document, Rather and CBS was peddling couldn’t have been typed in a 1967 typewriter, since the font hadn’t been invented until the 1980s. Dan Rather to this day claims he wasn’t lying! The New York Times has been caught so many times creating outright fiction and publishing it as true that it should be considered in the same vein as Arthur C Clark, Henry James and Ernest Hemingway… interesting reading but pure fiction.

Propaganda is government lying to forward a political agenda. Today propaganda has been made legal by the US Congress and signed into law by Obama. In other words, the US government has openly avowed they will lie to us to get us to act against our best interests. The idealized new class President, Barak Obama, shows open loathing for free speech, instead preferring propaganda. Remember Fast and Furious? Obama used naked propaganda to undermine the second amendment… by claiming gun dealers along the US Mexico boarder were supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels. When he was caught in supplying those weapons himself, the propaganda putsch to outlaw guns along the US Mexico boarder was hushed up, and the lie he peddled was insistently forgotten… proving Machiavelli right. Hillary Clinton has learned well from her husband Bill that lies, no matter how absurd, will be believed if told with a straight face and a tear running down one cheek. Propaganda is a tool of liars and cannot tolerate free speech.

Those who peddle lies shrivel and wither in the light of truth… like a worm on hot pavement. To them, lies are a means to fool the masses into acting against our best interests, and forwarding their diabolical agenda. Happily using the tool of Goebbels, propaganda, to the same ends. One can reliably tell a liar by how loudly and adamantly they claim to be honest. Today the new class, the heirs of national socialism, Marxist ideology, atheistic hedonism and Nietzsche, have as their only real enemy the truth, and they will use deceit at every turn to undermine that enemy. They will do anything to progress the human race to their vision of utopia… a place without the love and nurturing of families, the stark hopelessness of atheism, the emptiness of hedonism and the self absorption of Nietzsche’s super man. All based on lies.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Humanity’s Hubris

Monday, October 3rd, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we behold our science and technology, then stand in awe of our creations. In our awe we have become vain and egoistic, turning away from God and worshiping ourselves as gods in our own right. In that we have become as Adam and Eve. We have turned our backs on God thinking we are his equal. In our hubris we believe everything there is to know… is possible to be known, we foolishly think we can control the universe as our plaything, and we have polluted our very existence with such short sighted, egoistic and inane beliefs. In our idiocy we have destroyed the family, corrupted our governments and taxed our economies to death. The more we flail about in our self absorbed aggrandizement, the more our lot, the lot of mankind itself is diminished, reduced to the point of our self annihilation, fueled by our empty wisdom and inflated egos.

We look at the heavens and in our hubris we believe we can know all there is to know. The advancements of the hard sciences, physics, mathematics and chemistry have made us proud, and that pride tricks us into thinking we are gods. Unlike the hard sciences however, the soft sciences are often nothing but assumptions based on wishful thinking. We have egg heads who make huge gobs of money, pretending to understand complex systems that don’t lend themselves to total understanding. Systems like economics, psychology and governance are not quantifiable, as is the weight of a proton, they are not unchanging like the speed of light and they are inherently mercurial, due to millions of factors that cannot ever truly be known. In our self absorbent hubris we elevate such hucksters to the status of scientist, when in fact they are snake oil salesmen, not just taking our money and health but our very humanity.

Our egos have made us the slaves of our selfishness. When someone stands above the rest of humanity, as in the case of a king, billionaire or legislator, that person looks down on the rest of humanity. Like the child who burns ants with a magnifying glass feels no remorse, the elite believe themselves to be so high and mighty they can use the rest of humanity as mere lab rats, to be run through mazes, used for invasive tests and tossed away like a used diaper… after all, are they not a king, rich or wield temporal power? The rest of us look “up” at the elite and bow our heads to them, after all, he is a king, she is rich, they do wield such sway. It is just that inhuman regard for our fellow man, and indeed ourselves, that allows the elite to feed their egos at cost to humanity itself.

