Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Our Machiavellian Elite

Monday, June 20th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… the elite today are more Machiavellian than in any time in the past. Machiavelli would have been proud of the elite, or put another way, the new class, to have taken Machiavellian principles to such an extreme in pursuit of their agenda. The reason Machiavelli’s works have stood the test of time is that they speak to our congenital human nature. His ideas span the gambit of human government and the amassing of power into the hands of those willing to use any means necessary to forward their agenda, which is always more power, money and prestige in the hands of the elite. The elite have always been sociopaths or psychopaths who are all too willing to lie, cheat, steal, murder and make war to get their way, indeed a lack of basic human compassion has been the hallmark of the aristocracy since time immortal. Since this is obviously the case as evidenced by all of human history, it is only rational to examine the actions of the elite in this light, furthermore is is Pollianish to believe the elite have our best interests at heart. It is and has always been the Pollianish, who are the useful idiots the elite exploit and manipulate by Machiavellian means, to create tyranny.

Machiavelli is most famous for his treatise The Prince. He wrote The Prince in an attempt to win favor from the new Medici prince who had recently overthrown Machiavelli’s sponsor the Borgia. In it, Machiavelli tried to prove that he could be useful to the Medici, by showing his political acumen. Unfortunately for Machiavelli the Medici didn’t look favorably toward those who has served the Borgias. That book, The Prince, however became a world wide sensation that has real points to teach us, even and especially today.

While Machiavelli sought favor from the Medici family his ultimate goal was to unite Italy and to that end he thought a strong man would be best suited for the task. At his core Machiavelli was a patriot. He believed that the Medici prince of Florence along with the Medici Pope could unite their forces and power bringing Italy under one prince. Machiavelli cared not if that prince were a Medici or a Borgia, because in time Italy could become a republic, Machiavelli’s favorite form of government has he espoused in his other famous book, Discourses on Livy. Today the global elite seek to unite the planet under one governemnt.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains how a prince, (or politician) should be as untruthful as he or she needs while constantly claiming to be the most truthful person in the world. He used the example of a prince who lied constantly, even when the truth would serve him better but incessantly and vociferously claimed to be the most honest man on the planet. While everyone knew the prince was lying they still held him to be an honest man, believing his rhetoric rater than their own eyes and ears. Politicians today follow that rule religiously. We all know of politicians who have been caught lying over and over, but are still regarded by many as honest and trustworthy, and are even running for President.

Machiavelli’s term, “The end justifies the means,” has been taken to heart by the global elite today. The global elite believe in a one world government, they have been writing about it for decades. Ever since Marx wrote his manifesto the elite have been enthralled with the idea of a one world government, where everyone would be “equal,” except for the elite, who are always a little more equal than everyone else. To that end the elite lie, cheat, steal both our property and our elections, create fear and motivate us to act against our own interests with false flags, wage endless wars, destroy our money, intentionally overwhelm our economic system and create societal chaos, all as a means to the end they seek.

In The Prince Machiavelli espoused the virtues of arbitrary rule. Believing the ends justify the means as Machiavelli did, a temporary tyranny was a small price to pay to unite Italy, because afterward he believed Italy would come under a republican form of government. “A stable tyranny is better for the people than an unstable democracy,” was another phrase coined by Machiavelli. He said that under a stable tyranny, it is the elite who suffer being a threat to the tyrant, while the people have a stable society, albeit, a tyrannical one, in which to conduct business, however in an unstable democracy, business is near impossible, since your shop could be vandalized at any time by marauding hordes of angry plebeians. Today however that equation is flipped upside down. With the advent of modern surveillance, data storage and implantable rfid chips, the subjects of a tyrant are even the most lowly.

