Posts Tagged ‘rational maximiser’

Blow Up the Education System!

Wednesday, March 15th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the education system in the US is broken top to bottom, turning out good little debt slaves, rather than fully educated human beings ready to take on the world. Smashing the US education system was a long process. It took progressives a century to fully break the beast into submission, yet it was the government’s guaranteeing student loans that has been the death knell of education, once and for all. Students graduating today have sometimes over one hundred thousand dollars in loan debt, debt that cannot be expunged by bankruptcy, going into a job market that is at best a dancing landscape. Instead of preparing our children to engage the world, our kids are leaving those expensive universities with crushing debt and dubious educations. In what universe does it make any sense that today, in the Twenty First century, with the absurd amounts of money we throw at education, that our children don’t emerge from college ready to take on the world, little philosophers able to adapt and dance with whatever landscape appears before them?

The primary education system has been so exploited by progressives, as a jobs program for teachers, an indoctrination system for students, and a cash cow for democrats by teachers unions. They know and openly admit, that if given a choice, most people would choose a better school for their children. Every time they say, a voucher system will be the end of public education, that is exactly what they are saying, the public education system gives a poor product for and exorbitant price. If given freedom of choice in education systems, via a voucher system because as a society we have made the decision to publicly fund primary education, being rational maximizers we will make the self interested choice and send our children to the school that best fits our desires. The diversity in education such a system would provide, along with the inevitable increase in aggregate quality, would allow our children to be more adaptable, and more able to profit from disruptions. Of course if you agree with the progressives that the real aim of our education system is a jobs program, that indoctrinates children into a certain political mindset, and funnels money from the government tax system to a favored political faction via teachers unions, then you want to keep the system as it is.

It is in the arena of higher education that our system has got way out of whack. Every professor will tell you, not all professors are progressives, Marxists and/or socialists, but they will admit most are. At the higher echelons of higher education, they are almost universally Marxists and anarchists. That is not my assessment but that of Alvin Gouldner. As we all know, people follow their leaders, and so as the top believes that philosophy will be transmitted down to the students. One quality that glues progressives, Marxists and socialists together is the love of censorship. They idealize the world where anything they like can be said freely and without hesitation, but that which they dislike is not tolerated, and that mindset is transmitted down to the students, manifesting itself in the attacks on conservative speakers and indeed anyone the progressives disagree with. Why debate someone with a better argument when you can shut them down altogether? Reverse racism has become the norm with the curriculum openly teaching “White Privilege.” That which can be said on those extremely expensive facilities of higher learning becomes ever more narrow, based on politics, every day.

The government taking over the student loan system was pure genius, right out of Cloward and Pivon playbook, from a progressive point of view. What a magnificent transfer of wealth from the productive segment of the economy to the unproductive segment. In one fell swoop, the progressives enabled every student going into college or university to strangle themselves with debt, to pay for an education that has little help other than as an entry card at the door of the club. Let’s say your server at TGI Fridays has a PHD in physics and student loan debt of thirty thousand dollars. That debt cannot be eliminated by bankruptcy, if not paid off, it simply grows as does all compounded interest financial instruments. Meanwhile all that extra money allowed colleges and universities to raise the price and therefore their profit, of “non profit” institutions… which translates to higher wages for staff and especially professors and the executives of those universities. Which is basically transferring wealth from the students in the future, to college personnel today. Financially rewarding progressives for their diligent effort to destroy the education system.

The future only holds change on a munificent scale for our children. Everything is poised to change… one way or another. It is an old adage that it isn’t the strong, brave, intelligent or witty that survive… but the adaptable. We spend as a society over ten thousand dollars a year per student, and in some places far more, to give our children a pathetic education, where they cannot even make change for a dollar, find the US on a globe or understand what they are reading. It is not that our children are more stupid than us, but our education system, and culture stunts their intellectual, moral and spiritual growth. Dumbing down the test to scale for the poor performance of the education system is no longer the answer, it is time to change it, fundamentally, with the goal of, educating people to be self interested rightly understood, rational maximizers who are able to profit from economic disruptions. Our children are able, it is we that hold them back by bowing to progressives. It is past time to force a voucher system in primary education, while eliminating the government’s hand in student loans, college accreditation and handouts to local universities, foster real competition in education. Only real competition will return us a dividend of graduates who are adaptable enough to be able to profit from the disruptions ahead.


