Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Appeasement of Aggression

Sunday, June 8th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, you cannot appease an aggressor, appeasement only exacerbates aggression. This fact is true in every facet of life, both personal and political, micro and macro. Those who would take from us have already dehumanized us in their minds, and nothing we can do will change that, short of defeating them. In fact, trying to befriend someone who has dehumanized you only proves to the aggressor you are not as valuable as he, nor is your opinion as meaningful as his. This is a fundamental fact of aggression. We are all faced with aggressors in our lives. Those of us that placidly back off and cede ground worsen the aggression, those of us that try to make friends with those who seek to take from us, only prove to the aggressor we are unworthy to have whatever they want. The only two ways to stop an aggressor is to defeat him or her decisively, and that only works as long as you have the plurality of power, or leave the situation entirely.


Taking a person’s stuff is bad, but taking a person’s children, or humanity is far worse. Stuff can be replaced, rebuilt or simply done without, but our children and our humanity are fundamental to our person hood. Taking a person’s humanity can come in various ways, slavery is one way, forcing someone to believe something they do not is another… there are many ways to take someone’s humanity, all of them evil. Taking someone’s property is a lesser evil but evil none the less. If an aggressor gets away with taking the property of someone, that aggressor is motivated to do it again, to someone else. The cycle continues until the aggressor is dead or someone stands up to them.


Once someone has dehumanized another in their mind there is nothing the victim can do to change the mind of the aggressor. No amount of nice words, kind actions, charity or platitudes will convince an aggressor of the humanity of his intended victim. In fact they will only prove the unworthiness of the victim. Once someone has dehumanized another they must keep believing that, else in their own mind, they are bad. None of us wants to think we ourselves are evil, and so we continue doing things we should recognize are bad… to keep up the fiction in our own minds that we ourselves are not bad. The more someone tries to change our minds, the more resistant we become to change, again, because to change our minds will prove we were wrong in the first place and that is simply not acceptable. It is called cognitive dissonance.


When asked by a Roman why he was besieging an Etruscan city the Gaul king said, ‘Natural law, that the strong should take from the weak so the strong may live on…’ We are masters of rationalizing our actions, wants and needs. The aggressor never sees him or herself as bad, they manipulate in their own minds the facts, to show that they deserve to enslave that other, steal from him, or rape her, etc… even the most violent people often believe they are the victims. Their violence is merely the actions of the aggrieved. The aggressor often claims, (believes), he or she is the victim. This helps justify their actions at least in their own minds. Society often feeds into this false meme. When someone who has a violent past beats up someone, people shake their heads and say, “he’s at it again.” But when the victim kills an aggressor the same people who would have merely shook their heads at the violence, now become enraged and ask, “Couldn’t you have just run away?” We unknowingly feed the victim belief of those who are evil in this way.


If we want to live in a civilized world we have to start acting civilized. Ignoring aggression by others against others is not civilized it is why bullies get away with bullying. All it takes for evil to get a foothold is for good people to turn a blind eye, and we do that more often than not. When aggression is directed at us we must stand and fight. To back down is not civilized it is barbaric, because it empowers the aggressor to misuse others in the future who, if they back down too, will prove to the aggressor the rightness of his or her actions. Mere thieves must be punished, but those who would dehumanize others must be stepped on, as examples to everyone that aggression is not acceptable in a civilized world. Moreover, allowing the aggressor to play the victim only empowers the aggressor, and dis-empowers the victim. We can stop promoting aggression in our world and thereby live on a civilized planet, or we can keep placating aggressors, and eventually all of us will become victims and the entire world will descend into barbarism. The choice is ours, as it always is, the choice is not easy, it never is, but it is still ours to make, it is the price we pay for free will…





John Pepin


Ignorance in the Information Age

Sunday, June 1st, 2014



Dear Friends,


They say we live in the “Information Age,” but it seems to me, we live in an Ignorance Age. We have access to heretofore unimagined volumes of information, we have the ability for very little money to put up a page and speak to the world, we can even create an app that improves the lot of Mankind and get rich. Yet in our most important duty we willingly remain ignorant. The suffrage is the only way we can protect our liberty and standard of living. Most everyone agrees about the importance of the vote, but in the US, the people feel so disenfranchised by the system, most of us don’t even bother to vote! The last few elections have been decided by 26% of the electorate! One quarter of the people eligible to cast a vote decided who we would have for President. One quarter of the people decided who would run Congress and who would serve on their local boards. We have access to all the information in the world, economics, politics and philosophy, yet we remain ignorant enough to have given up the power to hire and fire, to our and our children’s detriment.


