Posts Tagged ‘meritocracy’

It’s for your own good…

Monday, May 9th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the presumption of government always, and must always, stifle innovation. Societies that lack innovation stagnate. Those poor souls living in societies that are in stagnation, have only the past to look at, when estimating the future. A lack of innovation has many results… all of them bad. Alternatively, less government results in more innovation. Innovation that would have been crushed under a pile of red tape and licensing can flourish instead. Everyone doing their own thing and not forcing anyone else to act, think or believe, whether through government coercion, the threat of violence, blacklists or political correctness, allows humanity the ability to innovate, creating the expansionary part of the economic cycle. So it is very true that government has a great deal to do with the state of the economy.

Government presumes to know best for everyone everywhere. Not only do they know what is best for you and I, they are willing to do violence to our persons, for our own good. The whole chain is based on the presumption of those in government. The sin of presumption is to expect to go to heaven no matter what one does on Earth. The sinner presumes, or in other words believes that which is not so. The consequences for society, civilization and the march of humanity by the presumption of those in government not only is a violation of the limits our Constitution puts on government but has been is and will be the downfall of civilizations, past present and future.

Innovation is the lifeblood of a civilization. The very reason ours has been so successful is that we have not only allowed innovation, but encouraged it through patent law, copyright, venture capital, etc… Our civilization is the most scientifically advanced, not because we are at the end of time as we know it, but because we have allowed innovation. Innovation is dangerous to vested interests however. Change is always harmful to those at the top simply because change means they will no longer be at the top, that is the meaning of change. Therefore those at the top of a scientific field, industry, firm, agency, corporation etc… will oppose it. Since they wield political power to match their economic might, they presume to “ask” government to limit innovation in the name of, safety, patriotism, protectionism, apply the RICO statutes, and sometimes, dammit, it’s for the children. What it all amounts to is innovation and thereby, civilization itself, is stifled.

A stifled civilization always rots… Imagine the Roman in the declining years looking forward and saying to his friends that Rome would recover if only a new emperor was inaugurated. When in fact only a slow rotting away of his empire, language, status, wealth, indeed his very way of life was being disintegrated before his unseeing eyes. All the while presuming his and his civilization’s fortunes would turn rosy again… The old ways, the only ways allowed under penalty of law, become ever less effective to meet the always growing demand and so, calamity after calamity ensue. Once a civilization enters the final stage of decline, where each bad decision is met with another that is worse which is, of course, met with an even more absurd decision, the path is set. Even the most resilient societal and economic fabric cannot withstand such shearing force, force that gathers with each stupid decision.

Even when government is most benevolent and kind as it grows so innovation declines. The most wise man of Machiavelli’s time might have prescribed leeches for a migraine. To argue that was quackery would have got you arrested. The consensus of the scientific community is always in flux. The moment it stops changing it ceases to be a scientific community and becomes a cult. Today the consensus of scientists might believe that children are better off never having a pacifier. Regardless of merits of the argument, to force others to follow that dictate shows presumption. Even when the weight of scientific evidence shows a thing to be true to presume to force another to follow that finding is tantamount to the inquisition, the question being scientific consensus instead of Justification.

In the end, civilization only advances when there are many small experiments going on all the time. This country tries that economic policy, that nation over there tries a different legal system, another is an oligarchy while millions of economic experiments go on at the same time. A store opens on 4th street by the bakery, will it last, is it located right to get foot traffic, are the prices competitive, too high, too low… Millions upon millions of little experiments going on, each yielding their results to mankind, showing us what doesn’t work, what works, what works better and how to get around doing it at all. Any smothering of innovation and the mechanism of human advancement stops. All those small experiments cease and the whole thing stagnates… all because some egoists presumed to know what was best.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Violence as a Means to Control Followers

Sunday, April 24th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if your ideas mush be enforced with violence, those who leave your sect must be killed and you spread your ideology through conquest, you must have self esteem issues. Confident people, institutions and groups know in their hearts that their ideas are true and virtuous, therefore they allow people to come and go, spread their ideas through discussion and hold onto followers by the power of love and logic, not violence and threats. Groups, institutions and people who have self esteem issues however, are very different. Factions with self esteem issues know in their hearts their ideology is wrong and understand in their heads that no rational person would follow them without being coerced. Moreover, those factions, institutions, groups and sects that have self esteem issues can be reliably singled out by their treatment of dissidents, unbelievers and those who wish to leave the fold. The reason this simple concept is so important for humanity to learn, and never forget, is that violence is the means in which an evil, backwards, pernicious and stunting ideas pervade mankind.

