Posts Tagged ‘Sophistry’

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

Debating a Crypto Marxist

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Immoral Deciding What is Moral…

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we live at a time where degenerates, liars and connivers have such undeserved moral superiority, they have the hubris and audacity to tell the rest of us what to think, how to act and who to vote for. Our society has moved so far from truth and reality it has become a house of cards in a gale. Those who dismiss all that is good have seized the education system, using it to inculcate our children into their twisted hateful destructive philosophy, teaching them theirs is true morality and God’s laws are immoral. How many children graduating from high school today dismiss out of hand traditional values and moors for progressive “values.” I bet far more than you or I would be comfortable with. The results can only be terrible for future generations.

Today common sense is considered hate by those who control what we see, hear and learn. They tell us that belief in God’s laws, like thou shall not kill, is outdated because unborn babies can be killed at any time for any reason. They protest that if we disagree with them, we hate, even as they vomit the most vitriolic rhetoric, calling Christians and Jews hate mongers for believing in our faith. The commandment thou shall honor thy father and mother is undermined every day in our media with fathers being attacked as stupid, lazy and drunk. Thou shall not steal is now old fashioned, in that the State is allowed to steal whatever and however much they want, to fund anti Christian and antisemitic policies and rhetoric, like feces covered pictures of the Virgin Mary, funding anti Semitic groups and piss Christ. We are convinced that Thou shall not covet they neighbor’s wife is crazy by every critically acclaimed television show, book and movie while television shows that honor family values have been eradicated from the air. In every way, every day true morality is destroyed by degenerates who impose their perverted values on us by law, regulation and political correctness.

Listen to the hypocrisy and rhetoric of progressives. They hardly ever complete a paragraph where they don’t say this or that is unconscionable. In fact Bernie Sanders cannot get through a sentence without saying it. Profit is unconscionable unless it is stolen from those who produce. They deplore cigarettes yet glorify drug use, they hate the police yet are up armoring the police and militarizing them as fast as they can. Guns are vilified, and the right to keep and bear weapons of self defense is under constant attack, yet powerful progressives always have personal armed guards. White people are called to admit innate racism and atone for slavery, that was banished with an ocean of American blood, yet call those who favor slavery and have sex slaves today as peaceful. Every time there is a mass shooting the first people blamed are liberty loving people until the real perpetrator, almost always a progressive is found to be the villain, yet their captured media call themselves unbiased. Morals like teaching your children to be self sufficient, work hard and be courteous, are under attack by those who think people should be dependent on government, lazy and rude, like progressives.

One has to wonder at how such a state of affairs came to be but the result is all too obvious. To be so certain in one’s morality that, the least moral feel an obligation to force everyone else to follow their perverted morality, whatever it is today, is diabolical. While progressives claim Christians impose morality on the rest of us… that is nothing but sophistry. While a christian might tell someone they are sinning, no true Christian would impose fines or jail to someone for homosexuality, producing blasphemous pictures or adultery, but Christians will help sinners when the consequences of their sins become manifest. In fact, Christianity teaches everyone is able to get to heaven, all that is required is a belief in Jesus Christ. Sins can be forgiven. Progressives believe that before they can go to heaven, they must force everyone to follow their morals, as Barack Obama said, Salvation is collective, as opposed to Christ who said salvation is personal. Anyone who teaches salvation depends on forcing another to submit, worships Lucifer rather than God. Perhaps that is why our world is going to hell…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Political Labels

Thursday, April 14th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a label only has utility when everyone knows what it means, as the meaning becomes ever more arcane, that label becomes more of a means to bring a scheme to fruition than to explain. Political labels have become nothing more than a means to obscure the workings, motives and means of politicians, which shows political labels have become obscured. When people are unable to discern the means, motivations and plans of politicians it is impossible to rationally choose who will be best in any given political office. As the ability of the electorate to make rational choices about who our leaders will be the ability of leaders to trick us is ever more easy. This circle will continue until no political label has any utility at all and the people are utterly befuddled about politicians, parties, platforms and even economics… as it has today.