What good is access if we don’t use it? There are egg producers who can legally advertize their eggs as coming from “free range” chickens. The chickens are supposed to have a better life because they were allowed to wander about the yard. When in fact all that is legally required, is for a door to be opened in the coop for a certain amount of time, if the chickens “feel” they would like to roam around they can. They never do… but that is irrelevant to the legal question of “Free Range.” We are no different than those chickens! We are allowed free range but we choose to stay in the coop.


The same holds true of voting. We have the Right to vote, yet so few of us use that Right it can be subverted by a faction, and we see that it has. That faction is the one that strenuously opposes any protection of that Right from fraud and abuse. They bigotedly accuse anyone who seeks to protect that fundamental Right as a hater or someone who wants to take away voting Rights. In this they show their hypocrisy, every instance of fraud disenfranchises 2 voters. and so are doing what they accuse others of. Since elections are decided by fewer and fewer people and the decisions are made by slimmer and slimmer margins, a tiny amount of fraud can turn an election, and we see that it has in the last few election cycles. Since the faction in charge is the beneficiary of the fraud they won’t do anything about it, so the only way to mitigate the pernicious damage to the moral of voters and disenfranchising voters with fraud, the only avenue open to us is to vote en masse. The greater the percentage of voters the less fraud can vex the outcomes.


What good is it to vote if we remain ignorant of the deeper issues making us easy to manipulate? Moreover, if we can be easily manipulated to vote for whomever the elite want us to, do we really have the suffrage? It is up to us to use that vast storehouse of information, while we can, to ferret out the truth. It is incumbent upon us to read and study economics. We live in a pseudo capitalist society and as such it is necessary for us to understand what makes the clockwork tick. Without that knowledge we cannot discern truth from fiction when the elite preach socialism to us. The history of Mankind is there for anyone to see. Plutarch’s Lives is free online, is the definitive work on human nature in situations of power, and should be read by everyone 18 and over. There is a new version of the Federalist Papers available for sale that is written in modern English or the original is available free online. The Federalist papers should be read by all US citizens.


With a bit more research a person can get up to snuff, on why we are in the predicament we are in for jobs, wages and liberty. Let’s become rational maximizers, by incorporating foundational knowledge, so that we can avoid being manipulated into voting against our best interests, we have to exercise our Right to vote, if only to limit the damage of vote fraud and ballot box stuffing since the elite won’t, and most of all we must stop acting like free range chickens. Now that the door is open we have to go through it and find out what is on the other side. To protect our Rights, save our Jobs and raise our wages. Willful ignorance in the information age is irony writ large.





John Pepin




Corruption and Poverty

Thursday, May 29th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, there is nothing more destructive of a nation’s economy and standard of living, than corruption in government. This is obvious but also can be proven simply through observation. Corrupt public officials corrode the foundation of an economy in a myriad of ways just like acid corrodes metal. That so many countries have such profound corruption, is a statement to the corruptibility of those with power, who are essentially unsupervised. We allow this to go on out of a sense of powerlessness, but if we want a better life for our children and their children, we must act against corruption.


Simple observation shows the truth that corruption is destructive of a nation’s economy. One example should suffice to make the example, but examples exist the world over and throughout time, in this Mexico is not the most corrupt nor the only corrupt nation today, it is merely the example I am using. Despite many advantages most other nations don’t have, Mexico is the poster child for poverty… and corruption. Pharmacists are often in cahoots with the police. When an old couple from the US go to Mexico to buy cheap prescription drugs, many Mexican pharmacists call the police, who then arrest the old couple and hold them for ransom. The pharmacists gets his kickback and the drugs back to continue the scam on another unsuspecting old American couple.


If someone is pulled over in Mexico it is insulting to the officer not to be offered a bribe. If the bribe is too low the victim can be jailed. The court system is known for its corruption, where a person with power gets a get out of jail free card, while everyone else gets severe punishment. Permits and licenses must be purchased with bribes. Even the jails are crooked. There are stories of drug cartel members allowed to go out at night to commit murders, even with the guard’s own guns! Today there are Americans who accidentally got to the Mexican boarder, who wanted to simply turn around, but were arrested and sent to jail! The list of the debasement of the Mexican authorities is endless.