John Pepin

The Absurdity of the Absolute Right of the State

Monday, December 5th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to believe that our Rights come from the State, is to believe in the absolute right of the State. The implication being, that we are merely the slaves of the state to be exploited and tossed away at the suffrage of our rulers, like any other inanimate object. Of course, if all human beings have no innate human Rights, is it logical that no human being can be a ruler, because if a human being is subservient to the state, then how can a human being rule the state? Making the idea that all human beings have no innate rights antithetical to the concept of government. Since government must be run by human beings, and if human beings are mere cogs, government cannot exist. A cog is unable to rule the piston, a ring is not justified in telling a cam what to do and a hose has no power to order a carburetor. Therefore, if the State is all powerful, then it cannot be run by human beings, to do so would be to elevate a sprocket to a god. The only philosophy that logically allows human government is that human beings have innate rights. Rights that emanate from nature or God but never the State.

The state is a mere fabrication of human beings, it does not exist outside of our minds, because nowhere in nature is there a state. Rocks don’t organize themselves into a hierarchy nor do cattle. To argue a wolf pack is essentially a state is as absurd as claiming a thug who takes a life is God. The concept of a state is purely a human idea. Many things are mere fabrications of human beings. Fiction for entertainment is one. Is it possible for an idea to have temporal power over a reality? How can a mere concept, a fantasy, be the progenitor of that which is real, like humanity or our rights? That is impossible. That would be like someone putting a rock on a pedestal and “interpreting” the stone’s will. Clearly a rock cannot have a will. Fantasies are not animate nor are they self aware. The state being a concept and not a real entity it cannot have a will, it cannot have compassion or self awareness. An idea is not alive as the state is not alive, only something that is real and preexists the real, can be the font of that which is real.

There is a long standing philosophical discussion whether our Rights come from God, natural law or the State. The implication of each argument is profound. If our Rights come from something that is not omnipotent but is a fantasy can they really exist? Rights with a capital R, are a superior attribute, a superior quality cannot be derived from mere imagination. Our Rights supersede laws, customs and moors, which in themselves are rules of a very high order, so to supersede rules of such importance, a Right must be superior, as far as respect for them goes. Therefore, for something as superior as Rights to be born of, that thing must be superior, omnipotent, else it cannot bestow such a superior thing as a Right, and if that is the State, then those rights come from fantasy. In other words, a cog who believes there is no such thing as innate rights, bestows rights upon other cogs, because they say they can. Obviously this begs the question and therefore is circular logic.

If you believe our Rights come from God, then God has Rights, and he has lent them to mankind. Only a thing that humanity, and indeed all things living and inanimate, derive from… can be the propagator of our Rights. He who created us is the only being that can bestow rights. If you don’t believe in God then our Rights must come from nature. If that is the case, all living creatures have Rights, moreover, those rights can be observed in the natural order. For example, every animal in existence has the Right to self defense, if that were not so, there would be animals that willingly feed themselves to their predators. We must have the Right to that which we create, else it would be observed in nature those things created by animals being magically whisked away, to another being. Since nature and God are adamant that the individual must have free will, as observed in nature, then free will must be an natural Right. All natural Rights can be described so.