Anyone who denies the elite are Machiavellian is absurdly Pollianish. The elite have written extensively about their plans and the way they will bring them about. A rational person will look at the actions of the elite, as well as their writings, to decide the elite’s intentions. A fool will only listen to their words. The writers our leaders follow religiously today are Cloward and Piven, Saul Alinsky, Marx, Nietzsche, Herbert Marcuse and George Counts, along with many others, who are uniform in their Machiavellian conniving. Pointing this out gets the speaker branded a “conspiracy theorist,” which is another example of Machiavellian principles at work. To believe a lie in the face of someone’s actions shows a laziness of mind, lack of will and idiotic complacency, but so many do today we have all become lambs to the slaughter.


John Pepin

One Generation Away from Tyranny

Monday, May 30th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, as Reagan said, we are never more than one generation away from tyranny, and Ours may be the one to loose liberty to tyranny. Our soldiers have fought bravely, followed their orders and bled for our liberty, while our leaders have tied our soldiers hands, disarmed them, called them terrorists, spit on them when they returned from Vietnam, claim they are broken and provide material support to our existential enemies. We have allowed our liberties to be ravaged in the name of political correctness, safety and ignorance. Ours is the generation that will go down in history as the dirt bag generation that subjected our posterity to tyranny like the world has never seen before. One socialist world government, by the elite for the elite, protected by total surveillance of the people. “Honey unplug the phone I would like to talk…” will not be possible soon.

In the US we have never been closer to outright tyranny by openly abdicating our Constitution. When our leaders are asked, if some law they are proposing is “Constitutional,” our leaders laugh in our collective faces. They ridicule the questioner along with the media that calls itself unbiased. The open and obvious contempt our leaders have for our basic fundamental protections and rule of law, can only mean the American people have also abdicated our liberties, and have embraced tyranny. Otherwise our leaders would never get elected. We now live in a society where there is no overriding legal authority to punish overt crimes, even when those crimes are admitted to, as in the case of Al Gore who skated when he broke campaign finance law, yet Dinesh D’Souza went to prison for far far less. Hillary Clinton has admitted she destroyed evidence, clearly didn’t turn over her emails to the DOS, had classified emails on an unsecured server, and then lied under oath about it. There is no justice in America anymore… we live under arbitrary rule, which by Socrates’ definition is tyranny.

Obama, on his trip to Japan this weekend, Memorial Day weekend, vilified the ending of WWII by dropping a nuke on Japan. Ignoring the facts that Japan started the war, the multitude of war crimes Japanese soldiers committed on American Gis, Philippine soldiers, The rape of Nanjing, Korean “comfort girls,” etc… In essence, Obama apologized for winning the war, which shows in stark colors why the US cannot win a war anymore. Our leaders don’t want us to. Our leaders, those we have elected and trusted with the lives, liberty and sovereignty of our children, as illustrated by their actions, only want perpetual war. Had Vietnam not been a fight against communism the war would still be going on. The war on terror is merely a perpetual war our leaders will sent our children to bleed and die for… but have no intention of winning, just prolonging.

How do we know our leaders want our children to live under tyranny, perpetual warfare and subjected to a bronze age religion? By their actions. In every fight our soldiers are given the rules of engagement, most of the time today they are so strict, if our boys and girls in harm’s way shoot back at people who are shooting at them, the return fire is called a crime and the soldier who shoots back is sent to Leavenworth for the rest of his or her natural life. There are many cases where this has actually happened. In Vietnam our soldiers were disarmed many times as a matter of policy. The reality is, our leaders are villains who support the most evil, inhumane tyrannies on the planet.

Our leaders are importing terrorists to live among us by the millions. Terrorists who have no intention of becoming Americans, Swedes, Germans, Greeks but to subjugate Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and any others that don’t belong to a specific sect of the religion of peace. Europe is in open conflict now with street battles between Christians and Muslims. Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe, every single day the news is full of stories about innocent little girls being gang raped by immigrants, beheadings on the street, vandalizing of our churches and synagogues, acts of terror, etc… Yet our leaders say we must bring in more in the name of compassion. Compassion for whom? Certainly not for the little girls who will be systematically gang raped and sold into slavery, nor for the soldiers who will be beheaded on the streets, or for the people who will simply be beaten up for drinking a beer. Every drop of blood the almost all male twenty something males invading Europe and the US spill will be on the hands of their enablers, the elite.