All the corruption in Mexico results in poverty and want. In a system where justice is arbitrary and dependent on political favor the market cannot function efficiently. In a place where anyone who gets ahead is subject to kidnapping, any where and anytime, with the police turning a blind eye, producers are driven away to places safe for their families. In Mexico and anywhere government can be counted on to do the wrong thing the incentives are all pernicious.


Those who operate virtuously are punished while those who are despicable are rewarded. All the incentives drive more corruption. Judges who punish purchasable police are murdered and politicians who speak up are killed. Anyone who tries to stop the corruption is slaughtered and their heads rolled into a dance as an example to anyone else who would speak up. The results speak for themselves… Mexico and all other profoundly corrupt nations nurture poverty.


The constant threat of murder, kidnappings and worse subjugate the people to a sense of powerlessness. This is magnified when the people are disarmed so the corrupt have superiority of firepower. The tainted have no fear their next victim will shoot back, the police have seen to it they can’t, while providing weapons to the despicable. Just like Obama did in Fast and Furious. The people must simply try to hunker down and stay off the radar. This includes not getting ahead because that would put you in the sights of the criminals.


The level of corruption we see in Mexico often leads to a socialist government taking control. Typically resulting in more corruption but at a higher level and less susceptible to scrutiny. This is the case in Venezuela. The lot of the people goes down even more because the corruption becomes sanctified by the State. In such a system revolution is out, because the State will use whatever force it needs to stay in power, and the elite around the world will turn a blind eye to it… as they have done in Venezuela.


I have outlined a means to stymie government corruption, a Fourth Branch, or in other words, a Constitutional police of government. If one were set up in such a corrupt country as Mexico, there would be a civil war between the entrenched criminals and the new branch, but with the backing of the people a Fourth Branch could get the corruption under control. The only other option is total collapse of the government and system resulting in societal upheaval and eventually revolution. The people are caught in a trap of the criminal governor’s making. They can die by drive by shooting or die by firing squad. Not good options, a Fourth Branch is at least a possible way out… if they were to take it.





John Pepin


Our Lack of Outrage

Monday, May 19th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the US, or any other government, is placing subliminal messages to conform and obey in the media. I am not saying they are, or that they have any plans to manipulate us in that manner, I sincerely hope not! I am saying that if I found out they were, I would not be shocked or surprised, and neither would anyone else. That is the problem, no one would be surprised or even outraged if such a thing were going on, considering the out of control actions the US and other governments have been caught in. What a sad statement on the level of corruption in our governments isn’t it? After all we were only slightly outraged at the NSA spying program that gets worse every day as the diabolical reality of it comes out in dribs and drabs. We have become so accustomed to our governments lying to us, conniving to take our stuff and stepping on our human rights, we have become calloused. That is a big problem, because it shows how far our governments have moved away from acting in the interests of us all, and to acting only in the interests of politically favored groups.


In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined right forms of government and wrong forms of government. The attribute the right forms had in common was that they all sought to benefit the interests of the whole nation state or in his time the city state. What the wrong forms had in common was that they only sought to benefit the ruler’s interests. History shows us all too clearly that the latter is more common than the former. Most nations have been ruled by connivers who only have their own best interests at heart. The rest of us are merely tools to be exploited to get what the political elite want.


This paradigm has only been overturned a few times in history and has never lasted long. Those few times are illustrative of what a nation can achieve, when the leaders seek the benefit of the whole of society, instead of one or two politically favored segments. Rome in her Republican years was given wealth, freedom and military prowess. Before she became corrupted by the intercine fighting manifested by Marius and Sulla, she never invaded a neighbor, but only met force with force. There have been times in most countries around the world where this was the case. In every instance, where those nations who were blessed with rulers who ruled for the benefit of all of the people, those nations were also blessed with prosperity and freedom. History in unambiguous on this point.


History is also adamant that those nations who were cursed with selfish rulers who ruled for their own egoistic self interest have been damned with poverty, famine, war and tyranny. As the rulers get more selfish the fortunes of those states diminishes. They keep falling until the government is overturned from within or from without. There is not one instance in history where a nation state or city state was virtuous and was demolished. In every case, invasion or revolution, the state itself had become so corroded by corruption, cronyism and political favor, that a fall became inevitable.