If you believe our Rights come from government, and therefore in the absolute Right of the State, you believe in fairy tales. That a phantasm is the creator of the real. It is astounding that those who claim to be atheists would argue a fantasy is where their human Rights come from. No matter if you believe in God or not, you must believe in nature, else you are insane. Sadly, the circular logic that our Rights come from the state, a cog bestows rights to other cogs because it claims it can, seems to have great hold on a large portion of mankind. Such absurdity is the reason so much of human history is filled with violence, tyranny, suffering and disease. The ignorant belief in a fantasy, especially to claim such a superior thing as our innate Rights come from an illusion, is a sure path to catastrophe. To believe in the all powerful state is the same thing as believing in the all powerful and mighty Oz. Clearly, our Rights come from God and/or nature, and not the fantasy of the state.


John Pepin

Our Unjust World

Monday, September 26th, 2016


Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a simple working definition of justice, is to treat everyone equally, but a more nuanced definition is, to equally treat people as they deserve to be treated. Just as you would not trust a thief to watch your home, or a child molester to watch your child, most anyone would trust a saint to watch either. It is not that they are treated differently, but they are treated as they deserve, should the saint become a thief or a child molester, our treatment of them would change to reflect what they deserve. Justice demands all people be treated as they merit, equally and without discrimination. In the end, the person who is a villain should be treated as a villain, and the saint should be treated as a saint. Sadly, in this world those who are powerful are always held to the lowest standard of conduct, no matter what their actions merit, while those of low station are always held to the highest standard of conduct, regardless of their virtuous actions, due to their ability to damage or help us. This is a violation of justice. The way justice determines merit, is by our actions, not our station, race or religion.

We live in a time where justice is unknown. The news is full of examples where villains are praised and heroes are attacked… injustice is called justice. When a thug with a long history of violence threatens a police officer with a gun, and is shot by that police officer, popular culture credits the thug with every virtue known to man, while the police officer is vilified, leading to other thugs rioting, destroying property, stealing and worst of all, attacking innocent people simply because of their race. Instead of justice, where those thugs would be rounded up, tried and if found guilty, serve long jail sentences, they are given a pass, ostensibly because of their race, but in reality because the violence forwards the agenda of the political faction in power.

Who can claim it just, that a politician is caught red handed destroying evidence that implicates her in allowing top secret material to fall into the hands of our enemies, walks free, even as lowly navy personnel are charged and jailed for far far less? Moreover, it would appear that US secrets are known by everyone, including our mortal enemies… but not the people. If people are treated as they merit, by their actions, not by their political affiliation or power, we would see many politicians going to jail and few junior officers languishing in Leavenworth. Justice does not brooch unequal treatment and is not based on political standing, it is based on merit, for good or bad.

How can anyone look at you with a straight face and say the non punishment meted out to the CEO of Wells Fargo is just? We all know that the culture of any group, organization or company comes from the top. People go where leaders lead. If the culture of Wells Fargo was such that lowly employees were opening millions of fraudulent accounts, to pad the profits of the company, that culture came from the top. Add to that, over five thousand employees were fired for it, yet not one has been prosecuted despite the serious nature of the crime, and a blind man can see the injustice. Those who are punished are the shareholders of Wells Fargo, who had no hand in the crime but are paying the price, in a diminishment of their stock values, stocks they paid for with hard earned money and rely on for their retirement. The other people punished are the customers who were harmed, while the government gets a windfall, and the employees who have done no wrong but who’s careers are jeopardized by the culture of Wells Fargo.

People have an innate justice meter, we know when an injustice is done, and we react accordingly. If our ability to act is hemmed in by government power, if in fact, that injustice is promoted by government…then we loose faith in the system, our stake in society is eroded and we will act unjustly ourselves, anytime we believe we can get away with it. Naked injustice then is the means for a society to fall into chaos, violence and poverty. The facts are clear and they stare us in the face. Everywhere we look there is violence, on our streets, in our schools and at our places of business. Poverty is on the rise like never before since the industrial revolution, while the elite profit from their crimes. The world our forefathers have built and we have been blessed with, is crumbling around our heads and ears, all because, as we know in our hearts… people are not treated as they deserve.


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.