Imagine how hard it would be to communicate… if red meant blue in Europe, red in South America, green in the US and brown in Asia. There would be no common reference. I could be talking about how good a red apple was, understanding the traditional definition of red, and people in Asia would be revolted at the thought of me eating brown and therefore rotten apple, people in the US would believe I liked unripe apples and people in Europe wouldn’t understand at all what I meant. Our frame of reference would be worthless. Communication would be impossible. Such a situation would lend itself to all sorts of misunderstandings and fraudulence.

Light is a powerful antiseptic that is why darkness is so favored by politicians. In the bright of day everyone can see everything, but in the dark of night, much is hidden. Those who seek to defraud others need some darkness else their machinations would be seen. Light and dark are not the only ways to hide things, language, slight of hand, mirrors, etc… are all ways tricksters have beguiled the masses. Scammers know this tactic well and use it every time they ply their trade. Most politicians are at heart scammers and so utilize misdirection, obscurity and outright lies all the time.

Terms like left and right no longer have any meaning other than as a dog whistle to alarm people. Calling someone a leftist in the US means something directly opposite in Europe, neither of which may have any bearing on the actual position of the person so labeled. A liberal in Europe is a free market advocate but a Marxist in the US. Progressive has had so many iterations since the first progressives polluted the American political system, the only actual definition one can derive from it, is a slow path Marxist, even that doesn’t describe them effectively. Political labels and terms have been so muddied up, intentionally so, that without an actual list of the positions of any candidate, along with their actual votes on various issues, their intentions, plans and positions cannot be know to any degree whatsoever.

Since we cannot, or at least are hindered, in our understanding of where our politicians stand on the various issues facing the world today, the democratic process is severely undermined. It becomes much easier to pick a team and vote for that team rather than make informed rational decisions based on past stances and present platforms. Today, a Soviet style Marxist can be called a socialist, progressive, left, right, conservative or liberal. A laissez faire free market advocate can be called right, left, neocon, libertarian, conservative, liberal, etc… It has become impossible to decide what a politician stands for anymore, from the labels given to our politicians, and so the democratic process has become a beauty contest on the radio.

How could it be easier to trick people into voting against their best interests than a beauty contest on the radio? We cannot fairly or accurately judge the merits of any politician without knowing what they stand for or have voted for in the past. If all we have to go on is propaganda, that the media that calls itself unbiased vomit in our ears, we are easily manipulated. Informed is the opposite of ignorant, without information that has a consistent frame of reference, ignorance is the only option, lacking hours of research into each candidate. How many of us have the time, inclination or energy for that? Clearly the perversion of our language has allowed connivers to obscure the realities of our politicians and therefore governments. So when you hear this politician is far right, left, conservative or liberal, you have heard… nothing.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The State of the Union

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, among the fictions in Obama’s state of the union address last night, two rise above the rest for their utter absurdity, the 8 million jobs number and his foreign policy successes. Obama is a politician not known for telling the truth, or even a twisted version of the truth, but last night he was in rare form. Most Presidents will massage their records to make themselves look better than they are, that is human nature, but Obama has the advantage of being a psychopath allowing him to lie without remorse. Our economy has seen the worst recovery after a deep recession under his stewardship than any previous President. Obama’s foreign policy catastrophes have been as epic as they have been calamities for humanity. On these two points alone he will go down in history as the most corrupt and inept President in American history. I pray that no one ever comes along who is worse.

When Obama came into office he inherited a deep recession. While most might think that would be a burden it is actually a blessing to an incoming President. The years directly after a deep recession always, (except for this last one) have a rebound effect on the economy. The depth of the recession is typically reflected in the height of the recovery. That is because recessions clear out the way for new innovators to create. Also most Presidents will turn their attention to economic recovery after a recession. Both of which lead to fast economic growth. Obama on the other hand instead of focusing on the economy honed in on destroying the health care sector.

