Posts Tagged ‘politics’


Monday, November 17th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, balance is paramount to a prosperous, safe and upwardly mobile life, just as it is to a flourishing, secure and advancing society. To keep balance, religion, science and politics should not intermingle, being different in kind they are like water, iron and salt. It is self evident that religious people should not decide who can run for politics, the same as scientists shouldn’t make decisions of religion, politicians shouldn’t interpret science or religion, etc… Each in it’s own field is a good that uplifts the human condition, but when one becomes supreme or is crushed by the others, the whole of society suffers. Societies have three parts just as each of us have three parts to our psyche. Our rational mind, our emotional mind and our spiritual mind have their doppelgangers in a society… science being the rational, politics being the emotional and religion being the spiritual. Balance being the way to keep society advancing, prosperous and moral. If we see our society becoming corrupt and needy, it is because the balance is off.

Our emotion is like an elephant, it has power to do a ton of work, but it has the potential of getting out of control too. Our rational mind is the rider of that elephant. The rider can steer but it is the elephant that does the work. Our spiritual mind lets the rider know what is right and what is wrong, what work the elephant should, and should not do. Working together, the rider guided by his morality, driving the elephant, is how societies get great works done. The grandest advances of the human race have been accomplished by societies that had this balance. Great works of architecture, art, philosophy and the mechanical arts have all sped ahead in times of balance.

Balance is never long kept. Power being so seductive, any faction that has got a chance to become supreme or to advance their power at cost to one of the others, will do so. It is human nature. The moment this happens the balance is upset and society precesses. It is hard to discern at first, and the faction that has gained power is in the best position to see it, but their egoistic interests collide with their self interests rightly understood. Sometimes even a small disturbance to the balance can result in a large tailed event, because when dealing with human societies that are complex systems, the likelihood of outcomes is on a power scale not a bell curve.

When the three legs of a society are in balance even if there is a collapse, as when the grains of sand exceed the angle of repose and settle to a new equilibrium, the slide lands with most people much better off than they would in a totally chaotic reset. The new societal equilibrium is more stable as well. Based on a balanced foundation, a society can stand a great many imbeciles for rulers and villains for advisers, but where society lands unbalanced, it lands with voids that weaken the whole, leading to social sinkholes to fill those voids, sometimes leading to a total societal collapse and reset.

A balanced society where religion is respected, science is allowed to flourish and politics is well disciplined, will naturally be prosperous, have a growing standard of living and it will be safe. We all want to live in such a society but we cannot let go of our prejudices. The despotic politician wants total control over everything, as does the religious zealot, and the mad scientist. If we want a safe, advancing and prosperous society, where our children can be expected to live better, longer and healthier than us, we have to start in our own hearts.

Once we get ourselves in balance we need to get our societies in order by electing people who are in balance. We have a tendency to elect mad scientists, despots or zealots to power. They have the most charisma and elections are nothing but a charisma contest. A perfectly spinning top is not dramatic and has no charisma, but a top that is so unbalanced it hops cannot help but catch the eye, and move our heart. We then vote with our emotions. We would like to think we use our logic to choose, but most of us don’t at all and none of us are immune to emotion, or our blind faith, and even logic itself without passion and the golden rule can lead us astray. The sad outcome is that we happily elect the very worst people to power because of their unbalance.

A well tuned car runs most efficiently, but to keep a car well tuned, one must understand how a car works. On a macro scale, when societies keep a balance between science, politics and religion they enjoy prosperity, safety and a rising standard of living. When a society attacks any one of those legs and one or two of the others become ascendant, that society experiences crime, poverty and a crumbling middle class. The way to become a balanced society is to become balanced ourselves. Nurture the scientist in us with education, feed our inner cleric with prayer and engage in the politics of the day. Balance ourselves, elect balanced people to office, often against our emotional inclination, and balance will return to society. Balance is the answer.


John Pepin

The Impending Japanese Economic Implosion

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is both strangling his nation’s economy while he forces food down it’s throat. The Japanese Central bank’s decision to monetize their debt is a sure path to economic asphyxiation. The side of the road of history is littered with the wreckage of economies that have tried that hocus pokus. Abe is choking his economy with high taxes, and is planning on raising taxes even more, while he destroys their currency! Japan has endured a Keynesian driven depression for over a decade. Each political party more in love with the welfare state than the other. If Japan wants to remain an economic powerhouse, and thereby it’s standard of living, it must turn away from coddling super giant businesses, and unleash the dragon of entrepreneurship. That would save his economy and restore prosperity to Japan, or France, Ukraine, Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, etc…

It is like the ancient proverb about the old farmer. At the end of the day an old farmer came into the house covered with dirt. His son asked him where the Old Farmer had been all day. “I have been out helping the corn grow.” Replied the old farmer. The son ran out to find the old farmer had pulled up all his corn. Like the old farmer Abe is trying too hard to “help” his economy grow. Instead of printing huge sums of money for the government to spend, the Japanese central bank should be buying gold, strengthening their currency to protect the people’s wealth. Instead of following the example of Switzerland the Japanese are following the example of Argentina.

Argentina has gone through more than one episode of hyper inflation and are headed to another. The middle class in Argentina has been hollowed out by repeated rounds of economy crushing monetary calamity. They have monetized their debt which has always led to hyper inflation. Monetizing a nation’s debt is basically printing money for government to spend. It is usually done by the central bank buying it’s government’s bonds. This cycles the money through the crony banks on it’s way to the government’s checkbook.