John Pepin

Human Heartedness, Civilization and Justice

Monday, September 5th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… the essence of human heartedness is wanting good things to happen to good people. The Confucian term Jen, becomes, goodness, empathy, “human heartedness,” etc… as translated by E. R Hughes. I favor the term human heartedness for the associations it brings up. What then is good, empathetic, and indeed human hearted? Since these words are all adjectives, the noun they modify has to be considered in any logical examination of the topic, that noun is human being. Now to narrow the field of inquiry, what would a human being who is good, empathetic or in other words, human hearted, want? Certainly not that evil happen to anyone… except as comeuppance. Clearly someone who is good would want good to happen to everyone. Civilization, in every sense, flourishes when people are human hearted, and rot when they are not. It follows then, to be human hearted is a self interested choice, as that choice transcends immediate self interest for societal self interest, freely self imposed, it can be said to be… self interest rightly understood.

Civilization, even in it’s most infinitesimal, is a boon to humanity. Think of the difference in standard of living of a single man alone in the wilderness, against that of a group of ten people, who have formed a community. The single man alone would stand a better chance however, if the group turned against itself, insuring no one survive. The more human hearted the members of the group the better the chances of survival, and in fact, some level of comfort achieved. While the woman alone, eating grass tops and a meadow vole, sheltering in a hollowed out ice cave might survive the night, the human hearted group, sleeping in a yurt warmed by a fire, after supping on roast venison would get a far better rest. Civilization is a boon to humanity while barbarism is a curse.

It is that sense of justice and human heartedness that has allowed humanity to form civilizations. In my definition of civilization, I do not mean empires that spread through conquest, no those are always barbarisms, I mean civilizations that create peace, prosperity and with liberty for the people. Those only rise when the people are human hearted and justice prevails. Eliminate one of those legs and civilization collapses back into the ocean of chaos that surrounds and constantly batters it. Since civilization provides the indispensable framework for people to improve their lot, and civilization itself relies on both justice and a human hearted people, to be both just and human hearted is in each and every one of our personal best interest.

If we seek, in our own self interest, to be human hearted… whom then would be the best candidates for good things to happen to? If we believe in the underlying philosophy of the old adage, “what goes around comes around,” then we understand that what a person visits in the world he or she should get back. In other words, at the core of sane human beings, a sense of justice speaks to us, and says, “what he sows shall he reap…” Those of us who sow good in the world, as a matter of justice, deserve to reap good, those who sow evil deserve to reap evil. Since that sense of justice is innate in humanity, people who are human hearted, share in that characteristic. Therefore a person who is good, empathetic and in fact human hearted would favor good people to have good things happen to them, out of a sense of justice. That is why we get angry when a good guy gets killed in a movie, it is our innate sense of justice, revolting at the injustice.

Some people have a false notion, they can be unjust and the opposite of human hearted, without effect to the civilization that allows them their comfort, prosperity and health. The false logic continues, since many others are human hearted and just, civilization will go along fine, and being unjust and uncaring they can get the advantage. To believe so however is as childish as it is ignorant. The seeking of immediate gratification over long term gratification leads to poverty, suffering and want. It is common sense that spending all of one’s pay on booze will lead to health issues and an impoverished retirement. Ignorant, in that injustice and psychopathy are the same as, defecating in one’s water supply.

If we want an ever increasing level of comfort, then we should seek to be human hearted, and to be human hearted means to want good things to happen to good people. The best way to make good things happen to good people is by creating civilization. Prosperity, comfort and health are goods that are always most plentiful when true civilization is present. The false notion that we can be selfish and unjust destroys the very civilization itself we rely on for so much. So, be human hearted…promote good things happening to good people, be good yourself so you deserve good things, be just… and you will be doing your part to promote civilization, prosperity, comfort and health, for yourself, your children and all your loved ones.


John Pepin

Justice, Honor and Arbitrary Rule.

