Posts Tagged ‘redistribution’

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.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Struggle Between Liberty and Tyranny…

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Banks and Government Stealing Our Savings

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, government and Too Big to Fail banks, (TBTF) are colluding to steal from retirees. Now that is quite an allegation isn’t it! Imagine how bad it would be if it is true? That would mean government officials are so corrupt they are so corrupt they steal from hard working people, who have gone without so they could have some savings for their retirement, not only that but that government officials are so bereft of any decency at all they would rob those who live on a fixed income, indeed stealing that very income itself! If a private citizen were even accused of such a thing, the cost in legal expenses alone would be astronomical, so much so it would probably devastate their savings as well as future earnings. What about the executives at the TBTF banks? Imagine how evil they are if this is true? They make millions of dollars a year as the agents of the stockholders, the principles, specifically to protect the agent’s interests. Such malfeasance by a plumber would land the criminal in jail for decades. So, let’s look at the evidence, open and available for all to see, and judge for ourselves if this allegation is true.

First a little history. During the 2007-2008 financial meltdown, the banks that were considered too big to fail were given billions of taxpayer dollars, to bail them out of the catastrophic decisions they made, leading up to the financial calamity. Those same banks had lobbied congress to eliminate the Glass Steagall act, that forbade banks from using customer deposits to bet on risky ventures, the very same risky ventures that caused the crisis, several years earlier. When the risky bets went bust, taxpayers, in other words, hard working people living paycheck to paycheck, had to pay higher taxes to save people making millions of dollars a year as the executives of those banks. Look at how those executives have paid us back…

Of course, government had a hand in the crisis as well, the democrat controlled congress forced banks to make loans to people who had no means of paying the loans back, because not doing so would be racist. The big banks had to protect themselves so they grouped good loans with bad ones, chopped them up into pieces parts and sold them as derivatives. (A part of a financial product sold as an investment). They were called mortgage backed securities, (MBOs), or put another way… collateralized loan obligations. Since a bunch of loans were bailed together, the bankers and government overseers thought the good loans would keep the securities from failing, and the banks could make a tidy profit as well. When the housing market collapsed, no one could tell which MBOs were sound and which were worthless, and so the value of those securities could not be measured, since so many banks had them listed as assets, and those assets could not be quantified, the banks went bankrupt.

Since the “great recession” the security and exchange commission has found numerous acts of wrongdoing by the TBTF banks. Each time, no one was criminally charged but the bank was charged billions of dollars in fines. Those banks would then engage in further fraudulent activities, get caught, and fined again. Deutsche bank is facing a $14.000.000.000.00 fine, thats fourteen billion dollars, as I write this, Wells Fargo is under investigation for opening fraudulent accounts and charging their customers hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent overdraft fees and other fees, once again, no one is facing jail, only a huge fine by regulators, the same regulators who allowed MBOs and forced the banks to give loans to people because of race, to prevent racism. Every year the TBTF banks pay the government billions of dollars in fines for fraud, price manipulation, etc… Moreover, The economy requires zero interest rates else it would collapse instantly, as evidenced by the Federal Reserve’s reticence to raise interest rates even a point, which is another form of theft from savers, who don’t get interest for their hard earned savings, while banks loan that money back to us at 3-10 percent.

The executives at those banks however never face criminal charges for even the most heinous crimes, MF Global stealing money directly from customers segregated accounts, for example. Since it is obvious that if a criminal is not charged and allowed to skate, he or she will do it again, that is simply human nature. If you are allowed to rob a bank with impunity no matter if you are caught, what is the incentive not to? It is obvious that if government wants the criminal actions to stop they would charge, try and jail the wrongdoers, since the government always, and I mean always, give the criminals a pass, it is only common sense the government wants the criminal actions to go on. If your child draws on the wall with crayons, and you don’t punish her telling her she is an artist, she will continue to draw on the wall, because you have encouraged her.