Switzerland has always protected it’s currency and has always had a good standard of living coupled with low inflation. The Swiss middle class is healthy. On November 30 the Swiss are going to the polls to decide if they are going to force their central bank to buy gold and repatriate their expatriate gold. That would have the effect of increasing the level of gold backing of the Swiss Franc while also protecting the nation’s gold from third party adverse incentives. Japan would be well advised to strengthen their currency, keep it stable even to the point of deflation, than ruin the credit of the nation as a whole.

When Japan started down the rabbit hole of Keynesian deficit spending, they had a government surplus, now they have a decade of no growth and more than twice their GDP in government debt. Instead of squandering all that money on Keynesian demand side “stimulus” they should have spent it on funding supply side entrepreneurs. More businesses require more employees. The redundancy of labor among many smaller businesses drives up the demand for labor and thus wages. New products that flood into a society during times of rapid innovation, from many entrepreneurs adding to the economic aggregate, improve the standard of living of everyone in those societies. High and rising wages drives up demand, exponentially more than any government program, which can only take from someone who earned it, so they can’t spend or save it. The government then simply throws that hard earned money into the fire of inefficiency that is government spending.

Raising taxes in an already highly taxed nation is insane. Japan is the poster child for crony capitalism. It is highly taxed and regulated, suffocating entrepreneurs with regulations and taxes. All of which is done to protect super giant businesses from competition. Economy of scale is true when it comes to brute force manufacturing, but not in the creation of new products, ways of organizing a business or making existing products more effective. The ability of a small startup to get funding, operate with minimal government friction, (taxes and regulation), as well as operate in a standardized economic environment, are very highly correlated with the long term growth of that economy and a rising standard of living.

The Japanese government needs to cut taxes. Cutting taxes puts more money into the hands of people. It doesn’t matter if they spend that money, put it in a bank, invest it in equities or give it to charity, the money kept by the people will go miles further, per dollar, than it ever could being squandered by government. Allowing a little deflation wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Instead of taxing and spending, government could give back by allowing deflation, in an entrepreneurial society deflation allows innovators to do more with less. Deflation is like a pay hike to everyone in society. The only one who is harmed by deflation is an overspending government. The Japanese government should appoint a panel to find outdated and redundant regulations and laws that can be stricken from the books. Cull the regulations and laws as often as possible and as hard as politically feasible. These pro free market innovations would unleash terrific creative power, leading to well distributed societal wealth, than unlimited government spending on fifty thousand dollar hammers and solid gold heated toilet seats.


John Pepin

Pseudo Wars

Monday, November 10th, 2014

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
? James Madison

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, all the “wars” the US has engaged in as of late, are nothing but pseudo wars, not wars at all but a way to take away the liberty of the people. I am of course talking about the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, the war on obesity, and so forth. These cannot be termed wars anymore than any other policy a government enters into to meet a non corporeal problem. War is violent, terrifying and expensive way to defeat a corporeal threat. Moreover, calling such things wars, lowers the brutal reality of what war is, and creates a situation where the elite can keep a nation in a state of perpetual war. The appointing of “Czars” to oversee these “wars” is more proof they are overtly a means to evolve us to tyranny, war has generals, Czars are despots. If we want to stop the slide to tyranny we must examine the ways the elite evolve a nation to despotism and demand they be stopped.

Let’s face facts, a war on fatty food is an unwinnable war, like a war on terror or a war on poverty, by their very definitions they cannot be won. It is impossible to eliminate fat from foods. Fat is an essential nutrient that provides the calories we need to live. Like anything that is good, when overused, like the term war, it leads to all sorts of bad consequences. To fight a war on the strategy of an enemy, so as to avoid naming that enemy, is as certain a way to loose the war with the unnamed enemy, as it is to loose the war on their strategy. Imagine how the Second World War would have turned out of the allies fought a war on Blitzkrieg instead of the Nazis. Poverty will always be with us it is a human condition. The definition shows how absurd it is to fight a war on poverty, poverty is the lowest ten percentile of a people, economically, it is a relevant statistic. Even if a government were to execute the poorest ten percent there would still be a poorest ten percent. Even if ninety nine percent of the population were executed there would still be relative poor!

Embarking on fictitious wars has the propaganda value of claiming the government is doing something about a perceived problem. The term war focuses the mind and implies all a nation’s might will be brought to bear on the problem. The leader who coins the war will be thought of as really caring, to be so adamant about fighting such and such a problem, that they go to war with it. The value is only to the politician who names it… not the people, government, society or culture, they are damaged by the “war” effort. Everyone but the politicians must give up some sovereignty, money and liberty to the politicians during times of war, and so a fictitious war is a way of prying our liberty’s and largess from us, not to achieve some excellent goal.

War cannot be fought against an idea, tactic, class or food, it can only be fought against an enemy nation by killing and maiming real human beings, and destroying the infrastructure that supports their war effort. Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by violence. No one wants our government to do violence to the poor, we already do violence to our food simply by eating it, and ideas cannot be suppressed by violence. Look at the Second World war again, it was supposed to be against fascism, but how many fascists nations did the US and Europe support during the Cold War? WWII was against the Axis powers of Germany, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Finland and Italy. Four of which were not fascists at all! The war was against those nations, not the tactics they used, not the food they ate and not the political systems of their various governments… the war was against those states, period.

