Posts Tagged ‘politics’

The Struggle Between Liberty and Tyranny…

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

When Life is Fantasy, Comeuppance is a Reality.

Monday, October 24th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we have, and are, building a world where no one need come in contact with reality at all. Fantasy is an imagined idea. Virtually all of the highest paid professions today are based on fantasy. Lawyers, bureaucrats, university professors, even accountants and business are based on fantasy. The reason I say they are based in fantasy is because they are all founded by ideas, and, (although I detest the term), in A Priori fashion. Therefore, those professions are fantasy, the imagined ideas of those who invented them. Moreover, we are ever further removed from that which keeps us alive. By removed from reality I mean, slaughtering an animal if you want mutton, digging in the ground if you want peas, weaving cloth for your clothes from the thread you wove from flax, starting a fire to stay warm, building a shelter and all the other things that must happen for a human being to live… the reality of life. The farther away from reality one lives the more one lives and works in a fantasy. So, we work in fantasy, live in fantasy, and those who most live in fantasy, are the ones who rule the world.

The law could be anything and it would be called just, indeed it has been radically different in other places and times, and is always called the height of justice by those who practice it, there and then. Meaning, law is only based on ideas, those ideas could be anything, they are therefore fantasies of what the founders believed justice. As in law the ways of structuring a government are as numerous as stars in the sky, all of them ideas of what right government were by their founders, but very few have ever produced the good fruit… of liberty, prosperity and equanimity. Since every form of government is merely an idea, or was one at sometime, they are all fantasies, the imagined ideas of the founders. While they are all fantasies… only a select few are good. The same argument goes for journalism, academics, culture, etc… All these professionals work in a fantasy.

Living in a fantasy is as easy as going to the supermarket to shop, riding down to the Cape on a day trip, turning on a light, reading a book, sleeping in a bed, flying to Paris in spring, turning on the heat on a cold winter night, flushing the toilet, turning on the bathroom fan, watching television, playing golf, riding around the course in a cart, whiling away time on a computer, etc… All of which remove us from the reality of what it takes to physically meet those needs ourselves. The less we understand about what it takes to keep us alive, reality, and the more we mindlessly rely on modernity to meet them, the more we live in fantasy. At the supermarket you can get fruit from across the planet, out of season or grown organically so as to be more in touch with the food. Flushing a toilet is far preferable to the alternative, as is the use of toilet paper, a bidet removes the user even further from the reality of what he or she is doing, enhancing the fantasy.

Living in a fantasy, distant from reality, allows foolish ideas to get merit where, when looked at in the cold light of reality are absurd, a reality most of our leaders are as far from reality as the stars are from us. It isn’t their fault, if everything you live in, work at and spend free time in becomes who you are. Ignorance of reality allows someone to believe things possible that are not, it fosters a holier than thou attitude and living in a fantasy allows one to live in a way impossible, if not for the fantasy world they live in. Sadly, those who are the least in touch with reality are the ones who rule. Bureaucrats, who’s only touch with reality, is when their daughter scrapes her knee and the nanny cleans it up, and reading about it in her report, they are the ones who decide exactly how you and I should do… everything. Lawyers, judges, professors, teachers, journalists, they all work and live in total fantasy. Their lives have no more relation to reality than pulp fiction. Add to that, every day, fewer and fewer people are in touch with reality, or grounded if you will.

Before mathematicians had quantified the physical world people believed in magic. Since they had no idea of what makes a thing fall, that electricity exists, etc… they believed in mystical forces that could be exploited to make the world as they wished it to be. They mixed potions, chanted to various deities and carried all manner of talismans upon them, but to no avail, why, because they were living in a fantasy. Their disconnection from reality created for them, a fantasy, it allowed them to believe the absurd, belief in magic. Their fantasy was based on their ignorance leading to superstition, magic, today the fantasy we live in is based on our ignorance, leading to superstition, progressivism. Only farmers, hunters, people who build things and engineer things, people who have more than a passing knowledge of what it takes to keep a human being alive, are actually grounded in reality. Like a physicist understands why a talisman will not work, a grounded person knows why a policy will not as well. The more our world moves away from reality, I fear the ever greater outcome, because we have become so mesmerized by the fantasy world we live in… is that we as a people will step off a cliff into cultural, societal and economic oblivion.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Humanity’s Tendency to Hate the Truth