Our votes, cast in ignorance, hubris and egoism, along with our silence… have doomed the world to a new form of autocracy that will be world wide, total and inescapable. We have allowed our sons and daughters to be sent to war with no intention whatsoever of winning but merely to die horribly. We have elected people we knew despised our Constitution, loathe our liberties and connive against us, right in front of us. We have turned away from morality and embraced immorality as a culture. We allow our children to die on a battlefield on the other side on the planet so that a politician can hide an affair. Our politicians even call wars unwinnable before they are over! Once we make headway the political establishment goes into overdrive to empower our enemies again as when Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, and created, provided material support to and financed the Islamic State. Yes, ours will go down in history as the stupidest generation. Happy Memorial Day…


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

Political Correctness, the Tyranny of Imagination

Monday, March 21st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, many of us would rather imagine what a thing is, than examine it’s reality. There are all sorts of things that captivate our imaginations, movies, books and music, but when we use our imaginations to “believe” some aspect of a thing, be it religion, philosophy, a politician or a political system, we are doing ourselves and the world a great disservice. That is because our imaginations never actually capture the reality, the essence of a thing, our imaginations project an idea that may be in direct contravention of that thing, imbuing it with virtue or villainy that is simply not there. Not only do people do this about a myriad of things but once we have done it, many will fight to the mat that their imagined qualities are true, further harming our societies, economies and cultures. Political correctness is the legitimization of this very tendency.

To argue about the qualities of a thing is human nature. Three blind men approach an elephant, one grasps it’s trunk, another the tusk and the third the tail. Afterwards, they argue over what an elephant is… but at least they had some first hand knowledge about an elephant, each had only a portion of the truth but each had a portion. How much worse when one or more of the participants in a discussion have no real knowledge but only their imaginations to go on? How do you argue logic and truth with someone who holds his or her imagination above empirical reality? You cannot. Those who have imagined the qualities of a thing are the hardest to persuade, they refuse to look at evidence, they obstinately talk over you and hold you and your empirical evidence in contempt.

When Obama ran for office he ran on Hope and Change. He didn’t outline a plan for that hope and change, he didn’t qualify what it was nor did he allow any personal information, about him and his past to leak out. When some did the media that calls itself unbiased went to great lengths to obfuscate it. As a result people projected whatever they wanted on him. To a capitalist he would restore laissez faire, to a communist he would be the second coming of Mao, to the poor he would make them rich and to the rich he would protect them from the huddled masses. He was everything to everyone. People imagined what and who Obama was and voted based on their imaginations.

Many people imagine socialism as being more fair, more just and more humane than capitalism. They dream about how everyone will get along and work hard for the collective. To those who imagine a better world through despotism, any argument about history, reality or economics falls on deaf ears, they have made up their minds based on their imaginations. The further people get from real Marxism and , the easier it is to imagine what it is, rather than look at the reality of what it is. Reagan’s policies dealt a blow to communism, but without that example of a very real and undeniable socialist nation, where people fled at the risk to their very lives and their children to escape, has allowed people to imagine what socialism is.

Many who have never studied Islam claim to understand what it is far far better than Islamic scholars. In the face of the reality of Islam, after a mass beheading for example, they rush to the news programs and claim such acts are a violation of Islam, even as Islamic scholars claim otherwise. We are to believe the atheist, who imagines Islam as a light in a dark world, over those who have spent their entire lives studying the words of Mohamed. To do so is absurd. Do you believe that a witch doctor or faith healer can set a broken bone better than someone who has spent their entire life learning and working in medicine? To believe he who imagines what a thing is in that case would lead to a badly set leg, a limp for life and perhaps even death, how much worse to believe a politician is everything to everyone, socialism isn’t despotism or the realities of Sharia and Jihad?