War against an idea, tactic or some other nebulous “enemy” is an absurd distraction from solving a real problem. It gives the people the idea something substantial is being done, but in fact what is really being done is, the liberty of the people is being stolen. The propaganda of a war against a non corporeal enemy is effective at reducing a country to despotism through the costs of continual warfare and a war mindset. It does nothing to solve the problem the elite are ostensibly waging war against, but through a constant chipping away it destroys the wherewithal of a people, saps our resolve to meet actual existential threats, and the lack of any possible victory corrodes our self esteem. War can only be fought against corporeal enemies that can be killed, maimed, impoverished and thereby forced to knuckle under. Further, to wage war against an enemy’s tactic, to avoid naming that enemy, is a sure way to loose the war with that enemy. It is time to complain loudly and forcefully whenever our leaders claim we should launch into another war against a non corporeal enemy and stop the ones our leaders have pulled us into already. Else our lot and the lot of our children will be despotism and poverty.


John Pepin

A stake in Society

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if we want to eliminate the scourge of drugs, stop our children from joining gangs, and prevent the youth from traveling abroad to bolster terrorist groups, what we need to do is give them a sense of ownership in our society. Mencius said, “The people constitute the way (Tao). Thus the hearts of those who have a stake in the country are fixed and those who have no stake in the country are not fixed; and if they have no stake they let themselves go in vice and extravagance…” That advice is as relevant today as it was in 500 BC. A stake, or ownership in the nation, society and culture is essential to a person’s self worth and sense of future. When that stake is taken away the individual becomes careless about society, the culture and government. We see this plainly in the results of the Frankfurt school of philosophy when it was introduced into American culture in the early 1960s. If you want a better life for your children and yourself, it is up to you to make sure we all have a stake, else our standard of living will dwindle along with the fortunes of our society.

When people own their own home everyone keeps it up much better than when they rent. That is an established fact. People are at heart rational maximizers. Any rational person will maintain what they own and let go that which they do not own. This has been proven over and over in cultural experiments. In the slums of South America, when the impoverished are given title to the shacks and land they are on, those shacks get maintained, fences get built around them to protect them, they get painted and expanded. Those who do not have a deed on their shacks let them rot into the ground, because they could be bulldozed down at any moment or someone will simply come and take it from them. That is the crux, when someone has title, their stake is protected, but when someone could be tossed out at a moment’s notice, why should they maintain it for some usurper?

A nation is like a home. In nations with Right government, those countries protect the property of the people, they protect the lives of the people, apply law equally and they provide a framework that allow people to get ahead, if they work hard… and get rich if they both work hard, take chances and are smart. A nation can be allowed to deteriorate by negligence or it can be built up by elbow grease. Let the roof on a home rot away and the rest of the house quickly becomes uninhabitable, let the laws of a nation become corroded by arbitrary enforcement, and the nation rots from the inside. Break the foundation of a home and it crumbles to the ground, smash the foundation of a society and it collapses from the first wind of crisis. Give the people a stake and they will maintain it, take that stake away, and they will allow it to fall to the ground.

How does one give the people a stake in a country, culture and society? By several means. Protect the foundation of that nation by protecting the societal myth is critical. The constitution of those countries with one is that foundational societal myth. When someone destroys the constitution, they destroy the nation that was built upon it, no differently than when the foundation of a house is smashed the house falls in. To do that we must keep those who despise the constitution from having power over it. There will always be those who seek to destroy a constitution by conniving. Those people are villains of the most heinous sort.

Another thing that must be done is to enforce the laws equally and without bias. That requires laws that can be read and understood. While this should seem obvious, in practice it is perhaps the hardest to achieve. All people are selfish to some extent. Lawyers make the laws, lawyers prosecute those laws and lawyers interpret the laws. This gives lawyers a great incentive to make laws that benefit them, prosecute laws in such a way as to enrich themselves and interpret those laws to protect their position in society. To do that they must make the laws of a society so circuitous that no one, even lawyers themselves, can fully comprehend them. Furthermore, it is in lawyers best interests to force everyone to use a lawyer for every economic interaction, by undermining the very laws they are supposed to protect.

Perhaps the most important thing a people can do to give everyone a stake in the system is to maintain class mobility. Not only to maintain the ability of individuals to rise from poverty to the elite but to maintain the societal belief of class mobility. When schools teach children that it is not possible for them to advance beyond their status they undermine class mobility. When the elite pervert the societal myth, that class mobility is available for anyone if they work hard, take smart chances and persevere, they destroy the belief of class mobility. Possibly the worst way the elite in a society can eliminate class mobility as well as the belief of class mobility is to sell the fiction of equal outcomes.

The very concept of equal outcomes takes away everyone’s stake in society. When you will get the same as everyone else, no matter how hard you work or even if you work, you have no stake in that society. You are merely a slave and everyone knows a slave cannot own anything. Redistribution is so corrosive of a people’s sense of ownership in a nation it should be attacked anytime it is mentioned. The only people who have a stake in a country that redistributes the wealth of the people are the elite that do the redistributing. They always take more than their share and their share is protected by the army.

The results of these negative incentives can be seen in the United States since the 1960s. The concepts of the Frankfurt school came into their own then. Redistribution became vogue, class mobility was attacked in the classroom and in popular culture, the laws had been undermined by bureaucracy for two decades, the arbitrary application of the law became obvious, and the US Constitution became a living breathing document destroying the very foundation of American society. All these innovations took away the people’s stake, or ownership, in the country. The results were that drug use became rampant, it was the beginning of the scourge of drugs, crime skyrocketed, violence became endemic and the institutions of civil society began to deteriorate. Clearly, the path to prosperity is through giving all people a stake in their nation, the path to poverty is to take that stake away.