This concept need not be manifested in outright violence, other forms of coercion work as well. Political correctness is another form of violence that demands unanimity of thought, knuckling under of unbelievers and advances the ideology of progressivism through fear and intimidation. Progressives know, because history is unambiguous about this, that their ideology is wrong. They know if their ideas were fully implemented, world wide government, world communism and world tyranny, the lot of mankind would suffer greatly. The results of their ideas is irrelevant to them, the goal is all that is important, and so the means can be anything that works.

Violence in all it’s forms… soft, personal, impersonal, vague, bloody or against one’s reputation, are ways to force someone else to do something they would otherwise not do. Since someone must be forced to do something believe something or think something, they would otherwise not do, that is further proof that the action, belief or thought is not in the self interest of the individual, but of the egoist forcing the point. We do things, believe things and think things that are in some way in our self interest. Human beings are universal about this. Even the most psychotically challenged among us act in their own perceived self interest.

Self interest however come in several flavors. Self interest can be rightly understood, it can be egoistic and it can selfless. Self interest rightly understood is to follow one’s self interest in an enlightened manner, sadly, self interest rightly understood is becoming more and more rare today. Selfless self interest is what saints practice. Jesus practiced self interest selflessly. An egoist follows his or her self interest selfishly. Egoists are the ones who will use violence against others to force those others to act, believe and think, that which is against their own self interest, regardless of it’s flavor. The egoist will demand from others that which the egoist would never subject himself to. Therefore all ideologies, movements, institutions and religions that use violence to force submission, come from egoism, are perpetuated with egoistic drives and eventually are quashed in bloody upheaval.

All ideologies that spread through fear, maintain their adherents with intimidation and subject others to threats, are wrong ideologies. What the egoists that run such ideologies fail to understand is that the tighter they hold their adherents the more the adherents seek to escape. Violence only goes so far. In the greater scheme of things, it is human heartedness, (logic and love), that always eventually wins out. Yes the egoist can lower humanity for a while, sometimes centuries and even possibly millennia, but eventually, human heartedness will win out. Because people are attracted to beauty and repulsed by evil. Violence can hold a person in evil for awhile but the evil that underlies the violence, the reason that violence must be applied, the revulsion people will eventually feel at the evil they are forced to embrace will become so strong even the threat of death itself will hold no power. That is when false, evil and pernicious ideologies that use violence to hold their adherents, pull in new followers and force unanimity of thought, collapse in bloody upheaval.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Choosing Slavery Over Freedom

Thursday, April 21st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, it is a lot of work to forge a bunch of chains, raise a band of evil men, charge into a village, kill most of the people, enslave the rest and force march them across a continent, it is much easier to get your victims to forge their own chains, kill their own people, force themselves to march across a continent… by getting them to vote themselves into slavery. Since, as it would seem, people today seek the comfort, security and structure of slavery, they look for the politician who will offer them what they want. College kids cheer whenever their rights are taken away, free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to own property, even freedom itself is hateful to our children. They would rather a society where the most vile, perverted and selfish people rule with absolute power. Sadly, I suspect, once our children get what they so longingly desire, they might not be as happy there as they believe.

Cultural Marxism has brought us to this crossroad. Designed specifically to separate people from Christianity, the market system and the advances of the enlightenment, and return humanity to a state of slavery characterized by arbitrary rule, as during the feudal days, cultural Marxism has succeeded far better than even Marcuse, Chomsky or Trotsky could have imagined. Cultural Marxism essentially soaks the culture in raw sewage until we all reek so much we loose the ability to smell it. Because of our lack of standing up to it, cultural Marxists have taken over all forms of the media, the education system, government and law. From their positions of power the new class have poured raw sewage over the rest of us without much push back.

The education system has been changed from a system to educate children so they can live a good life, engage in the market system and be good citizens of a free nation, into a system whereby children are alienated from their parents, inculcated in absurdities, taught to value authority over discourse, unlearn what sex they are, throw off the values of Christianity in favor of Satanism and seek the comfort of slavery. Ask your own children if communism is bad, men using the lady’s room is wrong, or if our rights come from government or God… their answer will most probably startle you. The power over our education system has been moved ever higher in government, until now there is essentially no local control, but all control comes from the highest echelons of government. If you stand up in a school board meeting, voicing an opinion not accepted by the authorities, you will be forcibly removed and possibly arrested for excising your freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and parental control. Moreover, the trampling of your rights will be cheered by your own children.