Political correctness is the imagining what a thing is and forcing others to follow what is imagined not what is real. The market system teaches those raised in it to be pragmatic, look at the reality of a thing and measure profit against loss, not just in business but in our daily lives. Political correctness seeks to change that paradigm of the lesson of the market system. Political correctness will not broach the reality of a thing to enter the conversation, it demands blind faith in the imaginations of another. Arguments about reality can be derailed by mere ad homonym attacks to protect the imagined reality of the politically correct person. The market system , is a force for pragmatism, examining reality and weighing the profit versus the loss of an action or philosophy. Political correctness is the polar opposite of the lessons of the market system and as such will always be in contention with it. So what do you believe? Your imagination, or reality, you cannot believe both.


John Pepin

Crime Unpunished

Monday, March 14th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… crime unpunished is crime encouraged. Remember when you were a child and you ran into the road? Your mother, father or both would give you the dickens. That was because they understood that if they didn’t, you would sooner or later run into the road and be killed. Because of their love of you they needed to change your behavior. Condemning the truck drivers will not stop a child from running into the road, a slap on the behind will however. Throughout our childhoods, those of us who had nurturing, loving parents, were taught to be civilized. It probably took standing in a corner, a slap on the behind and a few cross words, but the barbarian in us was molded into civilization. It does no good whatsoever to change the negative behavior with praise of the wrongdoing, blaming the victim or cry racism, when someone acts the barbarian. This is such an obvious truism you would think everyone knows it instinctively… but apparently many don’t.

Hsun Ching said the congenital nature of Man is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. By that he meant when we are born we don’t know, right from wrong, we don’t have empathy, we think we can just take what we want, etc… basically, we are little barbarians. Our empathy, virtue and humanity is taught us by our upbringing. Those who have been civilized operate well in any system while those who have not been civilized only operate well in a very structured environment, with draconian punishments and constant monitoring. Hsun Ching’s philosophy has a direct impact on adults as well.

An adult who has not had the benefit of being civilized will commit crime, that is obvious, but what seems to be not well understood is that when an adult is allowed to commit crime and is not punished for it, they are far more likely to commit more crime later. The more they get away with the more heartless and heinous the crimes they commit. In fact, blaming the victim, claiming racism or simply avoiding addressing the crime, empowers and emboldens the criminal. They feel they have a right to victimize others. The criminal becomes even more callous to the wants and needs of other human beings, and in doing so they become less human themselves.

Humanity means to have compassion, to be kind to others and even animals, it is a quality of being a fully actualized, human hearted human being. Humanity can be grown by changing the behavior of those who act inhuman and it can be corroded by allowing crime to go unpunished. To have humanity is to understand that other people exist, have feelings, want pretty much the same things you do and are as flawed as you and I are. Accepting the flaws of others is part of being humane. A psychopath or sociopath is not humane and has no compassion for others. They are broken. Most people who commit crime however are not psychopaths or sociopaths, they are people who have not been civilized, and so lack some aspect of humanity.

When a society allows some to stand above law, morality and civilization, it provides a strong incentive for others, others who are civilized, to throw off the yoke of civilization and become barbarians themselves. Those with a deeper understanding will resist for awhile but the incentive becomes stronger and stronger the longer society encourages crime. People are adaptable, we will adapt to many things, barbarism is one of those things we can adapt to and in a barbarous society, adapt we must. Those who have virtue in a barbarous society will quickly be crushed. We see that society in the last few decades in the US and Europe has become ever more barbaric.

It doesn’t matter if the criminal is an immigrant from a far away land who thinks rape is perfectly acceptable, or a politician who claims there is no overriding legal authority to punish his open and flagrant crime, the result is the same, crime unpunished is crime encouraged. We are civilized by our parents, that is one of the greatest gifts they give us, after our very lives. Civilization in us allows us to function, socially, economically and personally. Those without the benefit of civilization will commit crime. That doesn’t mean they are psychopaths or sociopaths, it means they are not civilized. A society that fails to punish crime, is a society that nurtures an inhumane, brutish and violent people. People that require intrusive oversight, draconian punishments and onerous laws. Yet even the most draconian punishments, intrusive surveillance and onerous laws will do no good to bring a society to civilization. Once civilization is lost it takes centuries to return to it. Only the most vile, self serving and evil people would want inhumanity for humanity… so why are some crimes unpunished and therefore, encouraged?