John Pepin

Election Integrity

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, for the democratic element of our republic to function, as democratic, first there must be honest elections, barring that there is no democracy only the tyranny of the powerful over the powerless. If someone wants to become a despot, all that is needed is to give the appearance of free and honest elections, but in fact so undermine the election process with fraud and vote rigging that there is no honesty to the election process at all. Of course to do such a thing is villainy of the highest order. History shows however, and we all know from experience, that people can be counted on to do whatever they can to get advantage, in this the political elite are far worse than the average man or woman, because there are almost never consequences to their wrongdoing. Elections that are rigged are not elections at all but coronations.

Since the democratic element of the United States is the essential means for our governors to get the consent of the governed, us, the integrity of the election process is essential. The United States is a republic, a mixing of Aristotle’s Right forms of government, despite the pervasive propaganda that the US is a democracy, one of Aristotle’s wrong forms. Aristotle’s right forms are, monarchy, aristocracy and polity, while his wrong forms are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. His best form is a republic, a blending of two or more of the right forms. What the right forms have in common, is that they serve the needs of all people, and what is wrong with the wrong forms, is that they each serve the people with the power. Tyranny serves the monarch, oligarchy serves the aristocracy and democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Perverting the democratic element of our republic turns the aristocratic element of our republic, the legislature, into oligarchy, it perverts the monarchical element, the President, into a tyrant, eliminating altogether the democratic balance. All this mischief is done by degrading the base of our system, which is democracy. It should be obvious that corrupting the foundation makes the edifice unstable. Each part of the government must necessarily change from serving all the people, rich, middling and poor, to serving themselves only. The President becomes a tyrant who only serves him or herself, the legislature becomes an oligarchy that seeks only more power and wealth… and the people follow their leaders and become self serving egoists as well. Clearly, no society or government no matter how constituted, can survive such depravity for long.

Those who might agree with what the corrupting faction is doing today, should take heed that no matter how much you might agree with them today, you may not tomorrow, but then it will be too late you have given them the power to do it, and given up your power to stop them. Many know there is blatant vote fraud but spuriously argue there is none because they want their guy to have power. They might believe their guy will do good with that power, but there is no case in history or in the future, that power gained by such means has led to anything but ruination for the people and the society. This is because power is like cocaine or heroin, in small doses they help with pain, but as the doses get ever larger, they fog the mind and corrupt the soul until the drug is all consuming. The addiction of the elite to power never leads to a good result, it can only lead to all of us loosing all that we have, our grace, our wealth and our children. All great civilizations have fallen thus.

It is by small steps that we race to Hell and by small crimes that great societies crumble. Voter fraud is by far the most corrupting form of small crime. Each instance may seem small but cumulatively they add up to great evil. Dishonest politicians can be dealt with, common crime can be cleaned up and foreign attacks can be beaten back, but rot from within hollows out the very center of a civilization. Once the center is gone collapse is imminent and nothing can stop it. Accepting vote fraud and election rigging is the surest sign a civilization is rotten from within. In 25 AD Titus Livius told the Roman people that unless they changed their ways Rome would collapse. He was called an idiot by the patricians and plebeians alike. Rome had lasted a thousand years and would last a thousand more. History showed Livy correct and everyone else wrong.

What Livy did have wrong however, is that it is never the people that corrupt a society, it is always the elite that introduce it, then pass it down to those they lead. Tolerating rigged elections guarantees corruption of the most pernicious sort… no matter how much you agree with the party doing it. That is because government must serve all else it is one of Aristotle’s wrong forms and will become despotic. Since democracy is the base of our system of government, election fraud that pulverizes the foundation, weakens the whole of our society. Therefore, if we don’t stand up to our leaders and demand vote fraud be eliminated, requiring those engaging in it be punished severely, our complacence will sow the seeds of our own destruction, enslaving our children to whomever rises in our place.


John Pepin

The Road to Poverty for a Nation

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if we want to live in a nation of prosperity and liberty, but not one of poverty and tyranny, it is up to us to use our common sense when we vote. We all want to be prosperous that is a natural desire of humanity. The drive for liberty is a heart felt feeling that people have had since the days of Adam and Eve. How unfortunate then that these two mutually compatible wants are almost never met? Instead we always get tyranny and poverty. Our leaders constantly lead us astray, lowering our standard of living and becoming ever more tyrannical, until the nation state, city state or empire becomes so rotted from the inside, it collapses from something that wouldn’t have been a bump in the road a mere generation earlier.

I believe this is because of the fiction of enough. Oh, we can have enough pain, enough hunger or enough sickness, but it is impossible to have enough wealth, power, luxury, food or happiness. We might be sated for a short time after a huge meal, the giant bonus might make us happy for a day, but as soon as the food is digested or the bonus is put in the bank, we want more. There can never be enough of a good – while even a little of a bad is too much. It is in our nature to strive for more good and less bad and only a saint is immune.

This maxim applies to government and it’s officials as much as the common laborer, possibly more. Those in government want more money, sex and power. The seven deadly sins are all the more deadly when exercised by the political elite, because they not only destroy the virtue of the elite, but the nation they lead as well. No matter how much power the elite get they demand more. No matter the problems they created with the power they were already given, they want more, to fix those same problems, which will certainly be used to create more problems… so they can get more power. They can never have enough power over the individual, sex with young interns or wealth at the expense of the people.