Since we abdicated our responsibility to educate our children, instead giving government the power to instill whatever nonsense the elite see fit to pollute our children’s minds with, we have got what we deserve. We allowed it to happen by setting down when we were told to, allowing abortion on demand, turning a blind eye to the LGBT movement, ceding the environmental movement to Marxists, voting for the politician who claimed he or she would give us the most free stuff, halfheartedly protesting when our values were being systematically undermined, sending our children to government schools we know are designed to fail because we are too lazy to educate them ourselves and buying into the fiction that government can solve our personal problems. We built the forge that our children are now using to forge their, and our, chains.

Khrushchev said our children will happily vote for Marxism, and as it turns out… he was right. They have been swimming in the sewage of cultural Marxism for their entire lives. So much so they can see something white, know it is white, yet call it black with the absolute certainty of a zealot. Not just our children but many older people too seek the comfort of slavery. As you read this, your chains are being forged, your rights are being crushed, you may be killed if you push back, the forced march is being lined up and our own children will be the ones holding the guns to our heads. Democracy, according to Aristotle, is one of the wrong forms of government, because it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When the majority vote to make us all slaves, the elite will be too happy to go along, and than tyranny will be worldwide and complete… enjoy.

Sincerely,

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?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Death of the US Constitution

Monday, February 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, with the death of Antonin Scalia our Constitution, which has been on life support for so many years, is about to die as well. There are two main factions battling for the soul of the US, one is adamant that the Constitution and limited government must be conserved, the other, that our Constitution is an impediment in their desire to progress the US into a fully rationalized economy, unlimited government and a controlled populace. Both factions believe their way is best for everyone. The faction that believes in unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled people has been moving the ball down the field for the whole of the twentieth Century. With the death of Scalia the faction that seeks to preserve limited government, a free market and liberty for the people has lost it’s last hold on the last instrument of protecting our Constitution and what it stands for. Once Obama has appointed another anti constitutionalist to the bench, you can count on a rapid slew of legislating from that bench, more ruling like Roe v Wade and a total loss of your Constitutional rights. They will be replaced, for awhile, by rights that are distributed by government.

Obama has already made a lasting impression on the Supreme Court. His picks have proven themselves to be uber partisans in gutting our Constitution and our Constitutional principles. Even when naked conflicts of interest, such as Sotomayor’s when ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s appointments have refused to rescind themselves. They have ruled until now, against the majority, that the Second Amendment does not confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, despite the obvious meaning of that amendment in the Bill Of Rights. Obama’s pick to replace Scalia will be another progressive who loathes our nation, it’s people, the free market and our Constitution. The erosion of our rights since the end of the Nineteenth Century can now go into overdrive.

The end of the Nineteenth Century saw the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first progressive, and in the political environment he was in, had to tread carefully. Even though, he instituted the National Park system, which allowed the Federal government to usurp the lands of private citizens for “wilderness areas.” The national park system, that has been so abused by the bureaucracy lately, has become a means for the government to abuse it’s citizens, like the Bundys and Hammonds. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to make a real move to get the US away from it’s Constitutional bounds.

Woodrow Wilson made a complete break from constitutionally limited government. His rule was so obnoxious that when he was finished the country voted in Harding and Coolidge in a landslide. They returned the US to Constitutionally limited government, laissez faire economics and liberty for the people. Their Presidencies ushered in the period of the fastest economic growth of the Twentieth Century, the near total destruction of the Klu Klux Klan, lowering crime rates, and widespread prosperity. When Coolidge stepped down he was replaced by the progressive Hoover. Hoover went back to moving the US away from our Constitution, free markets and liberty with such policies as the Smoot Hawly act that collapsed international trade ushering in the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt ran as a conservative but became a progressive tyrant in all but name. He took the reigns of the economy with policies controlling how much and what a farmer could plant on his own land, what retailers could charge for underwear and concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent. Violating the unstated law that since Washington had been in place, FDR ran for a third term and became President for life. On his death the nation lurched back to constitutional rule, but each time our nation was pulled away from our Constitution, the step back was weaker and many of the ideas and policies of the progressives stayed. The Supreme court during the FDR administration ruled in Wickard v Filburn the government could control what, how much and when a farmer could plant dramatically increasing the power, scope and rch of the government.