John Pepin

Judicial Activism is Treason

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.

The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.

Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.

Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.

A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.

When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.


John Pepin

Government’s War on Charity

Monday, February 29th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the new class seeks a government monopoly on thought, morality and culture, and so will not tolerate competition from civic organizations. Civic organizations have existed since the founding of the US and before. They have fed the homeless, clothed the indigent, cared for orphans, cleaned up roads, donated to charity, helped the aged and provided for our veterans. The good works of these organizations has made the lot of mankind better. Today, those in government are becoming ever more greedy for power, political, social and cultural. The means to this power is to control the people’s finances, minds and morality. The elite cast envious eyes at the social and cultural good will civic organizations engender and seek that good will for themselves. Make no mistake however, the elite care nothing to help the downtrodden, but to exploit their misfortune to advance their agenda of total control. One thing history teaches us, unequivocally, is that too much power concentrated in too few hands, leads to human suffering on a massive scale.

When a confidence man plays his victim with a scam, he never admits his self interest, instead he applies to the victims wants and needs. The scammer is always more virtuous, more caring and more honest then humanity as a whole. They gain the confidence of a mark and separate the mark from her money. Scores of novels, movies and television shows have been written with this theme. The elite today are running a confidence game on us. We are the victims of the scam. They pass absurd laws in the name of “fairness,” they regulate our every action to “protect” us, they grow the welfare state to “feed” us and they bully us to “help” us make better choices. The elite in government want us to believe they are more virtuous than us, more caring than us and more honest than us.

The drive for monopoly is the reason behind such laws and ordinances that make it illegal to feed the homeless. I know how absurd it sounds, that it is illegal to feed the homeless in some cities, but it is. People have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law for feeding the homeless in America! There are dozens of laws, regulations and ordinances that make charitable work illegal in the United States. The history of such law is very short. Only recently have the elite been passing laws against good works. Such laws would have been unthinkable even half a century ago.

The rise of the welfare state is one of the main ways the government usurps the good works of civic organizations. Soup kitchens have been replaced by WIC, food stamps and aid to needy families. Government has forced out charitable organizations. Another way the elite in government profit from the welfare state is that it undermines the family unit making people more and more dependent on government. People don’t bite the hand that feeds them. Those who are dependent are malleable in thought, action and judgment. The welfare state has been a boon to the government’s drive for monopoly.

The government has changed the law to allow government the power to legally propagandize it’s citizens. It should be self evident to any reasoning person that government propaganda is not a tool of liberty but of tyranny. That the US government had to pass a law to propagandize the people shows how pernicious such a law is. There is no legitimate role of government to mold the minds of it’s citizens. Such a tool as propaganda is self serving to government and it’s narrow interests. Moreover, subtle pushes here and minor tweaks there, have the power to change morality, culture and thought itself… and we see that it has.

Today, government is the arbiter of morality, having appropriated the role of religion. Obama care, the affordable care act, has forced churches to choose to violate their faiths or violate the law. The courts have been chaotic about their rulings. Some find that government cannot force people to violate their faith while others have forced churches to undermine their core teachings. The sanctity of life for example. The slippery slope of government in the business of deciding morality can only lead to a chasm of immorality.

When someone is eating, I don’t have to be told they are eating, I can see it for myself. Even when they say, with a mouthful of food, they are not eating, I know they are. Just like when government slops at the trough of autocracy, while claiming they are only looking out for our best interests, the truth is obvious to anyone with open eyes. It is the same way with scam artists, who use subterfuge and misdirection to make their victims believe they are looking out for the best interests of their mark, even as they take the mark for everything. In the case of government everything is exactly what they demand and lust after. A monopoly on our thought, conscience and economy. Meanwhile we are awash in their clumsy attempts, the welfare state, laws forbidding good works, propaganda and government usurping morality. In their drive for monopoly, they are winning, while we are loosing. That is why government is waging a war on civic organizations… I wonder how much longer before we wake up and realize we have been taken? Far too late I am guessing.