Monday, October 10th, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, people love the man who tells them two plus two equals three, women will throw themselves at him, and men will die for him, but the man who tells people two plus two equals four… that man will be criticized and hated, spat upon and vilified, especially after he is proven correct. History is full of examples of both. This quality of human nature is as pervasive as it is destructive, since every aspect of the human condition depends on correct information, incorrect information leading to mistakes, mistakes that cost pain, economic loss, loss of freedom and lost standing, this penchant to prefer lies should have been weeded out of our psyche millennia ago, yet it persists… to our great detriment. If we really want to advance it is incumbent on us to actively counter this tendency in ourselves.

In The Republic, Glaucon asked Socrates, is it better to be so just, one is perceived unjust, or perceived just when one is unjust? Glaucon went on, the man who is perceived as unjust, even if just, will be hated, while the man who is perceived as just, even if he is unjust, will be lauded. What Glaucon meant was that the perception of the masses is more important to the individual than reality. In this example, the just man, the truth teller, is hated, scorned and put upon, while the unjust man, the liar, is glorified, raised up and helped in all his unjust endeavors. This historical anecdote shows the tendency of people to love a liar and hate a truth teller is at least as old as Socrates.

After a long diet of such cultural, social and economic poison, you would think people would long for someone, anyone, who will tell them even a hint of the truth. Sadly that isn’t the case. Edmund Burke correctly predicted the outcome of the French revolution. He also provided the reasons why it would end in bloodshed. He was vilified, hated and condemned for telling the truth, and when he was proven right, he was hated even more for being right. Glenn Beck is another example of someone who told the truth and is hated for it. Now that Beck’s predictions have come true, proving his hypothesis, Beck is loathed almost universally. The more one tells an ugly truth the more that person is hated.

This is because people want a glittering lie to be true. In this we will ignore facts and instead turn to emotion. People so wanted the Arab spring to usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and freedom to the Middle East, when Beck told the truth, those people who had invested so much emotional capital, turned on him with vitriol not even given a monster. When Beck turned out to be right, the Arab Spring so loved by people the world over turned out to usher in a new era of bloodshed, genocide and tyranny, all that emotional capital was destroyed. Instead of blaming themselves for believing the lie, people turned their hatred to Beck, for being right.

This is because of cognitive dissonance. That is the psychological theory that we think and feel in ways consistent with our past thoughts and actions. If I ridicule someone who has a different belief than I, then that person is proven to be right, my past actions will force me, subconsciously, to dislike that person. My past belief forces me to feel this way, because otherwise I would have been wrong in my ridicule, and to ridicule someone undeservedly would make me a bad person, since in my mind I can never be a bad person, therefore that other person had to have deserved it… so I hate him. Our cognition of ourselves cannot be dissonant from our self perception.

Since we so want to believe in pixy dust, when someone tells us pixy dust is nothing but dust, we become angry. When they are proven right, we become enraged, because we have been proven to be stupid or bad. Since in my own mind I cannot be stupid or bad, that other person must be stupid or bad, justifying my original belief. Sadly, this tendency has not served us well in the past and certainly will not in the future. Since it is impossible to force change on others, we can only change ourselves, we must self examine, look at how we tend to believe glittering lies while condemning ugly truths, so that we and our children, will not have to suffer so that we can feel better about ourselves. If enough of us do, liars will be vilified and truth tellers will be glorified, reversing a negative trend that has visited so much evil on the human race.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Thursday, September 22nd, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The War of Ideas

Monday, September 19th, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Political Evolution

Monday, September 12th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we are experiencing the evolution of our republics, in their democratic elements as well as the aristocratic and monarchic. No evolution comes without demand, as movement requires as a precedent, force. This evolution is driven by the elite who have for a very long time now, only served their own narrow self interests rather than the interests of society, civilization and humanity. Good government serves the interests of all equally; bad government serves those who govern. Bad government generates the demand for change required for a government to evolve or collapse. When those who serve government serve themselves first and best they create incentive for change. In the complex systems, that exists in every manifestation of humanity, what change could emerge is unknowable. One thing that is certain, that change will be painful, especially for those unprepared.