Some will pin their hopes on the next election. Many believe that with the election of a constitutionalist, of which there are very few running, the nation can be returned to constitutionally limited government. Alas that is not the case. The Supreme Court has as it’s only responsibility to protect our Constitution and maintain limited government. With the control of the Supreme Court by progressives they will immediately take it upon themselves to gut our Constitution and it’s limits on government. The Court is stacked with young progressives who will serve life terms. The most the next President could do, is replace the few constitutionalists on the bench with others, but that will not effect the status quo. Moreover, since all lawyers are members of the new class, the likelihood of getting a constitutionalist from that group grows smaller with each passing day.

The new class today are the strongest advocates for the progressive faction, that sees our nation as an impediment to a world government, where the human race can be controlled by people who are much smarter than us, for our own good. Trained by the intellectuals who are uniformly of the Frankfurt school the new class intelligentsia run our schools, media, businesses, culture and government. An antipathy for limited government has been thoroughly inculcated into their very psyche. They will cheer the appointment of a progressive to the Supreme court, tipping the balance away from constitutionally limited government, free markets and liberty, and towards unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled populace. With the control of the last bastion that limits government, the progressive faction can put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, once and for all. Wickard v Filburn is only a small taste of the poison that will come from the Supreme Court now. The death of Antonin Scalia is the death of liberty, free markets and limited government, your children will live in an Orwellian tyranny from which there will be no escape… regardless of who we elect next. Prepare for the coming tyranny as best you can.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The International Capitalist Party supports…

Monday, January 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the US is at a crossroads, do we take the road most traveled and vote for the Marxist or the Nationalist, or do we take the road less traveled and vote for the Constitutionalist? Since most politics is based on emotion rather than reason it is hard to convince anyone to vote for a candidate based on reason. Emotion however has got us into the mess the US, and indeed the world, is now in and it is only reason that can extricate us from the pending man made disasters. Emotion is the road most traveled, in fact it has been trod so many times it is widened to a superhighway. The founding fathers used reason to set up our limited government with it’s checks and balances and emotional egoistic men that have undermined it. Let us use reason and common sense to pick our next President rather than blind emotion that has failed us so spectacularly in the past.

Nationalism is ignorance and despotism… masquerading as patriotism. Nationalism has brought the world horrors that rip the soul. Such slaughter that washed the world with the blood of innocents in the past, nationalism has always resulted in war, tyranny and suffering, and it always will. That is because nationalism blinds men’s minds to right and focuses our minds on might. The nationalist leader is always and everywhere an egomaniac. The nationalist leaders of the past, around the world, always offer the people the red meat of propaganda. The Fuhrer will save us, we are the chosen people, strength through joy, power to the people, the enemy is untermensch, etc… the nationalist has all the answers and those answers are always based on unlimited arbitrary power. Put simply… nationalism is the fastest way to destroy a nation and it’s people, reducing them to slaves. Therefore, in a rational country, a nationalist candidate should be avoided like a plague.

Marxism is only surpassed by Islam as the greatest murderer of people, but it has taken Islam a thousand and a half years to murder so many, while Marxism only took a century and a half to get there. Marxism offers plenty none of which it ever has or ever will deliver. From the French revolution to Venezuela, Marxism has promised wealth for the poor and instead, delivered suffering on an epic scale. Marxism is like a prion disease that converts healthy economies into zombies that eat their own. Today in the race for the White house there are two Marxists, one avowed and unabashed the other a crypto-Marxist, either have a good chance of gaining the Presidency, both of which will further the policies of the anti American Marxist President Barack Obama. If that happens, the path back to prosperity, freedom and limited government will be closed, perhaps forever.

The rational choice for the highest position in government must always be the person who has shown he or she will follow our founding principles, has a track record of keeping his promises and is plain spoken about it. Our nation has prospered whenever our founding principles have been followed and floundered whenever they have been ignored. Only two Presidents in the Twentieth Century have been followers of our founding principles, both had flaws but their adherence to the concept of limited government gave us economic prosperity, international safety and societal tranquility. Under Calvin Coolidge the nation underwent the fastest period of economic growth ever seen, hate groups withered and the standing of the nation in the world elevated. Ronald Reagan ushered in rapid economic expansion, removed the threat of nuclear annihilation from us and brought us a lower crime rate. Both Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan were hated by the elite, they both faced a hostile establishment and both stuck to their principles once elected.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate who has shown attributes like those of Reagan and Coolidge. Once he got elected to the Senate he stuck to his principles, principles of limited government, fiscal restraint and eschewed international adventurism. The politician who remains uncorrupted by power is a rare and special person. Such a person should get the accolade of the people most of all while earning the undying enmity of the elite. It is rational to choose the candidate who follows those principles that made America great, economically, internationally and societally. Emotion however, cannot be overcome with logic, as logic cannot be overcome with emotion. It is up to the individual to choose, to be controlled by ignorant and self defeating emotion, else rise above emotion considering the choices rationally and with logic. You have the power to choose the road less traveled and prosper or the superhighway of emotion and want. The International Capitalist Party, being based on historically empirical facts, economic logic and philosophically pragmatic, supports Ted Cruz wholeheartedly and I believe you should too. Make a self interested choice based on logic and choose well, or not, and choose poorly, in the end, you will either prosper or suffer for the decision you make… please choose wisely.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Freedom Must be Defended