So who is actually punished when the TBTF banks get fined billions of dollars? The executives still get their fat bonuses, in fact the executive in charge of the division the was caught fraudulently opening accounts in customers names, then charging the customers hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent fees, just retired with a fat bonus of $125,000,000, yes, that is one hundred twenty five million dollars, so no sane person could argue the executives, the people doing the crimes, are punished, in fact they are rewarded handsomely for their criminal acts. To understand who gets punished, one has to look at the result of the fine. The investigation lowers the stock value of the company, as when Goldman Sacks was fined recently, and they lower the amount of money the bank can pay shareholders as dividends. The people who hold the stock are the ones punished, by a diminishment of their investment, and lowering of the return on that investment. Who holds stocks in TBTF banks? Retirees. Probably you too if you have a 401K or do business with one of those banks.

What we have then, is a government that encourages criminal acts, overtly and subvertly, then profits from those criminal acts, which is the definition of collusion. We also have the executives at the TBTF banks, who get rewarded by those criminal acts, in increased bonuses for the “enhanced profits,” and when the charges are filed their bonuses don’t go down. Those crimes steal, not only from shareholders, but from customers as well. Since not one red cent of the fines is ever returned to the victims of the crimes, the customers, nor the indirect victims of the crimes, the shareholders, it follows that the government is not fining the wrongdoers to protect or recompense the victims, but for profit. Therefore… it is a great con game being played on the American public, to defraud us of our hard earned money several ways, by directly stealing by fraud from our savings accounts, eliminating interest on our savings, lowering the value of our investments and taking directly from our dividends, transferring that money to uber rich new class executives and government. Ever wonder why the new class always wants government to have more power? Crony crime pays, very very well…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Thursday, September 22nd, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Our Sick Economy

Thursday, September 15th, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when someone is coming down with an illness, initially the signs are slight and not too bad, later when the symptoms become worse they can be alleviated by aspirin and other medications, the worse the symptoms the stronger the medications needed to mitigate them, but when the illness hits with full force it can no longer be mitigated by medication and the body dies. Today the world economy is sick, the initial signs were ignored, so it has got to the point the strongest medication available is being used. Up to now, the symptoms have been mitigated by Keynesian principles, stupendous amounts of money printing, government debt spending, monetizing government debt, negative interest rates and central banks are even buying corporate bonds and stocks! From our own experience we can tell how bad a disease is, by the drugs used to treat it and when the morphine drip of monetizing the debt is used, pretty much all hope is lost. The chemotherapy of QE, Twist, negative interest rates etc… have lost their effectiveness and the illness has spread.

Using the right drugs to treat any disease is critical. Penicillin is wholly ineffective against malaria and quinine has no effect on strep throat. The Keynesian prescription is always spending, add to that the monetarist prescription of money printing, and you have the “universal” cure for every economic ailment. Of course not all ailments are the same. Just as strep throat is different than malaria the reasons economies falter are different. Moreover, if a single drug is used too much it looses it’s effectiveness and becomes inert, like the Keynesian prescription. Keynesian economics is the fall back position of every government since John Maynard Keynes described it. Like penicillin however, it has been used too much and for illnesses that it is unfit to cure, and so the overuse of Keynesian economics deficit spending has made our economies immune to the effects.

Some drugs only mask the symptoms of disease. Pain killers are an example of this type of drug. They mask the pain but have no effect on what is causing it. In fact, new studies have come out that show opiates actually enhance a person’s feeling of pain, if they are used too much. Monetary stimulus is this type of medication for an economy. It masks the underlying problems. Money printing makes the stock market and bond market appear to sail. That rise in stock valuation however only hides the problems. People understand the disconnect, like when an injured person looks down at his broken arm, but feels no pain because he has been given morphine. He sees the arm is broken, he knows it should hurt but the lack of pain confuses him. If another person isn’t there to render first aid, the victim will likely damage himself far more, from using it due to his lack of pain. Masking a problem only makes it worse especially if what caused the problem in the first place is not addressed.