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the mask has come off, we in the US now officially live under arbitrary rule and our leaders have no honor whatsoever. The fact Hillary Clinton has not, and will not be indicted for destroying evidence, keeping top secret information on an unsecured server, using a personal email for government business and/or lying under oath to congress, is proof positive we live under arbitrary rule. If anyone with less political power did one of those things they would be in jail and everyone knows it. That is an undeniable fact. The US has become, no longer a constitutional republic, but a banana republic. That a member of the elite can get away with multiple infringements of federal laws, without consequences, consequences that you or I would face, shows there is a double standard at work that is as pernicious as it is destructive. Moreover, recent news articles have shown that the rest of us no longer have the protections of law, or our Constitutional rights. Just as Rome was no longer a republic after Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the US is no longer a republic since the elite have the audacity to rub our noses in the fact they are above the law, and we are below it’s protections.

There is no true rule of law whatsoever the world over. This is not just happening in the US but is a world wide phenomenon. Human history is nothing but a story of the elite holding the people to laws they will not hold themselves to. The US was different, for a speck of time, because the US had the rule of law. True, the elite held themselves to it by their honor… but at least they did. Since FDR broke the unwritten rule that a President only run for two terms, our elite have increasingly lost all honor, and have disgraced themselves in every way possible. It is a quality of a civilized person to hold others to a lower standard then one does him or herself. To hold others to a higher standard then oneself, shows a lack of character, moral indifference and conniving which is on full display in the Hillary Clinton case.

Throughout history the wise have opined about the need for honor among the rulers of a society. When the rulers have no honor they will resort to every evil known to Man. History shows this to be true but goes further. In a society where the elite have no honor the people quickly loose their honor. Confucius said it first, (at least as far as I know), the people follow their leaders into corruption or virtue. In a nation where the leaders have no honor, the people will have no honor, where the people have no honor crime, chaos and beggary are rife. Economies grow in serenity and collapse in chaos, wealth flourishes in the absence of crime but erodes like sand when crime is rampant and where the economy is collapsing and wealth is being destroyed, poverty becomes the norm. All because the leaders have no honor.

The question of whether justice or arbitrary rule is best was considered in Plato’s book, The Republic. In it, Socrates argued for justice, while Thrasymachus the sophist argued for arbitrary rule. Thrasymachus claimed the great men, (those with political power, intelligence, wealth and ambition), should not follow the law, only appear to do so… law is only to make the hoi polloi believe there is justice to facilitate the control of the people and trick them into being obedient. Socrates made the argument justice in and of itself is a good. Justice is both a good that we do because it is good and a useful good as well. By allowing arbitrary rule to come back into fashion we become the dupes of the “great men.” Do you want the elite to exploit law to enrich themselves, amass political power over us and eventually tyrannize us? Or do you agree with Socrates that justice is a good in and of itself, one that is useful in creating a peaceful, wealthy and safe society?

Why would the people follow laws even those who write them don’t? Every one of us is a hypocrisy detector and hypocrisy is the surest way to make people despise the law. As a lack of honor flows from the top down a society will increasingly only follow laws by force and threat. Whenever they believe they can get away with breaking a law they will. Once dishonor reaches the lowest rung of a society no amount of punishment will suffice. People will not be not safe in their own homes, business cannot be conducted, children are at risk, people’s oaths are meaningless and every chance meeting becomes a danger. Clearly, to allow the leaders of a country to become utterly corrupt, dishonorable, conniving and lustful for power, can only lead to human suffering on a national scale.

One way to tell how dishonorable your leaders are is to look around with open eyes. Do people need bars on their windows, are all children safe on the streets, can you look at a passerby in the eye, is poverty rampant? Corrupt leaders will claim all this is due to worthless, lazy and ignorant people, but will never look in a mirror. The Duke of Lu asked Confucius one day, how he could get the people to stop lusting after other men’s wives, stealing and murder. Confucius said, the duke could lead by example and stop doing those things himself. Shortly after that Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state in fear of their lives. Let the scales drop from your eyes and really see.