Progressivism, and it’s ultimate goal socialism, is the natural outgrowth of this. Progressives believe they can assemble the complex systems of humanity like a watch maker makes a watch. If only they can get the mechanism right, everyone would be happy in their diminished station, a cog in a mechanism. The world would run like a Rolex keeping time to the tune the elite play. The egoistic belief that they are smart enough to gauge the mass of public opinion as the mass of a neutron, they are able to divine the trajectory of future history as easy as measuring the speed of light, and the hubris to force their ideas on the rest of humanity, is the reason arbitrary rule is so attractive to the elite. In their arrogance, progressives honestly believe they are not God’s equal, but his better. They think they are able to make a world better than the one created by God, a world without poverty, violence and racism, then stand in awe of their fantasies. All that is required is that the rest of us give up our free will and bow to our overlords with the respect and reverence rightfully given to God.

The answer is to recognize we are not gods, we are flawed human beings, each of us a spark in our own right, but only a spark, a tiny portion of truth. To force one’s free will on the rest of humanity, while denying theirs, is to prove unworthy of power and respect. Such thinking has always and always will lead to catastrophe. Our leaders deserve no adulation, to do so is to adulate self-centeredness and arrogance. Science is a powerful tool to understand God’s creation, but a poor substitute for the wisdom to know that we cannot know everything, that there is more to our world than we can see, smell, taste, hear and touch, even with the vastly improved senses that our scientific instruments give us. We are not gods, no matter how powerful our machines make us or how accurately our science measures God’s universe… we are flawed human beings, to know that and yet to love humanity, despite all our flaws… is the first step to real enlightenment.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Our Unjust World

Monday, September 26th, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a simple working definition of justice, is to treat everyone equally, but a more nuanced definition is, to equally treat people as they deserve to be treated. Just as you would not trust a thief to watch your home, or a child molester to watch your child, most anyone would trust a saint to watch either. It is not that they are treated differently, but they are treated as they deserve, should the saint become a thief or a child molester, our treatment of them would change to reflect what they deserve. Justice demands all people be treated as they merit, equally and without discrimination. In the end, the person who is a villain should be treated as a villain, and the saint should be treated as a saint. Sadly, in this world those who are powerful are always held to the lowest standard of conduct, no matter what their actions merit, while those of low station are always held to the highest standard of conduct, regardless of their virtuous actions, due to their ability to damage or help us. This is a violation of justice. The way justice determines merit, is by our actions, not our station, race or religion.

We live in a time where justice is unknown. The news is full of examples where villains are praised and heroes are attacked… injustice is called justice. When a thug with a long history of violence threatens a police officer with a gun, and is shot by that police officer, popular culture credits the thug with every virtue known to man, while the police officer is vilified, leading to other thugs rioting, destroying property, stealing and worst of all, attacking innocent people simply because of their race. Instead of justice, where those thugs would be rounded up, tried and if found guilty, serve long jail sentences, they are given a pass, ostensibly because of their race, but in reality because the violence forwards the agenda of the political faction in power.

Who can claim it just, that a politician is caught red handed destroying evidence that implicates her in allowing top secret material to fall into the hands of our enemies, walks free, even as lowly navy personnel are charged and jailed for far far less? Moreover, it would appear that US secrets are known by everyone, including our mortal enemies… but not the people. If people are treated as they merit, by their actions, not by their political affiliation or power, we would see many politicians going to jail and few junior officers languishing in Leavenworth. Justice does not brooch unequal treatment and is not based on political standing, it is based on merit, for good or bad.

How can anyone look at you with a straight face and say the non punishment meted out to the CEO of Wells Fargo is just? We all know that the culture of any group, organization or company comes from the top. People go where leaders lead. If the culture of Wells Fargo was such that lowly employees were opening millions of fraudulent accounts, to pad the profits of the company, that culture came from the top. Add to that, over five thousand employees were fired for it, yet not one has been prosecuted despite the serious nature of the crime, and a blind man can see the injustice. Those who are punished are the shareholders of Wells Fargo, who had no hand in the crime but are paying the price, in a diminishment of their stock values, stocks they paid for with hard earned money and rely on for their retirement. The other people punished are the customers who were harmed, while the government gets a windfall, and the employees who have done no wrong but who’s careers are jeopardized by the culture of Wells Fargo.