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the moment opinion is met with death threats, there is tyranny in the land. Donald Trump, who is not my first choice for President, recently said we should stop all Muslim immigration to the US and that statement has caused a firestorm. The RNC has condemned Trump in the harshest of terms, the media that calls itself unbiased has gone into anaphylactic shock, and now there are death threats from the religion of peace. His opinion has resulted in death threats and so there is real tyranny, the tyranny of intolerance, censorship, blind ideology and outright hatred. Such outright tyranny should send a chill down the spine of every freedom loving person, in America, and beyond. Calling for the death of a person because you disagree with his or her opinion shows a presumption that boarders on the demented. Moreover, to presume to call for the death of someone else because of their opinion, by reciprocal attribution, means anyone else has an equal right to call for another’s death for their opinion, which is a road to chaos and violence.

Carter not only stopped all Iranian immigration in the 1970s but forcibly shipped back all those Iranians who were here legally! His measures were not called draconian and there were no calls for Carter’s death. Many of the people, if not most, were horrified that the Shaw was overthrown and the crazies won the government. I had a friend, Sayeed, who was here on a student visa. He cried at the thought of going back, but the government came, arrested him and sent him back to certain death. I asked him why he was so afraid of the new government, and he told me, “They are more crazy than you can imagine…” Sayeed didn’t agree with the Ayatollah nor was he a nut job, he was a good person who happened to be Iranian and had to be arrested and shipped back because of Carter’s decree. Agree or disagree with Carter, no one called for his death, even though he went way beyond what Trump called for.

There is an old saying, “If you want to know who your masters are look at who you cannot criticize.” It can also be understood as if you want to know who wants to be your master look at who refuses criticism and calls for your death if you do. Here in the land of the free our forefathers have always resisted would be tyrants. To accept such rhetoric as calls for the death of people is tantamount to accepting the yoke of slavery. Such intolerance has no place in our society. Not just calls for the death of Trump because he has an opinion that some find unacceptable, but all calls for the death of others, like Black Lives Matter calling for police to be “fried like bacon…” or Louis Farrakhan calling for 1000 murderers to kill white people, such rhetoric demands tyranny over others and is the antithesis of freedom.

Indeed it is our very freedom that has allowed our society, based on the free exchange of ideas and opinions that has propelled the world into the heretofore unimagined standard of living we enjoy, the globe over today. Those places where opinion and ideas were met with death threats have always been backward and barbaric places where the advancement of civilization, science and culture has retreated. Humanity has only advanced when individual liberty has been protected. It is not unoffensive speech that needs to be protected, but offensive speech, otherwise civilization corrodes and the human condition worsens. Freedom, of action, speech, self protection and thought are the cornerstones of civilized man, censorship, intolerance and oppression are shifting sand that will collapse a civilization no matter how well it is constructed.

To presume to control another’s speech, thought or liberty is hubris of the highest order. Such hubris forgets that if one believes he can control another, then that other has every right to control him! Any attribute foisted on me, I can reciprocate, and foist back on you. Call for my death and I have every right to call for yours. That my friends is the path to chaos and violence and can only result in the lowering of the human condition. Take a long look at what people say. If they call for the silencing of others, limits on liberty, thought laws or religious fidelity, especially with threats of death, they serve chaos and violence and have no place whatsoever in modern civil society. They are an anachronism that belongs in the dark ages where people had slaves, burned others at the stake and beheaded people for idolatry. Those that call for the death of another because of the other’s opinion should be forcibly rounded up and shipped away, or denied entry, because such attitudes lead to retribution thereby becoming a spiral to unrest, famine and want. Whether they are college kids, radical racists, the media that calls itself unbiased, climate change alarmists or Islamists, they have no place in the land of the free. They can go live in those places that have earned the wages of tyranny and intolerance, to practice their tyranny and intolerance.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Why the Elite Do Such Absurd Things