In the US the two party system has become two teams in the same league. They both stand for exactly the same thing, totalitarian government, for the benefit of the people to be sure, the only contention is who can run that totalitarian government best? Now with the presidential race between a self serving, sociopathic, incorrigible liar, who is unable to follow any rules, law or regulations whatsoever and a self serving, egoistic, self described crony, who has only become religious last week, is learning about our Constitution as we speak and knows only one thing… his presidency will be huge. Obama has implemented the Cloward and Pivon plan to collapse the US and, it would appear, his Presidency has been to that end all along.

Europe with their parliamentary system has dozens of political parties but has effectively outlawed any party that stands for liberty. Both on the right and left they both agree, government should be tyrannical and law arbitrarily applied, they disagree if society should be destroyed immediately, so the world government can be ushered in or if European socialism should be confined to Europeans. Read the platforms of any party and they read like a socialist list of votes to buy. Pandering to this or that faction, unless they seek liberty, then they are a pariah.

We have woken up to the game even as the last quarter is upon us. Perhaps not too late, the democratization of information made possible by the internet, has reduced the gate keepers to babbling fools, still mesmerized by their past success. We now see them for who they are, and every day as more people wake up to it, the demand for actual representation rather than misrepresentation grows across Europe and the US. The demand for change is forcing evolution on all of us, even the elite. They may believe themselves in the catbird’s seat, European civilization is facing existential threat from unlimited Muslim immigration, which would collapse the system allowing the Fabians to rebuild it in the image they see as better. The US two party system is showing is slip for the people to see and the Cloward and Pivon strategy is in full execution. Change is coming, whether that change is good or bad remains to be seen, but change becomes inevitable once the people believe their own eyes, that the emperor is naked. Better prepare for rough times…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Input Plus Reaction Equal Outcome

Thursday, September 8th, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Debating a Crypto Marxist

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the way you can reliably tell when a progressive knows he or she has lost a debate, is when they call you a hater. Since progressives know debate is not to change the mind of the opposition, but the spectators, they cannot allow a libertarian to win any debate, so once their empty rhetoric has failed they go nuclear and slander the opponent, to delegitimize the libertarian’s argument. By libertarian, I mean anyone who believes in limited government, like a conservative, and so I use the inclusive term libertarian. Of course slander is an underhanded way to win an argument and is a transparent ploy to anyone who knows the rules of debate, but since most spectators know nothing of logical fallacies, that tactic has worked wonders for Marxists, socialists and progressives for over a century. So, when a progressive calls you a hater, racist, bigot, etc… you can rest assured you have won the debate, by facts and argument, but are still at risk of loosing it by a logical fallacy. That is why it is important to point out the logical fallacy instead of getting mad.

Politics is based on debate. People discussing the merits of this or that policy, position of program is the best way for a group to decide what is the right course of action. Without debate the democratic element of any government becomes impossible. An ignorant people cannot make reasoned decisions. The ancient Greeks had open and lively debates in the Pnyx. Smart as well as foolish decisions were decided there. The disaster of the attack on Sicily was decided there, as well as the fortunate history changing judgment, to support the Spartans at Thermopylae. Both were debated by the Athenians and voted on by them, based on the result of the debate, but in one debate we see calamity and the other a blessing on humanity. The difference was the debate.

The rules of debate as well as logical fallacies should be taught in every school on Earth. Sadly, that is in direct opposition to the power of the political elite, and so those important lessons are eschewed for politically correct knowledge, like how to put a condom on a cucumber. Teaching debate and logic would undermine the ability of those who favor arbitrary rule in any of it’s manifestations and names. The power of slander would be severely curtailed by such teaching and so only in private schools is debate and logic really taught. Even colleges and universities pervert the teaching of logic and debate, since they have long abandoned their fundamental purpose, to be open minded and forward the goal of reason. Debate a recent graduate of a university, and you will quickly realize the little person is an automaton, spewing rhetoric she has been programmed with. Once you win the debate you will be painted as a hater.

Of course slander is a logical fallacy… but why? If someone is really evil how can you agree with anything they say? Well, if Adolph Hitler came in soaking wet and tells you it is raining outside, does that mean it cannot be raining, since Hitler is evil? What if Stalin says the sky is blue, does that mean the sky is actually green? Of course it’s not. Bias on the other hand can undermine a debaters position. When Phillip Morris cited paid for “scientific research” proving smoking is good for you, that turned out to be patently untrue, it was an example of bias undermining a position. In a similar vein, when someone who stands to gain if people opt for their position, their argument should be given extra scrutiny. Like for example, a scientist who has millions of dollars of government money at risk, claims man made climate change is happening, especially when they try to shut down debate. It is only logical to view their argument with a bit more care. This is especially true when one side has made predictions based on their theories that have not proven accurate. The more inaccurate predictions the less credence we can give them.