People have an innate justice meter, we know when an injustice is done, and we react accordingly. If our ability to act is hemmed in by government power, if in fact, that injustice is promoted by government…then we loose faith in the system, our stake in society is eroded and we will act unjustly ourselves, anytime we believe we can get away with it. Naked injustice then is the means for a society to fall into chaos, violence and poverty. The facts are clear and they stare us in the face. Everywhere we look there is violence, on our streets, in our schools and at our places of business. Poverty is on the rise like never before since the industrial revolution, while the elite profit from their crimes. The world our forefathers have built and we have been blessed with, is crumbling around our heads and ears, all because, as we know in our hearts… people are not treated as they deserve.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Evil is Evil, No Matter Who or How Many Do It…

Thursday, September 22nd, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if an action is wrong for an individual, it is wrong for a group. Blame cannot be diluted, as salt is diluted in water, blame fits all equally. Evil is evil no matter who does it or how many are involved. A robbery is made no less of a sin, if ten people are involved than if a lone gunman in an alley robs you, it is still a sin and the blame is not diluted by there being ten involved, each is as to blame as a single thug. This is an important concept for people to understand since the dilution of blame is a paramount theory of government. Often this dilution of blame is such that it allows ever greater evils to be done in the name of goodness, which is of course absurdity.

If a person wants his neighbor’s land, so he storms that neighbors house killing the father and enslaving his family, obviously an evil has been done. What of a whole neighborhood lusts after the land of someone and they storm her house taking her land and killing her? Is it any less evil? What if a million people desire someone’s property, kill them and take it, is it any less evil, are the individuals any less culpable? No, they are all equally culpable and don’t share the blame, diluting it, they are all as culpable as if one person does it. No matter if the thing stolen is real property or chattel, an evil has been committed, and everyone involved shares in the blame equally, in the same measure as a lone wolf.

What if a person is detestable in his philosophy, espousing a point of view another cannot stand, so that other cuts out the first person’s tongue, has an evil been done? What if a hundred people don’t like what the first person says, would it be okay then to stop his speaking by force? What if a billion people call for it… is it any less evil? No matter the number of people involved the crime is the same, the blame is the same, and everyone involved has committed an evil. What about if someone is doing something detestable but is harming no one else? Can a lone woman take offense and lock that man in her basement for a few years? Would that be okay? What if a dozen people get together and in their indignation capture him and lock him in a dungeon for a decade, for his own good, would it be a good thing then? What if a million are offended?

A crime is a crime no matter who does it. What if a king decides he only likes women with blue eyes, would it be acceptable for him to order all women with brown or green eyes executed? Does the king’s pleasure overwhelm the right to life of those women? What about if he preferred brown eyes… would it be okay then? Would it be a good thing if a king ordered a squad of armed men to go door to door taking every carrot the people had grown? Perhaps our theoretical king could violate his own edicts, would it be acceptable for him, but not anyone else? What if that king were loved by the people, would that make it okay? No it wouldn’t. A person’s title, occupation or status does not give her the right to visit evil on another, no matter the difference in the adoration of the masses.

In the example of the king ordering a squad to visit evil on someone else, is the king less culpable because he didn’t actually commit the crime himself, what about the squad of men, are they less to blame for their actions because they were simply following orders? Do you think God will hold a death camp guard blameless because he was following orders? Will God hold the person ordering the sin blameless because she didn’t actually commit the sin herself? Maybe a king could change what is good and what is evil by edict? Could a king, beloved by the people, change morality, let’s say changing murder from a sin to a virtue? Is that in the power of any man, king or not?

That which is evil, is evil, no matter who does it, why it is done or how many people do it. Sadly this concept is lost on the lion’s share of humanity. People see a single evil and call it evil, but when they see a million evils, they call it a good. This doesn’t follow. The ancient Chinese utilitarian philosopher, Mo Ti said, “Take the case of a man who when shown a few black dots calls them black, but when shown a large number of black objects calls them white. He would have to admit his eyesight was in disorder and that he did not know the difference between black and white.” This sums up what I am saying, everyone knows a single evil like theft, is evil, but many see theft by the multitude as a good, especially if it benefit them. They would have to admit their moral compass is off by many degrees… Just because an evil is done by someone who claims to represent the many, doesn’t make it a good, it simply involves the many in the sin.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The War of Ideas