So you see, this is not a matter of hate of an individual or gotcha politics, it is a matter of justice and human suffering. If we allow our noses to be rubbed in the elite’s corruption, we have given our consent to the elite to be even less honorable, in doing so we sentence our children and grand children to a life of poverty, fear and tyranny. Just because you like a politician, is no reason to allow them to get away with blatantly breaking laws, laws you or I would be severely punished for. Such actions are those of children, sycophants and imbeciles. Say nothing, do nothing, and the US will join the ranks of other failed experiments in human governance like Rome, Athens, Sparta, etc… with the same catastrophic results, human suffering on a grand scale. To do nothing is to abet a crime against humanity, to do something, even if it is small and of little consequence, is to make a stand against corruption. The choice is yours, lay down and let the elite walk over you… or stand and push back. It may be too late to have an effect, since we have allowed our leaders to be villains for so long, but maybe not. Regardless, do you want to be hated by your own grandchildren for your lack of back bone, or be a champion for liberty, prosperity and equality?


John Pepin

In Government, Size Does Matter…

Sunday, June 26th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, as a matter of fact, that the farther government is removed from the people, the less it cares about the people and instead, it’s own power. At the city level you have some power, if you can muster several people to show up at a town council, but at national level you have to muster millions of people willing to act to effect your senators, how much more if government is taken to a supranational level? At a supranational level could government be coaxed to reflect the needs of all the people instead of the faction that keeps them in power, moreover, independence would be an impossible dream. Today everyone is talking about the possible dissolution of the European Union. In as far as, that supranational government and it’s pernicious bureaucracy is undermined, the better for humanity. As a free trade area it is a great idea… and that was where it should have ended.

A government that is so far from the people, those in it need bodyguards, is too far from the people. Think about it, does your state representative need a daily body guard? In most cases no. In those cases where they do, they are far removed from the people they “represent,” that only a select few get to meet and talk to him or her. Moreover, if they need a body guard, they probably done something to warrant a body guard. Those who have no or very little power over others never need a bodyguard. If government didn’t have such an outsized power to make, destroy or crush someone, or some business, government wouldn’t warrant the time to threaten… they wouldn’t need bodyguards. It can be reasoned then that the more a government official needs a bodyguard, the farther they are removed from those they represent along with they have too much power to effect the lives of others, negatively or positively.

Distance itself give a person a feeling of superiority, a feeling of superiority gives a human being a god complex. This is especially true, when the levers of power are shared, but by few. The responsibility for wrong decisions is shared, while the credit for right decisions or any decision that can be spun as right, can be taken direct credit for, even as all the cronies do too. How liberating, to be able to use humanity as a lab rat in which to try, this economic regulation or that experiment in immigration, without responsibility. No way that could go wrong, eh? Meanwhile, even as responsibility is shirked, negative consequences are averted. So, even if a government far removed from the people, constantly poked the people in the eye and called it ice cream… the people would have no way to do anything about it.

This is not because this party is good and that party is evil, nor that all representatives are bad people, there certainly are a high percentage that are bad people, but… they are all human beings. People are self interested. You are, I am, she is, and he is too, we are all self interested, that is a fact of human nature. Economists call us rational maximizers. We rationally maximize our outcomes in any given situation. So if a situation has very very strong incentives to act a certain way, even if that way is immoral, add to the incentives a strong disincentive to act in other ways… and a rational maximizer can be induced to sell their very soul. A government distant from the people will always have those pernicious incentives and disincentives.

The supranational governmental structure of the European Union itself not only creates distance from those it is supposed to represent, but in and of itself, creates a regulatory structure that hinders small businesses in a host of ways. This is a natural outcome of the pernicious incentives that our leaders are awash in. Those who can effect the outcome of an election can then effect the outcome of legislation to be on the winning side of that legislation. It follows that only those with money today can do that while those who have potential money, from an innovation they have have had tomorrow, cannot. As Milton Friedman said in Free To Choose… why improve your own quality and lower your price when you can go to government and get your competition shut down?