History says nothing if not, when government grows beyond simply protecting the people from foreign states, safeguarding our lives and watch over our property… poverty, plague and war result. In fact, the fiction of enough is exactly why there is war in the first place. No nation has enough land, no matter how much land it has, no nation has enough wealth, no matter how rich it is, and no country on Earth is satisfied with the resources it possesses. All countries look upon the wealth, land and resources of their neighbor with a greedy eye. Perpetual war is also the most efficient way to remove our liberty from us, from subjecting us to tyranny, to “protect us” from this or that bogyman. This is made easier, by the fact the new class elite control the media in all nations, including the US. We are so easily deceived.

The covetousness of the political elite is not spent only on the property of other nations it is most hungry when turned on the wealth of their own people. Those in power will think of all kinds of ways to plunder our wealth for their own use. In this, the more power the government has, the easier it is to take what we earned through labor, to line the pockets of the elite. President Harry Truman said, “Anyone who gets rich in politics is a God damned crook…” How many politicians, in any country on Earth, are not rich within a year or two of gaining office? The more socialist the nation’s government is the richer the political elite and the poorer the people. That is because no amount of wealth is enough, even if it costs the nation it’s economy, liberty and happiness.

The only answer is to limit government’s power over us. But power taken is never returned except by a collapse and reset. Of course the elite will scream to the rafters that they need that power to do us good. But as I have pointed out, that power will do us no good, it will enrich the political elite and destroy our culture, society, nation and economy. The political elite know this as well or better than you and I but their greed, lust and hunger, overpowers their patriotism. When a politician tells you that he or she needs to be able to take from someone to give to you, they are really telling you they want to be able to legally steal from others, including you. You will get no benefit but your children will live in poverty and tyranny because of it. They appeal to our greed to satisfy their greed and call it progress. We are as lazy as the elite and seek wealth without work too.

We follow our leaders, we want to get rich in politics as well, even if we are not members of the political elite. They exploit this tendency in us to manipulate our selfish desires, desires they have put in us when we look at their wealth, power and prerogative, and stand in awe of it. We become desirous of those things ourselves. But in no nation or country ever constituted, has wealth been taken from the people and been given back, at no point in time has power been returned to the people, never has an oligarchy ruled for the benefit of all, and no place where the people have fallen for the deceit that they can vote other people’s money into their own pocket… has there been anything but increasing poverty, lowering of liberty, and eventually, catastrophic collapse. Yes, the elite start it because they can never have enough, but we always go along, voting the most corrupt politicians in, because they claim they will “give” us the wealth someone else has piled up… suckers that we are.


John Pepin

Shall Not Be Infringed

Monday, October 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, guns are the most regulated tools in the United States, despite the clear prohibition against gun regulation in the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who oppose limits on government, limits that are the very reason for our Constitution in the first place, spuriously argue the Second Amendment is to give government the right to keep and bear arms, which of course is absurd on the face of it and is based on perverting the meaning of the word “militia,” and ignoring the phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State.” They bolster their argument by claiming guns are dangerous, and as dangerous tools they must be regulated, for the safety of us all. But, is that really why guns are so regulated, or are these just distractions to the real purpose of gun control? I would posit that the real reason the political, cultural and social elite seek gun control is for a far more insidious agenda.

Of course regulation is the very definition of an infringement. Regulation and laws are there to keep people from doing something, or having something, the elite have decided are bad. In infringing on an action, product or thought, the argument is always that it is for the greater good. In the case of laws against murder, the reason for them is that if a person’s life is taken, that person has been denied his or her fundamental individual Right to exist. In the case of laws against theft, the rational is that people have the Right to their possessions, and taking something from someone denies them the enjoyment of that possession. Right law protects individuals – not society. In all cases law that is in keeping with Our Constitution are there to protect our person, property or liberty. Gun control however is different, gun laws are there to deny us the ability to defend our lives, to protect our property and to make it possible to remove our liberty, the exact opposite of right law.

The rabid gun control advocate demands all people, especially law abiding citizens give up guns so the fearful man or woman can feel safer. In that the crux of their argument is “guns are dangerous and therefore they must be regulated, the Constitution can go to Hell.” But in making such arguments they forget that all the Rights enumerated in the Constitution are dangerous. The Right to free speech is very dangerous, far more dangerous than the Right to keep and bear arms. The most an armed lunatic can kill is a hundred, maybe a few more, but the damage an armed terrorist can visit on humanity is limited by the response of law abiding armed citizens as well as law enforcement. The damage a pamphleteer can do to the well ordering of society is exponentially worse. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf which in large part abetted the slaughter of sixty million human beings and the rewriting of the world’s map. Marx and Engels penned The Communist Manifesto which to date has justified the extermination of well over one hundred million innocent people! Clearly, if safety is what the gun control advocate wants, freedom of speech is far more dangerous then the Right to keep and bear arms, and so must be outlawed.

If we examine the results of gun control laws, both in the united States and elsewhere, a clear pattern emerges. In the cities with the greatest infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms, violence of all kinds is out of control, especially gun violence. In those places where guns are the least regulated, there is the least violence, especially gun violence. Furthermore, where guns are outlawed most of the violence is stranger on stranger violence, and where guns are legally protected, almost all the violence is between people who know each other, in other words, crimes of passion. In countries where guns have been outlawed, like Australia, gun violence has skyrocketed. So the argument that gun laws keep people safe is obviously untrue.

The new class elite who seek to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, argue that since the Right was prefaced by the term Well regulated Militia, it was meant to apply to the government and not to individuals. Even a perfunctory examination of this argument shows it to be absurd. That the founders would place a Right in the Bill of Rights that gives government a Right, that has already been granted elsewhere is clearly spurious, that they would place a government Right among Rights specifically designated for individuals to protect us from tyranny, shows it to be sophistry of the most diabolical kind. The Bill of Rights was specifically designed, under great debate, to protect the people from a despotic government. Certainly not to empower government to become despotic! Madison himself said, Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was written militia meant all able bodied men. Like I said, even a cursory glance at the spurious claim that the Second Amendment is to give government the sole power to keep and bear arms is absurd.