Monday, September 19th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we live in a world of competing ideas, America is an idea, justice is an idea, socialism is an idea, Islamism is an idea, gender fluidity is an idea, limited government is an idea, etc… these ideas compete for the minds of people. As in any competition it is not the best who wins but the most zealous. If the adherents of an idea are willing to do whatever it takes to forward their idea, then that idea will become widespread, if the adherents of an idea are wishy washy, that idea will loose ground. The battleground for these competing ideas is the media, schools, universities, cafes, bars and any other forum in which people communicate. The goal line is the zeitgeist. The ideas that permeate the zeitgeist best become widespread and either visit evil or good on humanity. It is important to note, the goodness or badness of an idea has little or no merit in the strength or weakness of that idea, the strength of an idea comes from the intensity of belief of that idea, in the minds of those who take it to be truth. If we seek goodness, then we must grab those ideas that are good and let go of those that are bad, in this we have history and common sense as guides, yet the power of many bad ideas is such that they cannot be easily let go of. As self interested rational maximizers however, it is our ability to reason that has allowed any good ideas at all to survive, against the magnetic pull of evil.

Bad ideas, or ideas that result in human suffering, have an innate pull. They always promise power wealth and prestige for those who hold fast to them. Think about the pull of socialism for a moment. It promises wealth to everyone, it claims to be a form of fairness and it pretends to be about love, (applying to emotion) but most of all, socialism gives unlimited power to those who will run the socialist state, (applying to self interest). To anyone who favors socialism, it is that unlimited power that is the magnet that provides the attraction. Every socialist wants to be the one who runs the socialist state. That is why whenever the dismal history of socialism and Marxism is brought up, the socialist will claim true socialism has never been tried, else that the “wrong” people were in charge then, the obvious connotation is that if they were in charge things would have gone much differently. Bad ideas have an innate pull to people who lust after power.

When someone is so certain of the idea they espouse they are willing to do violence to force others to believe and to stop others from abandoning that idea. The NAZI party was all too willing to visit evil on anyone who didn’t hold their ideas. They waged war against every other political faction in Germany at the time until all the rest were subjugated. Then the NAZIS went on to wage a bloody war of conquest across Europe and north Africa to further their idea of national socialism. The NAZIS are not alone in their willingness to do violence to forward their idea. The willingness to do violence in the name of an idea is a strong indication that idea is bad. If an idea requires the evil of violence to spread, that idea is evil. Evil ideas must be withstood at all costs else evil will become widespread.

Good ideas however don’t promise power, wealth or prestige for a faction, person or group, they offers good to everyone, and in that way good ideas have less power over the minds of those who take them to be truth. Limited government offers no incentive to someone who seek power over others, and so those who believe in limited government don’t have personal gain in believing in limited government, so limited government is an idea that while good, has little pull on the minds of people. The idea of America, the land of opportunity and of the free, has a strong pull to those who live in poverty or oppression, but once a person gets to America, other ideas become more attractive. Preferential treatment by political force is much easier than hard work, and so it often replaces the idea of “America,” once an immigrant comes here. The result is that people move to a place for freedom and opportunity then try mightily to turn it into a place of no opportunity and oppression.

It is in talking that we promote or denigrate ideas. Any form of communication is how ideas are spread and how they are destroyed. Hitler wrote Mien Kampf, Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist papers and the anti Federalist papers, nightly news programs promote progressivism, and it is in our cafes, bars, and internet forums, that ideas are passed from person to person. The battleground for the spread of ideas is anyplace people congregate and talk.

When we watch people debating an idea we usually gravitate to the idea whose adherents are the most zealous. Often a zealous arguer is more convincing than one who uses logic and reason, because she uses emotion, and emotion is a stronger motivator of men than reason, especially those who claim to be “reasonable.” Logic, reason, emotion and self interest, are some of the weapons people use to promote their ideas. Emotion is like a nuclear weapon since it has such power, self interest is like strategic bombing and logic is like a sword, cutting absurdity from truth. Only where the battleground is intolerant of emotion can the nuclear weapon be banned. This is why bad ideas that are based on self interest and emotion are so powerful and have such sway over the minds of people.