Obama care has led to the destruction of full time employment. The incentives are so pernicious that any marginally profitable company must hire two or three workers, to do the work of one, else run afoul of Obama care’s negative incentives. The list is legion but a few highlights are, companies with more the 50 employees must provide Obama care, any worker with more the 38 hours must get health care, along with thousands of pages of regulations that drive up the cost to astronomical levels. These facts cannot be argued they are obvious for anyone to see. The economic results, despite record low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, for record time and still, 7 years into the “recovery,” are at absurdly low levels, has been one of bubble fueled misallocation of assets. Evidenced by the fact that 2016 has had the worst start to a new year ever on Wall Street.

What Obama care has done to our economy has resulted in the US becoming a part time work country. Most of the new jobs have gone to immigrants and men are virtually locked out of the workforce. That is why while so many new jobs have been “created,” the labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate, has skyrocketed. Dollar General pays very low wages and only hires part time workers. Instead of hiring three or four full time dedicated workers, (which under normal circumstances would be more efficient), that company hires dozens of part time workers for only a few hours a week, (due to pernicious incentives set by government policies), to avoid Obama care’s ridiculous costs. That is how warped the economic incentives are to businesses under Obama. Of course there are millions of jobs created, and all due to government action… everyone is working part time jobs! By any measure that is not good for workers, the economy or businesses.

Obama’s foreign policy record is even worse however. When Obama came into office the war in Iraq was won, Libya had given up it’s weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East was settling back down, Iran’s nuclear program was contained and Russia was becoming a trading partner. Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Obama’s best friend on the world stage, Erdogan in Turkey, has brought the US and Europe onto a war footing with Russia which could result in a nuclear exchange. Today Russia is active in the Middle East for the first time in decades, our allies there don’t trust us and he has made the US the laughing stock of the world.

Because of Obama’s policies, the Middle East exploded in the Arab spring, which Obama likened to the Islamic golden age. He supported the rise of the malignancy, the Muslim Brotherhood, the cancer that gave rise to every Islamic terrorist organization on the planet, in Egypt. Amazingly, his support led to widespread organized tyranny that was overthrown by the military, saving the Christians in Egypt from certain extermination. Of course Obama’s support of the Arab Spring has resulted in bloodshed on a massive scale, the rise of the Islamic state and genocide of Christians and Yazidis, the spread of terrorism around the world, an invasion of Muslims into Europe and the military and economic destabilization of the world. The only place Obama didn’t support the Arab Spring was in Iran. Under Obama’s watch the world has caught fire and in response Obama is dousing it with kerosene.

As Obama gave his psychotic speech last night 10 of our Navy personnel were in Iranian captivity. They have been released but the Navy ships remain in Iran. Obama has bent over backwards to sidle up to the psychopaths that run that Islamic republic. His “treaty” that is not a treaty, must lead to a nuclear armed Iran. Even the slowest among us knows a nuclear armed Iran will inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange, either with the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia. Obama has guaranteed us a nuclear war on the planet in our lifetimes. His foreign policy has made the world exponentially a more dangerous place.

The real villain last night however wasn’t Obama, but the fawning press that has hidden his failures, lifted him up and covered for his corruption, allowing him to get away with his psychotic lies. Even as they praise Obama’s crocodile tears while he goes after the Constitution they attack those who believe in liberty. Obama is a psychopath, but he couldn’t have achieved the destabilization of the Middle East, nuclear arming Iran, destroying our economy, and spreading terrorism around the world, without their willing help. Obama told them their job was to cover for him and they have taken up that yoke with glee. They fall all over themselves to cheer him on as he upends the world and when the chickens come home to roost they will claim they had nothing to do with it. But we know better.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Addiction to Government Spending