If we want our children to live in a world that is prosperous, healthy, harmonious and safe, it is up to us to understand the rules of debate and the logical fallacies that make people reach a faulty conclusion. Steel yourself to the fat that whenever you debate a progressive they will not debate fairly or logically. All Marxists, even crypto Marxists like progressives, are ideologues, they care nothing for reality, only their political ideals. To them, and sadly, to most audiences as well, facts, historical examples and a finely crafted argument means nothing, emotion is paramount. So, to win a debate with any crypto Marxist you must point out, once they slander you, that their slander is proof they have lost the argument… and they know it. Then laugh heartily at them rather then get defensive. Make the progressive a laughing stock and you have won the debate. Use their logical fallacy against them and sooner or later they will drop that tactic. When you are called a hater, simply say, “How do you know a progressive has lost an argument? They call you a hater…”

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Free Speech, Free Markets and Free Exchange of Ideas

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to say it,” shows a level of maturity that our society, at present, lacks. The very people that are the safeguards of free speech, university professors, have become it’s biggest threat. Today, someone who speaks a message that the political establishment doesn’t like, especially about limited government, constitutionalism, liberty, free markets, essentially if anyone openly supports the philosophy the United States was founded on, is slandered and the power of the political establishment is wielded against her. Far from being a society that values the free exchange of ideas, the progressive controlled education system instead indoctrinates and enforces a political agenda. A society that doesn’t value free exchange of ideas is doomed to stagnation and decay.

Even as most Sanders supporters would claim to be followers of the tradition, they prove by their actions, they stand against the free exchange of ideas. Trump supporters on the other hand are painted as uncaring, petty tyrants, yet by their actions they prove they are the opposite. The socialist and progressive element that supported Sanders, and now Clinton, turn out at Trump rallies and become violent, Trump supporters however, do not turn up at Clinton rallies and become violent. It is by violence that he most ardently anti free exchange of idea zealots show their true colors. How presumptuous is it, to presume to have any right to use violence, to force another not to speak?! Yet our media is full of news of protesters turned violent at Trump rallies but not at Clinton rallies. It follows then, that the protesters at Trump rallies are violent, and use violence to suppress the free exchange of ideas.

Progressives have controlled the education system for decades. Their near monopoly has been enhanced by the federalizing of education. As more money is paid from the federal government to school districts that money isn’t charity, it buys something, that something is a seat at the table. At every school board meeting there is a seat that is invisible, that is the federal government’s seat. While that seat appears to be silent, the money it sends and the threat of withholding that money speak far louder than any emotional parent only seeking the best education for his child. Today with the albatross of Common Core the federal government’s progressive agenda is manifest. Schools have dropped all pretense of educating children and have gleefully taken up the mantle of indoctrinating children to be good little automatons who vote right, think right, act right and speak right… it is so progressive.

People have become so inured to the undercurrent of hostility to actual free speech most of us don’t even notice it. We watched without so much as firing a synapse, when we learned the IRS was using it’s power to silence a political faction and collecting a political enemies list, so far have we moved from valuing free speech and become so used to usurpations of it. News that in any other decade would have been the end of a Presidency resulted in… nothing. Barely a whisper in the zeitgeist. Say something not politically correct and you come under shaming attacks, as if the morality of the political establishment has so much more validity even, than God’s, such hubris is the stock of politicians and villains. Today people censor themselves in ways we don’t even think about, not to be courteous, no, courtesy is frowned upon, to be thinking in line with what the political establishment demands of you, enforced by your friends, family and townspeople.