We live in a world of ideas, whether evil or good, those ideas determine the quality of life of all humanity. It has been said, the human mind is like a rider on an elephant, the rider is reason and it is the elephant that does the work. Clearly, the rider has only limited control of the elephant, and must ride where the elephant goes, that is why emotion is such a good motivator. We are all self interested, seeking our own good over the good of others, applying to our immediate self interest then is another powerful way to promote an idea, bad ideas are good at this tactic while good ideas are bad at it. It is this siren call of evil ideas, that is why human history has so few examples of good ideas becoming widespread, and why evil ideas have been the norm. Good ideas apply to logic and reason while bad ideas apply to emotion and self interest. Good ideas recoil from violence while evil ideas embrace it. In the end however, the good ideas… limited government, America, and justice for all, actually are in our long term self interest, if not in our immediate self interest. Let us pray then, that humanity will use logic and reason to decide what ideas we will follow, abandoning emotion and lust, thus improving the lot of mankind.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Input Plus Reaction Equal Outcome

Thursday, September 8th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… outcome is always the result of an input plus a reaction. This can be applied to many situations, violence for example, more particularly, when violence is warned of by the elite. The elite, by definition, are those willing to visit violence on another, to force their will on that other. Today the elite couch their threats by the sophist claim the people will become violent. Notice that lately, and in increasing amounts, the elite are warning of violence coming from the people, citizens, when the policies of the elite have become so onerous, they can no longer be stood by just right minded human hearted beings. It is the will of the people, to stop the globalization of government, that is diametrically opposed to the will of the elite, and that insult must be met with violence. As is always the case, violence is perpetrated by those who seek more government power and avoided by those who seek less. That is the rub, the elite input absurdity upon absurdity on the people, then waiting for the backlash so they can slam down and impose their will… to insure “security.”

The elite today have realized the people are catching on. The internet has democratized the flow of information, so that everyone has at their fingers information about everything that is going on, both filtered and unfiltered. Added to that the ability to disseminate that information via social media has castrated the gate keepers. The actions of the elite are available for everyone to see, and knowledge is power in that it tempers the indignation, leading to better judgment. The media that calls itself unbiased used to have as it’s chief worry that people would see them as biased, today that fear has been realized and only those willingly deluded believe a word of them. So the elite have lost their ability to control public opinion by the control of the media

Have you ever noticed, virtually all the political violence perpetrated on humanity since Adam ate the apple, has been by those seeking more government power? No time in history has this been more true than today. Islamists use violence to impose Sharia on non Muslims, Marxists use violence to impose socialism on those who don’t want it and governments use violence to impose laws that benefit a politically favored faction, at the cost to the rest of society. The first people charged by the progressive controlled media, is a right winger, like the Boston Marathon Bombing. That was initially blamed on an anti tax movement because it fell on tax day, but in fact it was an Islamist who sought to impose Sharia on non Muslims.

Now that the elite have created a mess in the Middle East and North Africa with their Arab Spring, the flood of immigrants who loathe Christians and Christianity are inundating Europe. The natural uptick in crime and rape is as predictable as it was planned. The reaction of people who have been forced to tolerate such violence, abuse and outright loathing in their own homes, is just as predictable. Even when the media that calls itself unbiased sell a narrative counter to reality, reality gets out, via the internet. The radical influx of people antithetical to the culture of Europe is abetted by their prodigious birth rates. Even the slowest European must be able to see the future for their children, and so they either react or go quietly into the night.

The idiotic unheard of money printing, and monetizing anything they can see central banks, have created a situation that can only end in an epic economic bubble burst during a recession. Adding trillions to their balance sheets for what has amounted to zero actual economic growth, punishing savers with zero percent interest on their savings thus disincentivizing saving, has put central banks the world over in a dilemma. When the bubble they knowingly inflated, to protect their progressive president from the results of his flagship policy, the affordable care act, pops, they will not be able to lower interest rate much below zero without causing a run on banks so they will be stuck, their own policies feeding back into a recessionary cycle, driving it ever lower. There is not a person among us who doesn’t feel this, even if they are not able to put it into words.