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, chaos, terrorism, crime and fear create conditions where tyranny is not only likely but inevitable, and so anyone who seeks tyranny or in other words, arbitrary rule, merely sow these things and their job is almost done. To argue that no one would want tyranny is to argue no one would want to eat. It is human nature to seek power over others, as evidenced by all of human history, just as it is human nature to eat. Moreover, those that seek political power do so usually to use that power, else why seek it? So, those in political power, not all that have or seek political power, but a large majority, actually want tyranny, (as long as they are the tyrant) and therefore will actively sow chaos, terrorism, crime and fear in society, as a means to that goal.

It was the ancient Greeks who actually admitted and debated the faction that favored arbitrary rule. Today our schools, colleges and universities avoid teaching about arbitrary rule and so most people educated by the new class have no concept of it, as a philosophy or even that there are always those who favor it. To understand the philosophy of arbitrary rule one has to read Plutarch’s Lives, Plato and Aristotle. Since few actually read them, and many are told what they said, few really know and many think they know. The philosophy of arbitrary rule is, that the people are better served when they are ruled by a person or group, that can pass laws arbitrarily. It is as simple as that. Those that favor arbitrary rule believe humanity is better off if we are controlled by our “betters.” That people are so ignorant of this philosophy is damning to our education system but even more telling of the intentions of the new class.

Rationally self interested people, rational maximizers as economists label us, and self interested rightly understood as Tocqueville put it, struggle with those who favor arbitrary rule. We believe that humanity is better off when we the people have a say in our laws, customs and economy. We believe that people in the aggregate are better equipped to understand what society needs than a group of “superior men.” We understand that it is only through the protection of individual liberties that society can flourish… and our philosophy is born out by empirical testing. The period since the invention of Constitutional rule, a form of government that intentionally limits the elite and explicitly forbids arbitrary rule, has seen the greatest advancement in the human condition since the first man and woman walked upright. Those times where arbitrary rule has reasserted itself have seen famine, slaughter and suffering, without exception.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the elite, every solution they offer, is always more power in the hands of the few. Each time a problem pops up, a new regulation, law or form of surveillance is the only answer the elite allow us to debate. It is logical to conclude that due to their default position, of more government power and their favorite economic system socialism, that the elite favor arbitrary rule. It would be absurd to claim someone who always and everywhere seek more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, favors individual liberty and eschews arbitrary rule! So since they favor and seek arbitrary rule it follows that they will do what it takes to create the conditions favorable to establishing arbitrary rule, for the good of humanity as they see it.

Perhaps that is why the political establishment goes to such lengths to create chaos in society. The elite have been undermining those institutions that create stability for over a century. The nuclear family is the most stabilizing force and is increasingly under attack by the elite. From the welfare state to gay marriage the elite have launched an all out war against the family. Christian religious institutions also create stability and so have been cowed by the elite. No church is willing to give up it’s religious tax exemption and so is unwilling to speak out, afraid to offend those who have the power to remove it, and so they have made themselves irrelevant. The list of stabilizing institutions is far too long to go into here but I am sure if you try you can think of many that are under attack or no longer exist.

Maybe the elite’s drive to tyranny is why the elite seek more terrorism instead of less. No one in their right mind believes that mass migration of Muslims will not create more terrorism in Europe and the US. To argue that it won’t is to argue up is down and down is up. Moreover, flooding a country will people who despise the culture and the people, then giving the invaders free everything is a terrifically destabilizing force, and can only lead to resentment, violence, backlash and more violence. Smashing the stable tyrants in the Middle East intentionally sowed the seeds of the migration which will inevitably lead to violence in Europe and the US on a wide scale, that violence can only lead to fear.

It is possible that the people who want to establish themselves as arbitrary rulers create the conditions for crime to flourish. More law doesn’t prevent crime, it only makes more people criminals, moreover, more regulations makes it harder to start a business or make a profit in an established business. This leads to less employment opportunities, lower wages and more crime because of it. History shows that periods of rapid economic expansion see very low crime rates and periods of low economic expansion and recession see rising crime, social strife and hate groups. All of which makes the people afraid, of their economic outlook, their property and their very lives.