It does require a level of maturity to hear something we deeply disagree with though doesn’t it? A civilized man or woman will listen and control their emotional reaction, a barbarian will fly into a rage and become violent, betraying his savagery. That is a level of maturity people are not being trained to have. Our media, schools, culture and government all create an environment that is hostile to the free exchange of ideas. College students are so fragile they recoil from the very mention of liberty, so indoctrinated they actively demand the silencing of people who favor liberty, free exchange of ideas and free markets. To despise the philosophy behind the phrase, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to say it,” shows one to be uncivilized. Civilization however, requires civilized people, civilization crumbles into chaos if the citizens are replaced by barbarians. Replace the flour in a cake, with dirt, and you no longer have cake.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Small Businesses, the Engine of Economic Growth

Monday, August 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the barriers to starting a small business have never been higher, as evidenced by the dearth of small businesses that are starting up. This is critical because the economic potential of any economy is a factor of the number and quality of small businesses that start in a given time period. That is because small businesses are the engine of economic growth, both by being the font of innovation, which begins the Schumpeterian cycle of economic growth and as the biggest job creator there is. If the economic cycle is stopped real economic growth stops too. Economies cannot grow organically without innovation, big businesses are not innovative nor is government. Universities can help by advancing science, but if those advances cannot be implemented, the economy cannot get a boost from even the most amazing scientific advance. Without robust job growth wages stagnate and decline, lowering economic overall demand and demand for innovative products, as well as our standard of living. The trend bodes ill for our children’s economic well being.

The economic cycle as explained by Schumpeter is a three phase system… creation, implementation and destruction, Schumpeter’s creative destruction. First an entrepreneur comes up with an innovation, for a new product, an new way of organizing business or a new way of manufacturing. This innovation starts the upswing of the cycle. The new idea is implemented creating demand for labor, plant and capital to exploit it. As the idea is implemented the economy grows dramatically. Once the idea has been fully utilized, the old products and ways of organizing business become obsolete… and so go bankrupt. As they go bankrupt the economy goes into recession, lowering the cost of capital, plant and labor opening the way for a new entrepreneur to innovate starting the cycle again.

Small businesses create all new jobs. Clearly, those who innovate and those who work for innovators, by definition, have no experience. After all it is new. So, people who have little experience get pulled in to work at those new businesses, creating opportunities for new workers and laid off workers. The extra demand for labor drives up the cost of wages via the supply demand equation. Wages for everyone goes up driving up demand for everything… especially the new product, (if that is the source of the innovative part of the cycle). If older companies want to retain their best workers those older firms must provide competing wages. Ford famously said he wanted to pay his workers enough to buy one of his cars. To him, paying more in labor was a small price to pay when that investment paid such huge dividends, by driving up demand for his product. In other words he made less per unit but made more in the end because he sold many more units.

When the economic cycle of innovation, expansion and destruction is tripped up, an economy cannot expand organically and in fact shrinks in real terms. This stagnation can be covered up by money printing, government spending and Enron accounting but sooner or later the chickens must come home to roost. The largest and most destructive recessions and depressions have been a result of this in action. The Great Depression started as a recession, but morphed into a depression by Hoover and FDR’s policies, that short circuited small business creation. The Great Depression would have never ended if not for the death of FDR and his policies crushing small businesses in favor of corporations. Obama’s policies have all but stopped small business creation, resulting in the present depression, one that only in the history books to be written, will be named and recognized.

Think about it, with all the legal and bureaucratic red tape today throughout the West, would you start a small business? The legal cost alone, simply to get permission from the government to start a lemonade stand, is nearly insurmountable. Today the cost of capital is at an all time low even as the availability of capital to start a small business is dried up. Cheap money via the Federal Reserve’s printing press only goes to government and corporations. Government spends that money to artificially gin economic growth and corporations are using it to buy back stock, thereby enriching upper management at cost to shareholders, employees and customers. None of the “cheap” money is going to innovators. Meanwhile, plant and equipment is getting more expensive every day, raising the bar for starting a small business.

While stopping small business creation damages the interests of the people… it advances the interests of the elite. CEOs can pad their plentiful income by artificially boosting their stock price in the short term, by borrowing money and spending it to buy back their stock, corporations face less competition from innovators making the job of the new class much cushier, government cronies get huge political contributions to keep the gravy train running, and corporations get to lower their labor costs because of the drop in demand for labor. This lack of demand for labor or is exemplified by the dismal percentage of people still in the labor force. Crushing small business start ups is a win win for the elite and a loose loose for the rest of us. Of course, it is the elite that make policy and we that must live the effects of those policies, for better or worse. Now you know the whole story… the economic truth the elite will don’t want you hear.

Sincerely,

John Pepin