In the very best cases of virtuous government, where the state ruled for everyone’s interests, the leaders lead by example. If they wanted the people to be less greedy they eschewed avarice themselves, where they wanted the people to be more industrious the rulers worked harder themselves, and where the governors wanted the people to have fidelity to the state, the leaders were more dutiful to the people. This is an example of self interest rightly understood. When people are given good role models in the form of virtuous leaders the people become virtuous themselves. The same is true when our leaders are corrupt, we follow them into corruption. It is human nature.


Today we live in societies so corrupted by our leaders that we don’t bat an eye when we hear a politician was caught in anything. We have become so jaded by the trampling of our rights and our constitutions that we wouldn’t be shocked to find out our politicians are using mind control on us. Our governors have so exploited, manipulated and lied to us, we merely rolled our eyes when we found out our government was sending weapons to drug lords and blaming it on honest gun dealers, we are not outraged when we discover our President lied to our faces about our very healthcare, we are sanguine when we learn an ambassador was left to die by our government to cover up arms dealing with our existential enemy, and not even slightly worried when we are told our government targeted people for audits and additional IRS scrutiny based on their political affiliations! Our leaders have so corrupted our governments by narrow self interested egoism, they have become in fact and in definition, the wrong forms that Aristotle talked about. The proof is in our lack of outrage at an ever increasing tsunami of corruption, cronyism and incursions on our basic rights. This can only lead to violent upheaval. Isn’t it time to be outraged, and demand our leaders follow their own laws, our constitutions and simple morality?





John Pepin


Crying Wolf

Thursday, May 15th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, the elite should relearn the old fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, else they run the risk of falling into that trap. Name calling is such a fall back position of the new class that it has become knee jerk. Anyone who disagrees with those who overtly seek to bring on a Brave new world, or the alternative 1984 George Orwell, are called racists. The term has been so overused it has lost much of the punch it should have. The elite pretend to be above bigotry while they are in fact the biggest racists there are. Their heroes are, to a man and woman, evil people who are the epitome of bigots, while they ignore their own roots and personal feelings, they point their filthy finger at others never thinking that three fingers are pointed back at them. This would be comical except that the world our children will live in is profoundly effected by their socialist policies.


The fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is simple. A shepherd boy was watching his flock and was bored. He thought to himself, “If I run into town and cry wolf the townspeople will run here and it will be fun.” So he ran into town crying, “Wolf! There is a wolf after the sheep.” the townspeople ran to the fields and found no wolf but the little boy laughing at the gullibility of the townsfolk. They trudged back to their duties. Awhile later, the boy came back shouting, “Wolf, there really is a wolf now!” The people dropped whatever they were doing, running into the field only to find the boy laughing even harder this time. Exasperated the townspeople walked back to town. Later chuckling to himself the little boy saw a real wolf. The wolf killed a ram. The little boy ran into town yelling, “Wolf! There really is a wolf this time! Please help!” The townspeople laughed and went back to work. No matter how the boy cried and cajoled the people they wouldn’t come help. When the boy returned alone to fight the wolf, his flock they were all dead, and it killed him.


The elite have been crying wolf for so long people barely even look up unless they have a political reason to promote the fiction. This is all well and good but it gives actual racists a pass. Like the New Jersey Representative (a Democrat), who was caught saying her city would become an “N” word town. Even our President, Barack Obama, has made racists remarks when he called his grandmother, “a typical white person,” that statement would have destroyed a conservative had he or she said it. Obama derided White Americans as, “bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.” Imagine if a Tea Party member were caught saying that about African Americans, Muslims or Latinos! The media would claim that proves all Tea Party members are racists… but calling all Tea Party people racists, is itself bigoted. The definition of bigotry is to hold all members of a group as having the same characteristics. By this definition, grouping people is itself bigoted… and what political faction favors grouping people? When the unbiased media are faced with real racism and bigotry by the new class, they turn a blind eye, because it doesn’t forward their agenda.