Thursday, July 9th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a heroin addict will not willingly stop taking heroin, until he or she reaches rock bottom. It is a matter of human nature. When someone is addicted to something, no matter what it is, the craving is stronger than the will. We might know in our hearts we should stop, we might understand with our minds that the addiction is killing us, but as the Greek referendum shows, most cannot fight their own cravings. The will is weaker than the desire. It has been said that our intellect is like a rider, and our emotions are like an elephant, the rider has some control over the elephant, but if the elephant desires to go one way, no matter what the rider does they cannot force the elephant to change direction. Moreover, our logic can desire to get something done, but the power to do it lay in the elephant it is riding. As to Greece, they are addicted to government spending, they feel it’s cancer spreading through the body economic, they understand it is killing their wealth and hopes, but they just cannot give it up. The example of Greece is one everyone should heed.

Government spending is like a drug, it seems harmless at first, it makes life seem better and once started it quickly becomes a habit. Those who become dependent on it, government employees, people on the dole, rent seekers, bureaucrats, cronies and oligarchs… realize their lifestyle would come to a crashing halt if the government was to cut spending. Moreover, government spending must be increased in order to get the same results. Eventually, like a drug destroys a human being, the addiction to government spending must destroy a nation’s economy.

Raising taxes to “solve” the spending problem is like increasing the dosage of heroin. It is always much easier to raise the dosage then to quit the drug. Ask any drug counselor and she will tell you the solution to a drug problem is not to increase the dosage, or the availability of it, the only solution is to quit cold turkey. That solution is never acceptable to those in power who are both pushers and addicts. To them, the solution seems obvious, take more money to plug the deficit the addiction to spending creates. We all know however, raising taxes never result in a plugged deficit, that “solution” is the path to self destruction.

Like a drug addiction, lowering the intake, or in the case of government spending, does nothing to stop the addiction, it only makes the cravings harder to resist. If small measures are taken to cut spending, say, cut funding for science research, is like an alcoholic changing to drinking only wine. It does nothing to stem the addiction but it gives the addict an excuse to keep the addiction going. Small cuts in peripheral spending are only ways to absolve themselves.

The addict will rationalize their addiction by saying she had a bad upbringing, he lives in poverty and the world is too unkind. In the same way, governments, and the people who are addicted to government spending, rationalize their addiction by claiming they are “helping the downtrodden,” the poor are incapable of surviving without a handout, how can you begrudge a bureaucrat a good salary, if you are against their addiction it shows you are a hateful person… The rationalizations are a numerous as grains of sand on a beach and just as abrasive to the body politic as sand is in a car’s engine.

Every drug counselor will tell you an addiction to drugs makes the person do things she would otherwise never do. Up to and including prostituting herself to get more heroin. Government is no different, that addiction to government spending creates such a strong incentive to corruption cannot be denied, but the addict will deny it to their death bed. A government that is addicted to spending cannot control themselves, like a little girl who must have Oxycontin, else she feels her bones are breaking, and will do anything to get it. They both justify their corruption to themselves… because they have to.

Once a people have become addicted to corrupt government spending and living off the work of others, even if they have eschewed that lifestyle for a long time, once it is started again, they go back to the level of addiction they had in the past. Like an alcoholic, if he is on the wagon for ten years, then takes one drink, he takes up where they left off and go back to being a raging alcoholic. That is why so many once great peoples and nations never seem to be able to get back to being great. The addiction to out of control government spending is too great for their will’s to overcome. Examples are legion, Greece, the font of democracy, is just one.

The best policy, like heroin, is to never open that door to start with. Keep spending and the size of government as small as possible, limit the role and scope of government to standards, and keep government from creating regulations, set strict limits on the level of taxation and back them up with real penalties for a legislature, executive or judiciary that violets them. Force government to avoid taking that first puff from the crack pipe, and you will go a long way to protect you nation and people from that terrible addiction, and addiction that must end in ruination. All spending however, even limited spending, is an incentive for more, and so all governments must eventually become addicts. It is the nature of humanity to be thus.