The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution as a secondary bulwark against government becoming despotic. Madison initially objected, arguing what need a of a Bill of Rights, since the Constitution forbade government from doing anything it is not specifically allowed to do under the Constitution. Going further he reasoned, if the Bill of Rights forbade the regulation of jumping jacks, could it then therefore regulate tiddlywinks? He eventually came on board with the Federalists who called for a Bill of Rights and wrote them himself. But as we now see, our government has become so extra constitutional, even the “parchment barriers” of our Bill of Rights can be ignored by a government intent on ignoring them. Now that our Constitution, and even our Bill of Rights means nothing, tyranny cannot be far away. That my friends is why we need to add a Fourth Branch… but that is another article for another time.


John Pepin

Creative Destruction, Say’s Law and the Pseudo Science of Economics

Monday, October 20th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, supply really does drive demand in the creative phase of the creative destruction cycle, and arguments to the contrary are most often based on observation bias. The theory that supply drives demand is Say’s law, but I am changing it a bit. Keynesian economic theory is that demand drives supply which is the opposite of Say’s law. These two theories have been at odds since John Maynard Keynes developed his theory. Keynes theory falls short of the mark, as does Say’s law, but if we combine Schumpeter’s theory with that of Say, the amalgam provides us with a better snapshot of the workings of a healthy economy. This is because an economy is a complex system, and complex systems are by their nature messy, making it impossible to quantify and measure the inputs to any real degree of reliability, therefore economics are a pseudo science or in other words, an art. This is important because our lives are better when we live in an expanding economy with a rising standard of living.

Economics is not a real science in the strictest of terms. The theories cannot be independently verified because the fundamentals cannot be effectively measured. Moreover economics, like any of the humanist “sciences,” are subject to the personal bigotries of the “scientist.” These pseudo sciences have built in traps for those who would promote their theories over those of another. One of those traps is observation bias. In the hard sciences like physics the parameters can be set, measured and quantified. The bias of the observer is irrelevant, a stone dropped accelerates at nine point eight meters per second squared, no matter who is observing it, but since humanistic sciences, economics and climate “science” are not hard sciences based on directly observable phenomenon, but are instead complex systems that have far too many inputs and interactions, so observing and measuring any number of inputs and interactions, many of which are not directly observable at all let alone measurable, gives very little insight into the emergent phenomenon that is different in kind than the sum of the inputs… a key distinction of a complex system.

Since economics is the science/art of a complex system, theories cannot be measured by looking at any of the inputs, but instead must be measured from the emergent phenomenon that rises from the complex system itself. In other words, we cannot reason from the bottom up, like the hard sciences, we have to reason from the top down, and even then, we find observation bias creeping in. In the aggregate demand aggregate supply model, the assumption is that if there is no demand for products and services, any supply is over supply, and therefore demand drives supply. In Say’s law, that supply drives demand, the foundation is that if there is a supply of something there will be demand, even if the demand is at a price point that is lower than the manufacturing cost. In Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction, the theory rests on the concept that new ideas draw in the means of production until the idea is fully implemented, then the outmoded ideas are destroyed.

All those theories start at some sub function of the complex system, demand, supply, new ideas, etc… then reason from the sub function or input, to the emergent phenomenon. As I have explained this is not an efficient way to reason about complex systems. If we instead look at the desired results, the emergent phenomenon we seek in an economic system, IE. a “healthy economy,” and then reason down, we are more likely to find workable theories that are less subject to observation bias… as long as the term “Healthy economy” is agreed to at the outset. Let’s set the parameters for a “healthy economy,” to be full employment, an expanding economy and a rising standard of living. Notice I didn’t make one of the parameters no recessions. This is because recession’s are clearly a facet of a healthy economy as we have described. We can deduce this by the fact that all complex systems grow in fits and starts, animals and plants grow rapidly, slow, then grow rapidly again, until they have reached maturity. Weather patterns change constantly from rain to clear and back to rain, all complex systems wax and wane and therefore reasoning from the top down, we can reasonably conclude recession is a function of a healthy economy, just as sleep is a function of a healthy body.

The emergent phenomenon of a healthy economy, requires a high utilization of workers, increasing demand for products and services, innovations that improve the standard of living and rising wages relative to the cost of living. From this we can see that driving demand by whatever means has no effect on innovation, it has no direct correlation to wages and only a tangential correlation to demand for labor. Creative destruction correlates well with innovation and tangentially with demand for labor but falls short of the mark when it comes to wages and demand. Say’s law that supply drives demand also falls short. If we combine them however we can get closer to describing conditions required for the emergent phenomenon we are calling a healthy economy.

Justus Moser lamented the fact that the market system invents new products then creates a demand for them. Before there were home computers there was no demand for them, in fact many of the economic brianiacs of the day argued there would never be a need for a home computer, because who needs all that number crunching power? Once the PC came out however, many new uses, from word processing and spreadsheets to computer games followed, giving the home computer uses that exceeded anyone’s initial concept of what a home computer would do. These innovations drove demand for the products they created and for their ancillary products as well. The same holds true for new innovations that have not even been thought of yet.