The heroes of the progressives are uniformly racists of the most despicable order. Woodrow Wilson openly avowed racial and sexist remarks that would make even Adolf Hitler shudder. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted abortion as a means to exterminate blacks! World depopulation is a theme of the progressives the world over. The Georgia Guide stones openly say it. They want to kill nine tenths of the human population lowering our numbers to five hundred million. Do you suppose they mean to kill themselves or their own children? No, they mean to kill those people who don’t conform, to their vision of the perfect people. Do you suppose that could include races they consider, lesser?


We live in a time where logical debate about facts and outcomes has given weigh to circular reasoning about who is a bigot and who is not. The bigots are the ones who claim victim hood while those of us trying to have a conversation are labeled with epithets more suited to Margret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and even Barack Obama. The elite cry racist whenever they are met with a question they cannot answer while they drag us into their dark vision of a Brave new world. In the movie or the book by Aldus Huxley, did you notice any Asians, American Indians, or Latinos? No, of course not, they were to be excluded from that nightmarish vision of the new class. Ad homonym attacks and name calling, belong on the playground of ignorant children’s taunting, not in our political debate. Crying wolf only lowers us to the intellectual level of children and is as dangerous today as when that fable was written.





John Pepin


The Danger of Following a Lunatic

Sunday, May 11th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems amazing to me how the progressives can convince us of things we know to be false. The list is endless of absurdities they have tricked us into believing. The list isn’t as important as is the fact that we, or at least enough of us, fall for the used car salesman’s pitch to damage our mutual interests. Perhaps the answer lay in the fact, they convince themselves of absurdities they know to be false, because they seem so good if they were true. If we want to call ourselves civilized then we must stop believing in those things we know in our hearts to be false, else we are nothing more than maniacs, in a technological age. As we all know, give a lunatic power and it will be used for evil, no matter his or her intentions.


From abortion and man made climate change to socialism and peace through weakness our logic is under constant assault from those who consider themselves enlightened. The elite in academia are the epitome of ignoramuses. Who is more ignorant, one who understands he or she doesn’t know everything, or one who has the hubris to believe they know everything? They exploit their monopoly of the media, education and the dissemination of information to wash us with their propaganda, without a thought to the consequences of their beliefs. It is patently true that if they actually got their way and the planet became one world communist government, and make no mistake, that is exactly what their end game is, they would be the first rounded up and executed as potential troublemakers.


George Orwell said people will believe what the media tells them they believe. This is as true a statement as has been uttered. We are social animals and we follow the flock. We reason that I myself cannot know more then the multitude, and so it must be in my best interests to follow, even when we see the cliff looming ahead. Only the few have the self control to stand up and shout, “that way is death.” Those who do are attacked in the most vitriolic and despicable way possible. Those that are leading, care nothing about where they are leading us, only that they lead.


It is the elite, in politics, academia and culture who are falling victim to their own propaganda. They so want promiscuity to be a good thing they convince themselves abortion is good, they so lack self esteem they must have total control of everyone else so they blindly chant the dangers of climate change, they need us to rely on them for everything and in every way so they connive for communism, and they desire so much that world peace can be reached without war they disarm the good and arm the evil… to show them how peace loving we are, the list goes on and on, The elite have convinced themselves of the most idiotic things imaginable, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.


Scientists can infer there is an ocean under forty kilometers of ice on the moon Enceladus, simply by the speed in which the Cassini spacecraft flies by, but they cannot understand that communism has resulted in millions of deaths and untold human suffering every time it is tried. You would have to conclude they are idiot savants. They convince themselves that absurdity is true and reality is false, and that is their right as human beings. We however must not fall victim to their insanity. We must stand against the tide of insanity lest it wash over us and our children with all it implies. When we know a thing to be false we must not go along to keep the peace we must speak up and point out the absurdity, those in academia may know how to parse a sentence and quote Marx but that doesn’t make them Gods, it makes them germs living in a microscopic world of specialization. Just because someone knows everything there is to know about the guanine step in DNA, doesn’t mean they know anything about human existence, and we are smart to understand that. Remember, he who follows a madman is mad himself, no matter if he knows his leader is insane…





John Pepin


Denying Rights to Another

Thursday, May 8th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, when someone denies a right to another, they also deny that right to themselves. By this logic, the latest push by the government to stifle the free expression of conservative media outlets, can easily backfire. The left has had a monopoly on information for several generations now. They are naturally alarmed that another point of view is becoming available threatening their control. Taking such a fundamental right however is tantamount to denying that right to everyone. Freedoms of information, of the press and of speech, are our primary defense against a tyrannical government, (the normal state of humanity). Any threat to one or all of those freedoms is a direct assault on our liberty.