We have an input, the social and economic upheaval we are at the cusp of experiencing due to the corruption of the elite, and we have our reaction… that will decide the outcome. Should we react, as the elite want, with violence? No, that would be playing into the hands of the elite. They desire a violent reaction from us more than a husband his new wife. We know we are being pushed and many feel it is near time to push back, but I tell you, push with letters to your “representatives” and newspapers, stop voting for the establishment candidate, look at the truth rather than the propaganda, even create a political party that stands for less government. Our reaction to the provocations of the elite have to be counter to what they seek else we are pawns in the game of our own demise.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Jobs, Wages and Government Intervention

Thursday, August 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, take the most horrible, filthiest and degrading job that must be done, pay enough and people will climb over each other to do it for you. On the other hand, one could use the power of government to coerce someone to do it, for nothing. Clearly, the one is human hearted the other hard hearted, the first generous the second greedy, and to pay a wage befitting the job shows respect while using violence to coerce shows disrespect. I am amazed then, that those who follow the second philosophy are seen as more compassionate and humane, and those who follow the first are viewed as selfish and oppressive? Perhaps that warping of logic is a means to an end?

Since the first cave man hired another to help clean hides there has been a give and take relationship between employees and employers. Both seeking to get the most for the least. The employee wants the highest wages for the least work she can get and the employer wants the most work for the least pay. At various times both have exploited government power to force the other into a less desirable position. That strategy however depends on the political faction in power. Without government intercession the wage to labor rate would always eventually be fair. Not fair only to workers, or fair only to the bourgeois, but fair to everyone. Government cannot keep out of the relationship between labor and employer however.

Politician’s interests are harmed when there is a level playing field. The people, either as employer or employee, will not have need for the services of government when there is equilibrium, and as everyone who has grown up in a market system knows, where there are no customers there is no business. Fortunately for politicians, their predecessors have put in place a myriad of rules and regulations altering the balance of power. Those past intercessions have so warped the relationship for so long everyone has got used to it. All a politician need do is pander to one of the two factions and a steady flow of campaign revenue and political backing come with that choice. That is why illegal immigration is encouraged, it drives down wages for Americans, while at the same time labor unions get special laws passed to help their cause, to drive up wages. Both policies backed by both factions.

Marx wrote passionately about the alienation of work. That some jobs are terrible and so people shouldn’t be forced to do them by their ever gnawing stomachs. He called it unfair that people had to do work that alienated themselves from themselves or their higher selves. All sounding, of course, humane and compassionate. What Marx didn’t address however was the fact someone has to do those jobs that are alienating. Septic systems have to be maintained, barns need to be cleaned and dishes need to be done, there are far worse jobs that need doing as well, if no one does them they will not get done. The answer from communists is to force those who have no political favor to do those alienating jobs by use of violence. Which makes perfect sense to a sociopath or psychopath who seeks to appear to have empathy.

Were government to stay out of the relationship between labor and employer, the wage rate would settle to a fair rate, and working conditions would steadily improve. Dirty jobs would be paid at a rate sufficient to get people to do them, there would be more jobs due to lessening of the drag effect regulation has on job creation, which would drive up the cost of labor due to the removal of slack from the labor force, the cost of labor would be more in line with the strata of… difficulty, education required and supply/demand for each job. Why should a lawyer make one hundred times more than a sewer repairman? Especially when there is a glut of people wanting, able and educated sufficiently to be a lawyer, and there is a dearth of people sufficiently able, knowledgeable and willing to repair sewers? Government intervention in the employee employer relationship warps the wage rate, otherwise both political faction’s would suffer a loss in power, that’s what drives it. The same faction in control of the media sets the societal norm. They decide what is called tolerance, kind and compassionate and what is called intolerance, hate, bigotry and fascist, regardless of reality. That is why the tolerant are called intolerant, the intolerant called misunderstood, the fair called unfair, the violent called peaceful, victims called occupiers and the kind called haters, it serves the faction in control’s… interests.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Human Rights and Progressivism