Aggregate supply aggregate demand, being easy to quantify is therefore scientific appearing, it is an oversimplification however that leads to many negative policies that hinder an economy from being healthy. Moreover it is especially subject to observation bias. This model is easy to understand. The most pernicious effect of this theory is that it’s inherent observation bias gives rise to bad policies. Policies that encourage politicians to deficit spend and redistribute other people’s money. It argues all demand is equal. If that was so then full aggregate demand of anything would give rise to a healthy economy. This is reasoning from the bottom up however. For example, if the only demand in an economy was for cocaine and all the productive resources was put to that end, would that lead to a healthy economy? Of course not, a truly sick economy would arise from such demand, even though aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, proving the weakness of the aggregate demand aggregate supply model.

If however, we combine Say’s law with Schumpeter’s creative destruction, reasoning from the top down, we find we have a better description of what is needed to have a healthy economy, ergo… sufficient demand for supply, innovation that betters people’s lives, increasing demand for labor and a rise in real wages driven by the demand for more complex labor. Put simply the theory simply works. Reasoning further down, we can observe the conditions that give rise to creation and the supply produced driving demand. The lower we descend however the more observation bias is likely to come into play. Creation requires as a prerequisite, ease of starting a business, else there can be no creation. This presupposes access to the capital necessary to start a business along with the tax and regulatory environment conducive of it. If these conditions are not met, lacking the supply that creation provides, demand falls short, and an economy fails to meet our definition of healthy. That is why I say, creative destruction must be wedded with Say’s law, to better explain the factors that give rise to the emergent phenomenon of a healthy or sick economy, which then points us to policy directives that will result in a healthy economy.


John Pepin

The Air War against ISIS

Thursday, October 16th, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, the elite don’t want the air war against ISIS to be effective, because their end game is an everlasting ground war. The air war against Gaddafi was highly effective however, which forces the question, why was that air war effective against Gaddafi and the air war against ISIS is not? We are constantly told we must intervene to stop ISIS but there are ever present news reports of American advisers helping train ISIS fighters, US equipment in ISIS hands, The Toyota Trucks driven by ISIS given to them by the US, The Benghazi weapons network, etc… Perhaps these reports are propaganda or possibly they are true, given the predilection of this administration to lie when the truth would serve them better, anyone with an open mind must at least question the reasoning behind the call for ground troops. Remember, those “troops” are someone’s child, maybe yours, anytime an American soldier is sent to fight in a foreign land, it is incumbent upon us to insure the plan is to win, and not to simply fight a war of attrition.


The US has a recent history of sending American’s children to fight in wars they are not supposed to win. The most glaring example was Vietnam. In that war the greatest enemy of our sons was the government that sent them there. Our fathers and brthers guarded military bases without ammunition for their guns, they were used as test subjects in experiments that would have made Mengele proud, all while under a legal microscope. There was no support for them on American streets, in academia or by the political or cultural elites. Even when they returned home they were vilified as baby killers. Rich Hollywood actors and actresses went to North Vietnam to support the Marxist regime. Jane Fonda even gave aid and comfort to the Marxists! Clearly, they were not sent to Vietnam to win… only to die at the hands of communists.


In Iraq the American people supported our sons and daughters but the cultural and political elite did not. Our children were hamstrung by a steady litany of condemnation that undermined the war effort… by the very people sending them into harms way today! American soldiers have to fight terrorists who have no limitations on the atrocities they can perform, even as our kids have to fight under a legal microscope, manned by teams of lawyers looking for any transgression on the terrorists “rights.” There are American soldiers today who are serving life sentences for returning fire and killing terrorists that were firing on them! Only a fool of the highest order would believe there is any intention of the backstabbers who run the US government today to win any war they send our children to fight.


When Gaddafi had all but won the war against the terrorists the US and Europe went in with only air power and annihilated Gaddafi’s forces. Once the air war started the war was over quick. The effectiveness of the US air force was staggering. All at a cost that is pennies on the dollar of the air war against ISIS today. We are supposed to believe what was so effective against Gaddafi is utterly impotent today? That is absurd on the face of it. The US has spent more money attacking ISIS from the air to no effect than they did utterly obliterating Gaddafi’s forces. In other words we are to believe up is down and down is up.


If the air war was supposed to be effective… why doesn’t the air force target massed ISIS troops? Why don’t they target reinforcements? Why not jdam the hill ISIS is using for artillery attacks into Kobani? Why not provide close air support to the Kurds? Why allow Turkey to attack Kurdish forces with air power? Why not interdict ISIS supplies? Why not eliminate ISIS armored forces? Why are they using multimillion dollar smart munitions to kill a single guy out behind his hut smoking a cigarette? Why are they attacking civilians? These are questions everyone should be asking… but are not.


Then there are those alarming reports of US special forces training ISIS, US government arming and equipping them as well as the Benghazi weapons network. These, let’s call them rumors for now, are not reported by the unbiased media, they are in the alternative press. Since the unbiased media have been caught so many times fabricating stories out of thin air to political ends, only an ignoramus would believe them. The CBS story about Bush’s air guard service coming out a week before the election that were proved to be utterly false is just one egregious example. Couple that with Susan Rice’s lying tour of the Sunday talk shows about Benghazi which they slavishly lapped up is another. The point is, our press that calls itself unbiased cannot be counted on to give us even a hint of actual unbiased truth, so we have to give the alternative press some credibility.