One of the fundamental realities of human existence is that we are all equal. We are equal in value, equal in rights and equal in the eyes of God. If a right is denied to anyone, then by the fact that we are equal, that right can be denied to anyone. To argue otherwise requires as a prerequisite… that we are not equal, that some of us are more equal than others. This is sophistry pure and simple. If we are not all equal then who decides who is more equal? The judge will naturally decide he or she is more equal of course, no matter who the judge is, proving the spuriousness of the argument.


Limiting the ability of one faction of the political spectrum to speak while giving carte blanch to another is the epitome of inequality. Furthermore, that very limitation gives the limited faction not only the legal ability to limit the free speech of those in power today should they get power, but a moral right to do so as well. This is based on reciprocal applicability. When one person attributes a quality, action or consideration to another, that other has the human right to apply those same things to the first. That is why killing in self defense is moral while murder is not. When the killer considers that the victim’s life can be taken, the would be victim then has the moral right to apply that same consideration to the would be killer, because the would be killer applied the logic first.


The left, or better put, the new class, has held a monopoly on information for generations. All the major news outlets are owned, run, edited, reported and overseen, by the new class. This includes FOX News. They are all simply walls in an echo chamber, bouncing around the information the new class wants us to “know,” and thereby think about. Notice the climate hoax is in the news every day despite the fact that most people think it is none sense, or more to the point, because people believe it is foolishness. We must be convinced to disbelieve our own eyes and believe those who we have caught lying to us over and over.


Their monopoly gives them great power to control the thoughts and actions of the people. Such power is never given up willingly it can only be taken by a lion or a fox. Today the new class has outsmarted themselves. They thought control of information would be easier with the internet since it was initially only populated by the new class, but as with many new technologies the results can be hard to predict, and in this case it has spun out of their hands. New media are increasingly offering a refreshingly different perspective from the echo chamber. People can get news not only conservative voices but from the world over. This opens the people’s minds to new possibilities and realities. Possibilities that fly in the face of where the new class wants to take us, and the realities history teaches us, that the new class find problematic.


Like North Korea, China and all other socialist regimes the new class need total control of the media and the flow of information to forward their agenda. To them, the rise of new media threatens their monopoly, and thereby their power. So conservative voices must be silenced. Since the only way that socialists like the new class and Marxists argue is through intimidation, lies, violence and propaganda fueled by government power, they are playing that one card… government’s power to coerce. The theme of all socialists, like the new class, is that some are more equal than others and so they see no difficulty in denying rights to others they demand for themselves, but the reality is that by their own actions they are making it possible and even moral, for others to deny them the right to free speech as well. In fact, it becomes a moral imperative through reciprocal applicability to do so, since they seek to deny that right to others. Therefore, it would be wise for the new class and socialists of every stripe to remember, when you deny a right to another, you deny that right to yourself.





John Pepin


Logically Consistent Measure of Right Versus Wrong

Sunday, April 27th, 2014


Dear Friends,


It seems to me, what most of us consider wrong, depends on whether we identify with one or the other actor. While this is perfectly human, being subjective, it is not a good measure of good and evil. A better way would be to find an objective measure that is not emotionally dependent but logically consistent. A great deal of the arguments we have in our society can be traced back to this fundamental truism. Government and law would be well served to move past this archaic means of measuring right from wrong. Imagine if we did move our legal system and cultural ethos beyond this pernicious paradigm? Much of the energy we now waste arguing based on our subjective emotions, could be turned to productive discussion, evil would be struck a powerful blow, and people could live much more freely.


Who we identify with says a lot about us. Some people believe abortion is perfectly acceptable while others believe abortion is a terrific evil. Both positions today are largely dependent on who the person identifies with. Those who identify with the woman favor abortion, and those who identify with the baby, are pro life. This fairly obvious observation applies to most of the questions we face as a people. Even questions that bring war into the world can be examined this way. Who you or I believe is right depends on who we identify with.