If the European Union is struck a mortal blow then so be it. Of course the elite who have suckled at the teat of the state for so long will not let it go without a fight. They have become so used to having no responsibility and acting without consequences, they will shriek and wail, at the very though of having to sidle up to the unwashed peasants, they represent. The fact they appear to be in such a panic shows either they are so gullible they believed their own hype, else a conniving that would make a conspiracy lover wince, because this referendum was known about for years… so why didn’t the elite prepare plans for this contingency? Adding weight to my assertion, Government close to the people is best, the farther government is from the people, necessarily, the less power it must have, in relation to the distance of the governors.


John Pepin

Our Machiavellian Elite

Monday, June 20th, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


John Pepin

Tragedy’s First Cause

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to exploit tragedy for personal gain is callous, to create a tragedy so one can exploit it… is downright evil. Those who are so dead inside they are willing to create the conditions where tragedy is impossible to avoid, know that most people don’t look beyond last cause, certainly not following the chain of causality back to the primary cause. As such they believe their actions can go unreported and unknown. Of course some will point to the primary cause. Those diabolical people who created the tragedy to begin with, have only to claim anyone who is rightly pointing at the primary cause, or first cause, are conspiracy theorists, and the fiction the connivers are peddling can go on, while those who point at their malevolence are marginalized as cooks. Much evil in our world has been implemented in just this manner. As rational maximisers, we have to be aware that such manipulation exists and look beyond last cause to the primary cause, before we lay blame.

Causality is always a chain of events. If a building collapses, we can look at the rotten support that failed, as the last cause, or we can look at what made the member rot in the first place, the first or primary cause. A conniver might claim the primary cause was the building design was faulty to begin with, ignoring the fact it stood decades or perhaps centuries, before the rotten timber gave and the building collapsed. If all we look at is the rotten timber we miss the root cause of the collapse, namely, whatever rotted the timber in the first place. Someone who is intent on manipulating us to their own selfish ends loves this lazy tendency of humanity. They can create the conditions where a structural collapse is inevitable, say poking a hole strategically over a vulnerable timber, then when the collapse happens, demand they be given autocratic power to oversee all buildings or redesign them, “for our own good.” Few will look to the source of the leak and so their conniving will pay dividends.

If we as a people stopped falling for the conniving of evil people, instead punishing them for creating the conditions where human suffering is inevitable, the scheming would stop. Sociopathic individuals operate on a strictly egoistic basis. They care nothing for the suffering of others, and are all too willing to create suffering to benefit themselves, if instead their self interest was severely damaged, they would not engage in it in the first place. In some cases the conniver is a psychopath, and enjoys watching the suffering they inflict on mankind, that they benefit is a bonus to them. In both cases if we look only at where they point we will always be looking in the wrong place and in both cases punishing the conniver would yield benefits for humanity.

Anyone who says or believes, “Never let a tragedy go to waste,” is someone who should never be let anywhere near the reigns of power. By their very admission they are at the least callous individuals and at worst they are evil connivers. If we examine their actions and find that such actions led directly or indirectly to a tragedy, or a host of tragedies, it is clear they are sociopaths or even possibly psychopaths. To allow a psychopath or sociopath access to power is the absolute acme of stupidity. Moreover turning a blind eye to their conniving is not merely stupid but abets the crime. We owe it to our children to root out such nefarious, evil, egoistic people, from government else we and our children must suffer from our indifference, aid and willful ignorance. Always look beyond where the connivers are pointing, instead look to primary causes, did they create conditions where this tragedy is inevitable, if so them why, then act accordingly.