John Pepin

Style over Substance in Democracy

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in politics, to follow style and ignore substance is to court tyranny and spurn liberty. Sadly, a political race is all about style and nothing about substance. The election of Barak Obama showed this in neon lights. He ran on “hope and change,” without a moment given to what that meant. Today Trump is running on “Make America great again.” Both slogans are strong on style but have little substance. When people vote on a slogan, instead of on policies, they open themselves up to politicians who don’t necessarily have the people’s best interests at heart. If a politician is reticent to explain how he or she will make his or her slogan come true, then the reason is probably that they have no idea how, they just want political power. Perhaps they have an idea, but know it would be obnoxious to the electorate, so the dishonest politician falls back on a slogan.

For good or evil it is policies that get things done. If more jobs is what is sought, lower regulations, less government intrusion into the market, lower taxes and less cronyism are the policies that are called for. This set of policies have the drawback to the statist of, lower government and political power and to the dependent of less government handouts. If more government power is the goal, then higher regulations more intrusion and higher taxes are the ticket. Those policies have the drawback of lower wages, less jobs, lower economic output and less liberty, however. There are always trade offs to any policy.

Since there are trade offs a conniving politician seeks to persuade the people to follow him or her with an empty slogan. Every politician and political adviser knows running on lower wages, less jobs and the loss of liberty is a loosing message. Those who seek more government control cannot run on the drawbacks or even let the idea there will be drawbacks into the conversation. They have to deftly avoid admitting the results of their policies will have drawbacks, in fact, they usually claim they seek the very opposite things their policies will result in. Politicians are Machiavellian in that they care nothing about how they get to their goal, only that they get to their goal.

An empty slogan has the advantage of avoiding talking about any negative effects of their policies but also of focusing the people on some simple to understand sentence. Those politicians who run on policies however, have the double difficulty of explaining how their policies will do what they say they will and defending the attacks on those policies for their trade offs. Since most people are lazy in thought their eyes will gloss over at discussions of policies and their effects instead focus on an empty slogan.

Slogans work best when they are backed up by personality. The most charismatic politician with the best slogan usually wins. Of course… no one is more charismatic than a psychopath or sociopath. That is because people with these disorders have no self awareness, they glibly lie, care not when they are caught, can look you in the eye while and smile as they stab you in the back, love to manipulate people, etc… Have you ever wondered why Hannibal Lector in the Silence of the Lambs is so magnetic? Psychopaths are inherently charismatic, love to manipulate others and seek luxury, and so they levitate to politics where their special abilities and needs serve them, and are served by them as well.

It is by the people being lazy in their voting, voting for a slogan rather than policies, that a nation is moved from limited government, free markets and liberty, and the economic strength that results, to unlimited government, socialism and tyranny. Even as the people begin to feel the results of the policies that result in lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty, they fail to see their own part in the problem, continuing to vote for slogans instead of policies. Very few voters really want lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty but when faced with the task of processing and examining the probable results of various policies, they fall back on a slogan and personality.

This paradigm of democracy has corroded every democratic republic ever constructed. Constitutionalism was supposed to limit this quality of democracy, but has been perverted by the very people elected to preserve our constitutions, as is the nature of democracy. The answer is not to eliminate democracy, it is only through the assent of the governed that any government has legitimacy, the answer is a thoughtful electorate. You have the ability to cast a vote, you are the foundation of your governmental system, you have the responsibility to act as a rational maximizer, a self interested human being rightly understood. If you choose to vote for a psychopath with a catchy slogan, you are the problem, but if you look into the policies, reason what the logical outcome of those policies will be, and vote accordingly… then you are the solution.


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