Why would our government do that to our children though? Why would they seek to send our kids, children our wives gave birth to in great pain, we cleaned their skinned knees, wiped their noses, changed their diapers and suffered with them when their boyfriend/girlfriend broke their hearts, why would our government send them to die in a foreign land, with no intention of winning? Many theories have been promoted, from the military industrial complex to outright traitorous action on the part of the elite. Perhaps it is the Cloward and Piven war strategy to destroy America by bleeding her to death, or perhaps it is to deny us our posterity but whatever the reason, it is diabolical. If the air war was supposed to be effective, it would be, clearly it is not, could that be so the political elite can justify sending our kids to fight again? What is possibly the most telling of the heinous intentions of the ruling elite today, is that they refuse to call Islamist terrorists, terrorists, you know, ISIS… people who behead innocents, crush babies, rape and sell women and girls, and commit genocide… but our government does call our returning soldiers, terrorists. Which in and of itself is traitorous.





John Pepin

Anti Corruption Laws

Thursday, October 9th, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, anti corruption laws are only as good as their enforcement, and if the same corrupt politicians enforce those anti corruption laws on themselves, those laws are as good as worthless. If self policing worked then why do we have police? Why not just have everyone pledge to follow the law and be done with it? Wouldn’t that be far less expensive than having a standing police force? Especially now that the police have become so militarized. The cost saving would be huge! But of course that is absurd, people cannot self police, and that applies more to the elite than to the average citizen.

The world is awash in corrupt governments. Story after story is written in the unbiased press calling attention to it. Hectares of forests have been cleared to produce the paper necessary to print the articles. All to no avail. Before Ukraine collapsed into chaos every news organization on the planet reported the endemic corruption in Ukraine’s government. Africa has suffered more than any other continent under government corruption with South America a close second. The US is suffering with the most corrupt, by every measure, government we have ever had, bar none, and Europe is close behind. Corruption, it would seem, is a quality of all governments.

Corruption in government is the single most effective way to determine if a nation’s economy will thrive or fail. The most corrupt governments universally have the lowest standards of living, for the people, but the highest for the elite. This is one of the few universal truths there are. Africa was a bread basket until the colonial powers were overthrown today Africa is a basket case. The the governments that rose up after the colonial era were riddled with corruption. The elite became richer than rich while the people became poorer than poorer. The standard of living in the US has gone up on average every half decade except for the 1930s and today. The single closest attributes of the FDR administration and the Obama administration is the endemic despotic corruption.

There is not one historical example of a corrupt nation that had a rising standard of living. The economies of South America are the perfect example of this in action. In South America, and Africa for that matter, all capitalism is crony capitalism. I have a friend that lives in Guatemala. I mentioned to him one time, we could buy land there, and grow valuable timber using modern silvicultural practices. He laughed hysterically. He told me only certain people can own land and make a profit there. I was aghast at the implication. Any economist worth his salt will tell you crony capitalism is not capitalism at all, but a form of redistribution, from the people to the wealthy. In the case of crony capitalism, all the market mechanisms that grow the pie and provide an invisible hand, are turned upside down. Crony capitalism, that can only survive in a corrupt country, is a zero sum game. One person’s gain is another’s loss.

All the laws the elite pass to eliminate corruption are simply used to crush political dissent. Law is supposed to protect the property and lives of the citizens, but when government is corrupt, law has a different purpose. Law is used as a bludgeon to protect the prerogatives of the elite in power. Obama has shown this in living color. He uses the IRS to punish his political foes, he wiretaps reporters, he rules arbitrarily by executive fiat, he bestows billions of dollars of crony welfare to his allies, and the list goes on and on… As Obama has corrupted the US government we have seen a steady decline in the wages of the people while the lot of the politically favored elite has skyrocketed.

Where government is corrupt violence and crime are rampant. Confucius recognized this thousands of years ago and taught about this propensity of the elite to his disciples. He rightly pointed out that people follow their leaders, if the leaders are corrupt then the people will follow and be corrupt. If the leaders are virtuous the people will follow and be virtuous. The concept is simple, but in practice the leaders will always be as corrupt as they can get away with, dragging the whole of the nation into corruption. The Duke of Lu asked Confucius how he could get the people to stop lusting after each other’s wives, refrain from theft, and so forth. Confucius told the Duke of Lu he could stop doing those things himself and lead by example. Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state shortly after.

It is human nature to test limits, seek comfort and avoid pain. Bastiat said, “Now, labor being in itself a pain, and man being naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and history proves it, that wherever plunder is less burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither religion nor morality can, in this case, prevent it from prevailing.” When and where the elite having the ability to plunder the property of the people, without consequence, they will certainly resort to plunder, especially as their plunder destroys the economy, lowering the property available for plunder. The problem of corruption is epidemic in the world and we people have no immediate power to stop it. Even the vote is undermined by fraud and abuse.

But is all lost then? No, because there is a way to limit the ability of the elite to abuse their power. Constitutions were designed for just this purpose. A constitution is to limit the power of government not expand it as the new class has dishonestly argued. That the elite have so perverted the nature and reason for Constitutions is a testament to the propensity of the elite to corruption. I would say, lets use what has proven to work in the past on the people, and apply it to government. That is police the government. Not with a police force the elite have dominion over, that leads to Eric Holder’s using government to punish political foes, not at all, make an independent police force that has the power to act, buttressed by a Constitutional amendment granting such power. Police that can actually force the elite to follow our Constitutions and their own laws. I call it a Fourth Branch and have titled it a NUMA after Numa Pompilius the lawgiver of Rome. Only when government is effectively policed, can we as a human race escape the bonds of government corruption and start to live as we were supposed to… in liberty and prosperity. Until then we face an ever lowering standard of living until we are nothing but slaves.



John Pepin