Let’s face facts, we are not going to change human nature, and to try only shows arrogance and presumption. I cede the fact, we are not going to change, mature or evolve, out of who and what we are. That is not possible. As a people however, we can grow out of our individual dogmatism to find a more human hearted and logical metric, with which to gauge right from wrong. This is only possible if the leaders of society subject their own prejudices to the test. To accomplish that would require limiting the power of the elite at the individual level and empowering a wide range of elite as a group.


There is a stream of philosophical thought in which an action can be measured by the good versus the harm it brings. This is pure sophistry because it takes the individual’s sovereign right out of the equation. All human beings have a right to exist, live as human beings and have property, that supersedes anyone else’s right to enjoyment, food, medicine or even harm. If a scientist came up with a machine that would cure cancer at all stages, but as an input it required a child be put in it and tortured for months, as the innocent child dies of pain overdose, his or her body would emit a substance the machine would then refine that would cure a thousand cases of cancer, would it be right or wrong? What if it would cure ten million? There are those who would identify with the cancer patient and say yes! Those who identify with the child would shudder and scream NO!


Instead of making our decisions on an emotional basis we should strive to take emotions out of it and instead try to use the logic if individual liberty. If a thing harms and individual, even if it brings great benefit to another, it is wrong… no matter the level of benefit. To say a thing is good, even though it does great evil to someone, because it brings great good to another… is selfishness writ large. The good from any action cannot be judged good if it comes at cost to another. What I am saying is that the individual’s sovereign rights must not be infringed on, else that action is wrong, pure and simple.


If we could move as a society, away from measuring good and evil based on some sophist calculation of the good it brings one against the harm it brings another, then we would have made a great leap in human understanding. The rights of the individual must be protected and cannot be measured by another. No one is saintly enough to make that calculation. As in our fictitious machine that cures cancer, the right of the person to life liberty and happiness cannot be trumped by the “good” that would come to millions, even billions of OTHERS, by stepping on the rights of that person. Protecting the individual, my good friends, is the logically consistent measure of right and wrong I would have us replace the emotionally dependent one we use today, that of who we identify with.





John Pepin


The Godhead of the State

Sunday, April 6th, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, government is intent on replacing God, and by doing so enslaving humanity. This is not a new thing, in fact, it is human history’s meme. The Egyptian Pharaohs, Hittite kings, and Genghis Khan, along with every other mass murderer who declared himself emperor, called themselves the sons of gods. It was and is, a means to legitimize arbitrary rule by kings over us, keeping us ignorant and superstitious. Today, the idea is essentially the same, if there is no God, then all of our rights come from the State. Since the State is controlled by the political elite, and if our rights come from the State and not God, then the State can revoke them as the elite see fit, sans God. This is elevated to an actual religion in the case of Communist countries where we see mass murderers worshiped like Gods. Lenin, and Mao come immediately to mind as does the North Korean devil Kim mentally ill. Marx argued that religion is the opium of the people, and so that pernicious religion of the State, Marxism, replaces God. As we slide deeper into the morass of Statism, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the ancient peoples… slaves. If we allow it, then we deserve it, but our children deserve better.


Those who are the most vociferous against God, are the very ones who are foisting the imbecilic notion, that the State is the font of all that is good… against every example in human history. They claim God is Dead, like Nietzsche. Now Nietzsche is not my favorite philosopher by any stretch. In fact I have a hard time reading his work because it gives me the chills, as if a demon is toying with my soul, but he has a point with his master, slave mentality. Nietzsche said that there is a direct dichotomy between the mentality of a master and a slave. The master’s mentality is that of action and the slave is reaction. Since the master can do as he or she pleases, they do just that and are active, but slaves must not offend their masters and so they must react to the actions of the master. Nietzsche said this is the inheritance of Western culture, that we all have the slave mentality. I offer however, those of us that have been raised in the American experiment are active, and not reactive. It is because our founders placed the State in the correct position, below us, and not above us.


As the State is elevated to Godhead, our mentality will change from active to reactive, and we see this happening all around us. The US government is militarizing every branch, bureau and agency, regulations are so arcane even lawyers cannot know them all, we have to get permission from the government for almost any action in the form of a license or permit… the list is endless. Traditionally in the US, the philosophy has been that which has not been made illegal is legal, but today that mentality is changing to, that which is not made legal is illegal. Where a thing needs to be sanctioned by the State before it is considered legal, people must be reactive, and where a thing needs to be made illegal before it is illegal, people are active. Each ethos begets a mindset either of action or reaction. Where people are active there is scientific advancement, economic progress, wealth creation and liberty, but where the people are reactive there is stagnation, superstition, poverty and tyranny. Governments that usurp the role of God create a slaves mentality in the people and indeed slaves in all but name.