Fear is the uniting element that makes the others so effective. Terrorism, chaos and crime all create fear, and a human being who is blinded by fear will run into the arms of anyone claiming they can put that fear at rest. Since we have been carefully conditioned to believe that more government power is always the answer to every question and all exigencies, most people will turn to a strongman who will “get them” and “fix it.” Like Germans did after Wiemar. Fear limits the mind and terror shrivels the soul, making people little more than animals, willing to burn another at the stake for causing the plague, behead a Virgin to restore the crops, and wipe out a race of human kind. Fear that will answer all the dreams of those that seek arbitrary rule, because the end justifies the means, and in the end, they believe arbitrary rule is in all of our best interests, especially theirs.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Actions have Consequences

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, actions have consequences, both individual and collective, some immediate and some delayed, but they all have consequences. Government actions, (collective actions) however produce a special kind of consequence. Of all the entities that have ever existed, only government benefits from mistakes, to a point, then the cumulative weight of those bad actions come crashing in and destroy that government which has profited so much, by a series of mistakes. Elitist theory says that every fall of every government is the product of a series of mistakes that led to it. When observed by a person however those downfalls might appear random, this country lost a war and so was destroyed, that country experienced a drought that triggered a famine, and so on. But when looked at in the long term, it becomes obvious that each failure was predicated on a series of poor decisions by the rulers, that led to their own downfall. The same paradigm work today with our modern governments and institutions leading inevitably to our downfall.

If you make a bad decision, the likely hood is that you will experience the effects pretty soon, sometimes you have to make a series of bad decisions before the consequences appear, but given enough bad actions consequences become inevitable. This is how we learn right from wrong, smart from stupid and profit from loss. The immediacy of the negative consequences is a great teaching tool for individuals. Governments however work under a far different paradigm.

If a government makes a wrong decision, the people suffer, but the government prospers. Each bad action leading to more power and more money for those in power. The consequences for those in leadership are profit for bad decisions and loss for good ones. If a government passes a law that is supposed to lower the cost of health care for example, and instead that law raises the cost making health care more unaffordable, the people will turn to government again to fix the problem government created. Government, and those in government profit comes at a cost to the people. If a government regulation drives down economic output, more regulation is demanded to improve the economy. Again government profits while the people loose. This can work for generations, each wrong action resulting in more government power and more money for those in power.

It works only to a point however. Each bad decision creates tension in the economy, society and defensively. One bad action might lower economic output driving a call for more equal distribution of economic output, which further lowers economic output. Eventually the economy of such a nation will be destroyed. Then the collapse of the economy will be blamed on some extrinsic shock, that is said to have “caused” the economic meltdown. Had the economy been left alone and those cumulative bad actions had not been taken, the economy would have survived the external shock and probably would have profited by it. As government regulates it’s citizens, and so corrodes the people’s stake in the nation, those who have lost a stake in the nation will care less for it’s future and will turn to drugs, crime and the dole. As more do such things, more regulation is needed to control those who have lost their stake in the nation, further corroding others stake in the national outcome until no one cares about the nation. If a war were to break out, no one would fight for a country they have no stake in, and so the war will be lost. As we have shown, it wasn’t the war that destroyed the nation but the cumulative decisions of the leaders. The war was merely the catalyst that triggered the consequences of the cumulative bad decisions of the leaders.

Our modern countries have profited tremendously from their bad decisions. Our leaders become rich while in government, then become filthy rich after, by selling their access. Each bad action taken by our governments enriches those in power and enhances their power. Those bad decisions have apparently positive consequences for those in power and so they become drunk with their seeming omnipotence. The worst their actions they make the more power and riches they get. This continues until today when our leaders act, to any rational outside observer, absolutely absurd. Sadly, there will come a day when the true consequences of all the bad decisions our leaders have made, come crashing in on them and us. Since they have profited so much by those bad actions, to expect them to change is like expecting a heroin addict to willingly kick the habit, while heroin is freely available and they live in a mansion. In the next incarnation, this same paradigm will work out, because the actions of government appear to have opposite consequences for the elite than the people. The eventual consequences are inescapable, the timing cannot be known, and people will point to some shock, war or outside exigency that led to it… but actions always have consequences.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Pragmatism, The American Philosophy

Monday, November 9th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, pragmatism is the quintessential American philosophy, it embodies everything our founders believed. The US founding was based on a market system… of ideas, economics, politics and philosophy. In a marketplace, ideas, products, and even philosophy are tested. Pragmatism as a method of thought and inquiry tests ideas and weighs them on an empirical scale. In a market, if a product gives value then it will be successful, if however, it is of no value, it fails. Marketing a product then can be said to require pragmatism, if it fails losses need to be cut, so the product is discontinued. Philosophy requires pragmatism to test its results, if the results are good then the philosophy can be said to be good, and if the results of it’s implementation are bad, then the philosophy itself can be said to be bad. In a marketplace, the measure of anything is how it sells, where there is no marketplace however, without pragmatic consideration, there is no viable test on the value of a product, idea, system or philosophy. Moreover, we see empirically that where pragmatism is used the standard of living improves and where pragmatism is eschewed, the standard of living declines. Your standard of living and that of your children is dependent on our leaders, teachers, executives and even ourselves, to be pragmatic and use pragmatism to weigh our decisions.