To argue someone is doing well, even as they are on Keynesian life support and the morphine drip of money printing is being used, is to argue up is down. The media that calls itself unbiased knows if the true state of our economy were widely known, the faction they prefer would loose in a landslide, since they cannot allow that, they are pulling out all the stops to argue up is down. The media cherry pick data, and polish it before they deliver it to us, protecting their favored faction. The more they get caught manipulating data the more they do it. Like a witch doctor, his dancing and waiving a chicken leg over someone with cancer might be entertaining and have a placebo effect, in the end it will have no effect on the outcome, only possibly the duration.

Regulation is like poison, in small enough amounts it has no great harm and can even be beneficial in some cases, too much and it becomes toxic and perhaps even deadly. Our governments have been introducing regulatory poison into our economy since time immemorial. Since the effect of poison is to create illness where there otherwise would be none, the elite need to mask the symptoms of the illness they have created by regulation, crony capitalism, and corruption, even as they inject ever larger doses and more deadly poisons into our economy. The way to save a person who has been poisoned is first to stop poisoning her and then get the poison out her system, by chelation or by introducing an antivenin.

What we have is a sick economy… it has been sick for many decades and the illness has been metastasized by Obama’s policies. We have witch doctors, the media that calls itself unbiased dancing and waiving a dismembered chicken leg giving false hope, there are “doctors” who have only read one book and their only tool is a butter knife, performing open heart surgery, as we are being plied with heroine to mitigate the pain, and the patient dies a slow and lingering death. Our economy has been poisoned by government actions and so cannot recover until the right medications are used in the right amounts. Just as heroine will not heal a broken leg and can lead to the worsening of it by continuing to use it, masking our economic problems with money printing only makes them worse, because there is no incentive to stop poisoning our economy. We have progressed beyond the initial stages where lethargy, slight pain and muscle aches… through the open sores, crushing pain and high fever to being hospitalized in intensive care. Isn’t it time to stop poisoning our economy and use different medications?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Input Plus Reaction Equal Outcome

Thursday, September 8th, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Evil Bourgeoisie

Thursday, August 11th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is some misconception of what the term “owners of the means of production,” actually means. This is important because more often now than in the past, we find ourselves debating a Marxist, Keynesian or half wit, and we hear the term bourgeoisie and think Marxism, but don’t realize that the owners of the means of production is the definition of bourgeoisie, nor the true depth of the meaning of the means of production. If we don’t have Marxist terms, their definition and the magnitude of the ideas fixed fast in our heads, we are at disadvantage in debate, even though we have the empirical truth on our side. Remember, words have emotional undertones, they make you feel things, and Marxist words are often both a description and an insult, so knowing the insult and the emotion it is supposed to raise in the onlookers is power, because you never debate someone to change his or her views, you debate someone to change the views of the audience.

Bourgeoisie is an emotional term it packs a punch and it hits you in the gut. We are programmed to think, evil guys, whenever we hear that term. Those of us who are more indoctrinated have an even more visceral loathing for the bourgeoisie. “They are those evil people who run everything and have all the money and all the power,” might be what goes through your mind when you hear that term. Notice how it is so often used as a pejorative? “Filthy bourgeoisie…” Everything we are taught by the media, the government monopoly schools, our culture and society programs us to feel that way. After all, the bourgeoisie are the enemy, they stand in the way of perfection, harmony and changing human nature for the better.

The bourgeoisie or, the owners of the means of production, is an economic term created by Marx to describe all the people who own any tool whatsoever. If you have a table saw in your shed, you own the means of production, if you own stocks through your IRA or 401K, you are the owner of the means of production, if you own a machine shop, guess what, you are the owner of the means of production, but you know what, if you are the CEO of a publicly traded company, you are NOT the owner of the means of production, if you work in government in any of it’s manifestations, you are not an owner of the means of production, and if you are a lobbyist, lawyer, banker, doctor or journalist, you are not the owner of the means of production, (unless you have set of side tools in your basement or a well financed 401k). If you own a store or are a middleman, you are the petite bourgeoisie, the enablers.