We have to ask ourselves… what kind of world do we want to bequeath to our children and grandchildren? Do we want them to be slaves or do we want them to be free human beings, with every right and prerogative that is the inheritance of a free people? If we want them to be slaves all we need do is sit back and continue on the path we are on. In doing so we will be following the history of the human race. If we want to leave them with a free society where people are sovereign then we must act. Act to stop the usurpations of Western governments that undermine limited government, demand our political elite be held to the law, and most importantly our Constitutions. The choice is ours and ours alone. Our children will not be given a choice unless we fight to give one to them. Then they will have to fight the same fight, because it is the battle every generation has fought, since the first man crushed the head of another, weapon in hand and covered in the blood of his foe, declared himself king.





John Pepin


Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, justice is simply the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the most realistic and clear definition of that mercurial term there can be. Any other definition requires people to do to someone else, that which they would chafe under where it done to them, and thus is not just. It is important to define such a widely used word as justice, because when a speaker claims he or she seeks justice, and ten people are listening, inevitably there are eleven definitions of justice in the conversation. This makes the term a sophist tool to trap people. Everyone has a sense of justice but few have a defined definition that is simple and universal. If we want true justice in our world, then we must agree on a definition, else it means nothing.


People bandy the term justice about constantly, to get the upper hand in an argument or to denigrate this or that action, thought or philosophy, but to do so if the term is not defined, is simply spurious. It is like me saying I will give a car for this or that. Every listener will have a different idea of what type of car I mean, but lacking a definition, no one will know. If I continue claiming I am going to give people a car I can convince people to do real damage to their self interests. Once I have got money, power or property from them for this car, I can give them a plastic toy car and have not overtly lied.


Any definition that is more complex than the golden rule opens itself to injustice. Once we say justice requires calculations and metrics, we have made the word so complex it looses all meaning, and devolves back to a mere tool of sophists. Furthermore, justice cannot mean doing different things to different people. The moment we say it is just to do this to him, and something different to her, we have waded into quicksand. For a thing to be just it must be universally just.


Justice as it applies to property is the golden rule as well. If I pick up a rock and using only my talent and another rock… I carve a figurine, that figurine is mine and no one else’s. To take it violates my right to that which I have made by my own hands, and also steals my liberty in the form of the time it took to make the figurine, because had I known it would be stolen I would not have spent the time to make it. This same logic applies if I have made a thousand figurines, because to take from someone while defending one’s own property, (and everyone defends his or her own property)… violates the golden rule.


Rawls definition of justice comes in two parts and is meant to show how socialism is just. The first part and therefore the foundational part is that any definition of justice must give people the most liberty possible without trampling their rights. The second is that for a person to make an unbiased decision about what economic system is just, they must do it in a, “Veil of ignorance.” This veil is supposed to show that if we don’t know where we will land in this new economic system we will want everything distributed equally.


Nozick’s take on Rawls, is that Rawls believes money and property are like mana from heaven, and that Rawls ignores the very real effort that it takes to get money and property. My take is that Rawls second principle violates his first. If any definition of justice must firstly give maximum liberty and not violate people’s rights, then it is not possible to take from one and give to another. The very act itself makes a slave of one of the parties. Only a twisted mind would argue slavery gives maximum liberty or that it doesn’t violate human rights.


So… justice can be simply defined as the golden rule. Doing something to another, you would not like done to you, no matter the societal good that would be theoretically gained, is fundamentally unjust. The term justice, undefined, can be used for all sorts of pernicious ends, and usually is. Economic justice must also rest on the golden rule, it cannot be given a complex definition, and must be universal, else it is spurious. Over the years, philosophers have tried to twist justice into a reason for injustice, using complex arguments and smart sounding phraseology, but what they propose is not justice but a perversion of justice. It is important for us to understand what justice really is, to stay clear of the pitfalls of sophistry, that brings into the world injustice called justice, always at the point of a gun.





John Pepin