Pragmatism as a body of philosophy is normative, or in other words, it harmonizes that which we believe and think, with that which is real. People believe in all sorts of things, from communism to relativity, but how can we discern what beliefs are true and which are false? That is where normative philosophy comes in. Pragmatism tests the social theories, philosophical ideas and organizational attempts not strictly scientific questions, while science tests physical theories not complex ones. This is a mistake that many in the sciences have made, they seek to apply the scientific method to questions of society and social philosophy, (complex systems) because the scientific method has been so successful in discerning what water is, how fast a rock will fall, and other purely scientific problems. In complexity theory, strictly scientific questions would be called mount Fuji questions, where questions of society and social interaction are a changing landscape. Therefore, to apply the scientific method to questions of social philosophy, is like driving a nail with a screwdriver.

How pragmatism is used, is it observes the results of an action, then rates those results as good or bad. The rating is then used to predict the outcome of other similar actions. For example, if government puts a limit on the price of rental housing, for even the most noble of reasons, the result is a lack of housing. Pragmatically then, rent control has a negative outcome, even though the motivation might have been altruistic. Pragmatism looks at results not motivations. When the scientific method is used however, it always takes into account the motivation, like a chemical reaction, all the inputs need to be measured, quantified and the method of combining them weighed. In a chemical reaction this is necessary and fits the requirements well, but in complex systems this level of measure is impossible, and so the scientific method fails to predict the results… where pragmatism succeeds.

The founding fathers looked at the results of all the civilizations that came before them. They were very learned men who knew history. They weighed the results of all the governmental systems that had come before, and using pragmatism, they settled on a system of government that combined the best of what history had to offer and discarding the worst. In that way the very founding of the United States was based on pragmatism. The founders pragmatically looked at the results of various systems and if they produced good results, they were considered good and were incorporated, and if they produced bad results, they were considered bad and were discarded. The founders didn’t consider the motivations of the framers of past nations, civilizations and economic systems, they only looked at the results of those systems.

The United States was founded with limited government so those in power couldn’t contaminate the system. The founders had seen the results of powerful governments and so enacted limited government to protect their new nation from those results. While the leaders of powerful governments might be virtuous, have only the most noble of motivations and honest, the results always were and are the same. The system becomes more and more despotic until the tyranny is open for everyone to see. Once that happens the people understand they are victims and loose their perceived stake in that society and the society collapses. The founders recognized that it is the nature of government to seek ever more power over the people, and pragmatically tried to check that tendency, with pragmatic Constitutional limits on the power of government.

The US was founded as a market system because the market system had resulted in such a dramatic rise in the lot of humanity. Under a market system everyone is pragmatic. If you could make more money at another job you change jobs, if you can make more money building anther product or adding features to your existing product you do it, if it fails, you revert to what worked before. Everyone weights the results of their actions. Since we are pragmatic in our business dealings, as a matter of human nature, we apply pragmatism to other aspects of our lives. Our relationships, our housing situation, etc… our every decision is based on pragmatism. Pragmatism becomes ingrained.

Pragmatism therefore is the quintessential American philosophy. The US founding was based on pragmatism, the style of government is pragmatic, our market system is based on pragmatism, our people have been inculcated with pragmatism and our society itself is pragmatic. Tocqueville called attention to American pragmatism in his theory of self interest rightly understood. To be a rational maximizer is to be pragmatic. Everything about America and the American way is pragmatic. Unfortunately, today our leaders are not pragmatic but ideological, and seek to move us away from our founding, to a place that our founders looked at, weighed and rejected… for the results it produced. Our modern leaders care nothing about results and only consider motivations. They believe a system that has only resulted in human suffering on a massive scale, can be made to work, if only the “right” motivations are applied and the “right” people are in charge. Pragmatically speaking, their ideas can only fail, and fail big time, because they always have.

Sincerely,

John Pepin