Think of the implications. If jack has a wood shop that he sometimes uses, he is the owner of the means of production, in that he can produce a thing by way of the tools he owns. Even a hand chisel counts because it can produce goods. The means of production are not limited to auto factories and computer chip campuses, anything that can produce a thing is the means of production. The CEO of Ford Motor company, in the scope of his job is not the owner of the company, he is the caretaker of the company for the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the means of production in this case. Usually the CEO will be given stock in the form of an option to buy at below market price, as a way of creating emotional bond and give him a financial stake in the outcome of the company, but he is not the owner of Ford. The CEO is an agent of the owners who are the principles.

Have you ever wondered why those taxes that were supposed to hurt the rich bourgeoisie only seemed to hurt you? That is because the people you have thought of as bourgeoisie, are not the bourgeoisie but the new class, you are the bourgeoisie. Wealth today is far less dependent on producing things people need and want and more about manipulating… sifting money, slip and fall, managing someone else property, regulating everything and who your friends are, are far more important today. Ever thought it strange the richest of the rich favor the most socialist policies, policies that make it ever harder for the evil rich bourgeoisie and ever easier for the virtuous new class, that is because you are the evil bourgeoisie. When a billionaire tells you he is for damaging the rich… he is lying to you, to really do that he would have to damage his own self interest, and it is not in human nature, now or ever, to do that. Shortly after Obama was elected, the billionaire Warren Buffett complained it unfair that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, so Obama fixed it, Obama raised the secretary’s taxes and gave Buffett a monopoly on oil traffic from Alberta to Texas. Now that’s redistribution! Remember, Warren Buffett runs Berkshire Hathaway, the shareholders own it…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Which is More Just, a Free Market or Socialism?

Monday, July 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we can argue all day long whether a zebra’s stripes are black, or white, but at the end of the day we still haven’t answered whether a zebra is an equine or not. In the same way, progressives and free market proponents argue about whether profit is good or bad, but that misses the point, in reality everyone seeks profit, both the capitalist and the socialist, the real question is, whether profit should come from providing value to your fellow man or at his cost? Those who contend that profit is good, know their’s is a weak argument weighed on it’s inherent merit, so to change the subject is a way to seize a moral high ground they have no right to, and keep their real position from being known, let alone discussed on it’s merits. So we fight and wrestle, vilifying each other over such weighty questions as, “are a zebra’s stripes white or black?”

Progressives claim the market system is based on profit, and profit is greed, and greed is bad. Therefore, they further contest, the market system is bad. Both Marxists and capitalists seek profits however. Socialists seek profits as much as capitalists. The socialist however, as opposed to a capitalist, seeks profits for nothing. What do you think the public dole is? The dole is nothing more than a profit to the recipient. The dole however, is not based on providing for your fellow man or woman, it is based on one’s existence. If the dole is a form of profit, and we see that it so obviously is, they are condemned by their own argument, progressivism, socialism and communism are based on greed… and are therefore bad. But that is arguing on progressive’s terms.

The real question is, is it more just to get a profit for providing value or not? The socialist side stands that it is unjust to “force” people to provide value to another for profit. They contend it is more just if we provide profit to others free of charge. This is what we should be discussing, not whether profit itself is good or bad, that is as I have shown merely a diversion. To answer that question we must first answer what is justice. The modern interpretation, since the Enlightenment is… equal treatment. Even a child innately knows justice and demonstrate it when they say, “It’s not fair!” The justice of a child is not equal justice however, because a child lacks the ability to be objective, that is a learned trait. That is exactly the root of socialism however, the demand of a petulant dependent incompetent child, to get one’s needs met.