Crime requires a means and motive. If someone tells you they are going to kill you and rape your daughter, you don’t buy them the house next door, in hopes they will see that you are open minded and therefore befriend you, that would be idiotic. If your other neighbor buys them that house and helps them move in… when you are killed and your daughter is raped, it is as much the fault of that malevolent neighbor as the actual murderer and rapist. The conniving neighbor provided the means for the crime knowing the motive was there. When government does the exact same thing, then claims that to “protect you” they need to disarm you, force you to shut up, subject you to intrusive monitoring, while at the same time refusing to identify the criminal, you can be assured those in government are malevolent connivers intent on using human suffering to forward their agenda. The ends do not justify the means, no matter the ends, and especially where the ends and means are evil.


John Pepin

Normative Philosophy and Morality

Thursday, June 9th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, once you have accepted there is a God, and thus morality, the next step is to determine what is the right God, and thus right morality. It is obvious that worshiping an evil god will not result in a better life, for the worshiper nor their offspring, and to bow to a false deity, is as bad or worse than the hubris of atheism. So avoiding false morality, for true morality, is of utmost importance. To do that, we need a framework in which to place the commands of the various Gods, qualify them and weigh them for their inner morality. The philosophy of Pragmatism is ideally suited for just such a task. While Pragmatism is a normative philosophy, that can be applied to a plethora of complex human systems, in rectifying morality it shines. Moreover, as humanity’s recognition of true morality grows, so does the economic, scientific, cultural, civil and social conditions in which we live under.

Even atheists claim a knowledge of morality. They will always say, “I am moral, I donate…” What they don’t understand is that they are calling on God and his supernatural principles also known as… morality. They argue such because they know, a society, culture and the crime rate are based on the aggregate morality of the people. Most people know this to be true, but what goes deeper than many people understand is that morality is the basis for all sorts of things we would never associate with it. The level of scientific achievement is based on the morality of a people, the level of economic prosperity is morality dependent, the character of a nation ie. It’s propensity to war depends on it’s moral compass, etc… Morality is a much more important question for our self interest than it is ever given.

Pragmatism is a normative philosophy since it answers the question which is good and which is bad. The means pragmatism uses to find the good or the bad is to look at outcomes. It cares nothing for intentions, means, theory or abstract, it only looks at outcomes and therefore is experimental in nature. How to use pragmatism, we look at what has happened in the past when certain moral systems were in place. Next we qualify them by their economic, human, social, cultural and scientific outcomes. If some of those outcomes were good… then that system of morality had at least some good in it, if there was starvation, human suffering, tyranny, scientific backsliding, etc… we can reliably say that system of morality was bad.

Pragmatism can be applied to all sorts of complex human systems to gauge their good or bad. Economics lends itself. If we examine the moral outcomes of the various economic systems that have been tried, we can conclude… the feudal system leads to stagnation, slavery leads to an inflexible economy and socialism leads to famine war and want, while capitalism leads to scientific advance, economic prosperity and cultural equanimity. If we exclude the outcome based philosophy, instead adopting a system that takes intentions into account, socialism becomes the better option. If we assume a system that is based on tribal ties then slavery becomes ideal. Further, if we are beholding to authority, the feudal system becomes our favorite. The moral and economic system people choose as “good,” is often based on the system used to decide, what is good and what is bad.

Once we accept that morality is fundamental to our well being as a culture, society, scientific community, economy and way of life, answering the question of what is the right morality we as a society want to live under becomes paramount. The system of morality in vogue at any given time may, or may not be true morality, nevertheless the outcome of that system can point us toward true morality by it’s outcome. Intentions, group affinity, theory, calls to authority, etc… all lead in the wrong direction. The only way to reliably gauge the good or bad of a system is outcome, (experimentally) based. We can dream of ideals all day long but in the end it is the outcome that determines if a system is good or bad. So do we want to live under a throwback system of morality that leads to stagnation, famine, war, group affinity, or is destroyed by the cancer of idealism? If you don’t make the decision for yourself, what morality you want your children to be immersed in… then let your decision be head, others will be happy to make it for you… and your children and grandchildren will have to suffer the consequences.


John Pepin