Monday, July 18th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… progressives have never seen a human Right they don’t despise and want to get rid of. Their rhetoric and actions prove this. From their zealous attacks on the right of self defense, to their undermining of the freedom of religion, progressives show their absolute antipathy to human rights of every stripe. In their zealous crusade to rid government of the burden of having to labor under the odium of the people’s individual rights, progressives have rolled back the advancement of philosophy, humanity and government, to a time well before the Enlightenment. Progressives are only too happy to use human rights to destroy human rights however. They pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn’t, in an effort to undermine and corrode basic natural law, which is the font of all human rights. Progressives are never happier than when they are overseeing a genocide which makes them the antithesis of human hearted, making Progressivism and all progressives, diabolical.

All human rights come from natural law. Before governments were invented all human beings were created equal, had innate rights like, the right to self defense, the right to privacy, the right to own the fruits of their labor, the right to own property both personal and real as well as, the right to think and believe as each chooses. Government and powerful men stole those human rights by the sword. People were enslaved by those powerful men, who needed an excuse for their evil, so they came up with the theory of arbitrary rule. Once that had been thoroughly debunked, the powerful changed it to the rights of kings, today that philosophy has been renamed social justice. All in an attempt to destroy human rights to justify people being exploited as slaves. Which of course is the direct opposite of natural rights, or as Socrates called it, justice.

The right of self defense is their most important bugaboo. Progressives and indeed everyone who has a penchant for tyranny loathes the right to self defense. How can you enslave a person who is capable and willing to defend themselves and their children from your evil? The basic human right to self defense is the first right from which all others flow, for if one has no right to defend him or herself from the usurpations of a monster, than all other rights become null and void. Everywhere and every time human beings have been denied their basic human right of self defense, it has resulted in slavery, suffering and death, there are no historical examples where this is not true. From ancient China to the modern Syria masters had arms and slaves were disarmed. Before a person can be enslaved they must be disarmed whether by force or trickery. Now they are using trickery but soon progressives will become anxious and will resort to violence… as they always have.

Today progressive make a compelling case to get rid of basic human rights. They seek to control thought, whether by hate crimes or political correctness, progressives seek to control not only what we do, but what we think as well. The right to freedom of religion has been perverted to separation of church and state, which actually means the elevation of atheism, as the state religion. The right to privacy doesn’t exist in a surveillance state, where your every move is recorded and stored in a government data bank, for use against you when the elite see fit. Moreover, how can anyone argue, with a straight face, that we are protected in our personal papers and effects when government can hack into our phones, computers and phone conversations without warrant? Instead of “interpreting” our Constitution, as it was written and intended, progressives claim it is a “living breathing document,” which means they get to change it’s meaning arbitrarily, eviscerating the protections our Constitution is supposed to provide. What is most distressing is that a huge number of people fall for such chicanery.

Justice is not arbitrary rule no matter what they call it, freedom is never submission and humanity cannot be imposed by the state’s monopoly on violence. Our basic human rights come from God or nature but not and never government. Government is the opposite of freedom. While in a state of nature you can go out and kill a deer to feed your family, grow whatever crop you want to fill your children’s bellies, worship whatever deity you please, protect your family and self from thieves and murderers with violence if necessary, build a home, and think whatever you want, progressives always seeks to take these rights away. If you need permission from government… they have taken away your right to do it.

That progressives loathe and despise human rights is an open secret. Their every action serves to undermine human rights and humanity itself in the process… all in the name of “equality.” Progressive’s, socialist’s and Marxist’s version of equality, however, is where some people are more equal than others, to borrow a phrase. While they zealously defend their own “right” to control our thoughts, actions and religious beliefs, arbitrarily as in the rights of kings, they actively destroy those of everyone else. The quiet of Woodrow Wilson when the Armenians were being exterminated, FDR’s silence as Jews were being slaughtered on an industrial scale, and now Obama’s defense of those massacring Christians in their original lands, shows progressives, socialists and Marxists passion for genocide. The master has every right while the slave has not even the right to life. They hold us to every word of their law, constitutional or not, while openly arguing law doesn’t apply to them. Listen to what they say, consider what the outcome of their argument will be… exercise your basic human right to think, before it is taken away.

Sincerely,

John Pepin