The free market’s means for getting profit is to meet a need of someone else. Providing value in and of itself, is a good of the first and second order. A good can be broken into two types, a good we do for it’s own sake; (the first order), and a good we do because it staves off a bad; (the second order). Brushing your teeth is a good of the second order in that we don’t do it for itself we do it to stave off tooth decay. Skiing is a good of the first order, for those who love to ski, since it is a good we do for itself. Providing value for profit is both types of good. That providing value for one’s profit is a good of the first order is embodied in the old saying… “Choose a job you love and you will never work a day.” Regardless of the value as career advice, that saying is true in that many people love their jobs and cannot see themselves doing anything else.

Providing value for profit is also a good of the second order, since the innate requirement to meet someone else needs to get one’s own bread incentivizes positive behavior as, courtesy, perspective, humility, sympathy and equal treatment. At it’s most basic level, the ancient tradition of the merchant, a merchant has to be able to see things from another’s perspective to provide what the customer wants and needs, she has to be courteous else risk the loss of sales and profit, he must be humble lest his supplier or customer go somewhere else, sympathy is a natural outcome of the ability to see from another’s perspective, and every incentive for a salesperson is to treat everyone equally, to maximize profits. As we can see, providing value is a good of both types.

Socialism on the other hand is not a good of either the first order nor the second. Human nature is not egalitarian, self sacrificing, or accepting of one’s “place.” Those attribute go against the demands of evolution. A species that self sacrifices is soon eliminated from the biosphere, eschewing saving up food is a sure path to starvation during times of want, and if not for the drive to get ahead of one’s competition one falls behind in that competition, in the case of a species, that species goes extinct. Human nature itself is damning of socialism. To be a good of the first order socialism would spontaneously happen, as did skiing, due to it’s being a good of the first order, as the free market has. That it has only happened under extreme pressure from the state, shows socialism is not a good we would do for it’s own sake.

Getting profit for nothing also falls far short of a good of the second order. Getting profit for nothing incentivizes people to be rude, uncaring, egoistic, and discriminating. The best historical reference for someone who gets profit for nothing is the aristocracy of feudal cultures. The aristocrat could be as rude to the peasants as he or she wanted, they had no comprehension of the life of the masses, aristocracy is nothing if not egoistic, their profit was inherent to their existence. Moreover, at court, those with political favor were above the law, while those without were below it’s protections, because that enhanced the aristocracy’s profit. These same attributes are created by incentive in those who receive the dole. Not to argue everyone who receives profit for nothing is bad, as it is the case that not everyone who provides value is good. The incentives however over time impel either good attributes in people or bad ones, the more the bad ones the easier it is follow the crowd and adopt bad behaviors.

Taken on their own ground, that profit is bad, socialism condemns itself in it’s own words, moreover, when we consider the real argument between free market advocates and socialism’s adherents, which is more just… to get profit for nothing or for providing value, the answer becomes obvious. Providing value for others is a good of both the first and second order. The market forces equal treatment by the ever present threat of bankruptcy, plus, as a good of the second order it incentivizes people, over time, to treat each other equally, which both meet the fundamental definition of justice. Meanwhile, socialism is not a good of either type, creating conditions for unequal treatment of people along with a host of negative behaviors, showing socialism to be unjust. That socialist have obtained the moral high ground and advanced their position as far as they have, is because we have been accepting their premise and contending on their ground, arguing to the head of a pin, what color zebra stripes are, to answer the question of is that zebra an equine or not.

Sincerely,

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.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Pendulum Between Socialism and Capitalism

Thursday, June 16th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is a political pendulum that swings continually back and forth between socialism and capitalism, that pendulum is shown most clearly in the third world but is also apparent in the West as well. That political pendulum is driven by public opinion on the merits of both. Once a nation becomes relatively wealthy via capitalism there is always a movement to change to a socialist economy. Once the cancer of spreads sufficient, socialists are elected and begin to enact socialist policies. Once those policies are implemented… graft, corruption, poverty and outright famine take hold in a once wealthy country. The socialists however will not allow capitalists to get elected and wield power, so to change back to a market system there requires either a revolution, or criminal trials for the socialist elite. Once the government is under the control of capitalist, or to be more precise, politicians who favor the free market and liberty it provides, the economy becomes healthy again and the standard of living rebounds. The economy never achieves it’s former highs but the rampant corruption is dealt with, the suppression of economic activity subsides and some level of liberty is restored. Once the people become comfortable again, they vote socialists back in, and the cycle starts again.

Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Zimbabwe among others are perfect examples of this in action. In Argentina the profoundly corrupt socialists are facing criminal trials for their naked corruption. Politicians who favor free markets and liberty are back in charge, but only until they fix the economy and government, once they are fixed the people will again vote in socialists, as has happened over and over in Argentina. Venezuela is almost to the point of tossing out the socialists because they are at the bottom of the economic cycle. Basic needs cannot be met and poverty is as crushing as it is rampant. All in a nation setting on an ocean of oil. Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution has taken a relatively wealthy south American nation to absolute destitution. If he were still alive there would be executions in the streets of pro free market politicians. Rest assured however, the moment the free market repairs the economy and the corruption is rooted out of government, the people will again turn to socialism.

The US has just embarked on the socialist experiment. So far under Barak Obama it has been an utter failure. The media that calls itself unbiased is doing it’s job, as ordered by Obama, to protect him and forward the agenda. They have been good little toadies. Reporting on the economy is always rosy, despite the fact that interest rates have been held at an absurd level the entire span of Obama’s regime, US standing in the world has collapsed, terrorism has gone from an inconvenience to an existential threat and our debt to GDP ratio has never been higher, even during WWII. US manufacturing has seen 9 straight months of decline, a result not seen in over 100 years, (since Woodrow Wilson). Without recession. In fact by many metrics we have been in recession for years… but recession only happens when we are told by the elite we are in recession. The US is being overrun by people who come here illegally, have no intention of assimilating and pose a perpetual threat to the citizens. By every measure the US has dramatically declined under Obama’s march to socialism. Like an alcoholic however, the decline is ignored until we hit rock bottom, like one of Argentina’s many bouts with hyper inflation that gutted the middle class over and over.

This cycle is driven by human nature. People want to be comfortable and we want that comfort easy. It is all too easy to see the shortcomings of socialism when it has obliterated wealth, created famine and steeped the government in corruption, but once the government is free of corruption, there is economic prosperity and people have their needs met, the siren song of socialism tickles the ears of the people. Socialists will claim there is so much wealth it should be redistributed to those who need from those who have. The idea sounds great to those who want, but believe they need, so they will throw the gates open for the Trojan horse. Socialists appeal to our envy, feed our greed and fill our bellies with hate. The call for a more equitable distribution of the goods of society grows in volume and intensity until socialists get elected. The claim is that it will work this time because we have the “right” leaders. Socialists rely on the lazy, ignorant and foolish to gain power. Since free market politicians have as their core value, liberty, they allow free and fair elections, and so another experiment in socialism is started. One that will fail, like all the others, resulting in a diminished standard of living for everyone but the elite.

The cycle of socialism/capitalism is as destructive as cancer, unfortunately, human nature prevents us from treating the disease, as well as the constant drumbeat of propaganda from the media, that calls itself unbiased. Such a cycle is impossible to break as long as those who are in love with socialism control the government monopoly school system, the media, our universities, media, the legal sector and big business. That is why the new class so stridently oppose any reform of education like the voucher system, such reform would take thousands of children away from their indoctrinating centers, give them good educations and enable children educated in such a system, to engage in the market system. The results would undermine the cycle and therefore cannot be allowed. The results would feed back, and more people would seek economic improvement within the free market framework, laughing at the lies of the socialists. In short, the power of the new class must be reduced, and since that is nearly impossible, the cycle will go on. I call dibs on that slice of half eaten moldy bread, maybe I can even find some rancid butter to put on it…

Sincerely,

John Pepin