That government spending is like a drug is obvious, once you think about it for even a moment, but those who are addicted, like a heroin addict, will argue they are not addicts and become enraged at the mere mention of quitting. Cutting spending a tiny fraction is only a rationalization, it does nothing to stop the addiction, but only makes the addict believe he can control it. The reasons for government spending are innumerable, just like the reasons a heroin addict has to rationalize their addiction, but in the end are mere sophistry. Sadly, once a great nation has become addicted to government spending, that nation and people will always be addicted, no matter how long they have been on the wagon. The only way to stop an addiction from ruining a human life is to stop cold turkey, the only way for a government to really solve the economic problems that an addiction to government spending creates, is to cut government to the bone. Unfortunately, no government once addicted, will do that until the economy comes crashing down. Like Argentina, once they get back on their feet, they put the needle back in their arm the first chance they get.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Progressive Reaction to the Attack in Texas Says More About Progressives than Terrorists…

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the recent attack on a free speech rally in Texas and more importantly, the reaction of the progressive unbiased media about it, show the depths progressives are willing to go to forward their agenda of total societal, economic and cultural collapse. Sounds nuts to say progressives seek the collapse of our civilization eh? It might… if you never listen to their rhetoric, observe their actions or understand the historic results of their policies, sadly, most people don’t. As I have written before, most people would rather believe a glittering lie, than an ugly truth, and many will actively try to shut up those who speak an ugly truth. So what we have is a people who are unwilling or perhaps unable, (due to the absurdly indoctrinating school system), to comprehend the very real danger our elite pose not only to us, but to our very civilization.

The progressives in media maintain a constant diatribe vilifying the victims of Islamofascist attacks for a decade now. Britain denies Pamela Geller a visa, because they claim her message is dangerous, but the message of Islamofascists… calling for the violent overthrow of Britain and the West, the subjugation and eventual extermination of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, isn’t? Today the call has gone out that those in Garland had it coming, which is essentially the same as claiming a rape victim had it coming, because she wore a short skirt. They demand we must not criticize those who openly avow the slaughter of Christians and the destruction of the West, and call for climate change deniers to be jailed for their opinions, which is clearly a direct assault on free speech, all the while proclaiming their love of free speech! Anyone who claims others cannot criticize a philosophy, by definition, must be allied with that philosophy, and so they too must also want those measures. Their rhetoric tells more about them and their intentions, than all the articles ever written, if only people would actually listen and comprehend their words.

Fabian socialists have as their foundational philosophy, that the world needs to be heated to the point of melting down, so they can reform it in a way that more suits their desires. That is not hyperbole but their own doctrine! I ask you… what would heat the world to the point of melting more than the resulting clash of religion, culture and society, the Islamofascists, (and progressives) advocate? The modern progressive movement is based on the Fabian socialist model. They don’t believe in the revolution to usher in socialism, which is where they break ranks from the Marxists, but a slow progress to socialism. They care nothing that socialism has always resulted in millions of deaths by starvation, death squads, and war. In their minds, the ends justify the means, moreover, most don’t believe that socialism has ever really been tried. The bloody history of the twentieth Century be damned.

The rhetoric from progressives in the media, government and academia are uniform in their condemnation of western values, western economics and western history. They despise our morality and attack it in every way and at every chance. To be ignorant of that requires a person be intentionally blind to what is right in front of them. Progressives hate free speech, but know they cannot openly say it, so they hide their intentions by saying, they love free speech but… you can’t offend certain groups. They love freedom but, it has its limits, they love the poor and hate the wealthy, even though they are the wealthy and their policies create more poor, free republics are run by imperialists and empires are run by freedom loving tyrants… the list of newspeak is endless. Their duplicitous rhetoric would make INGSOC blush.

Most people only want to live their lives in peace and make a buck or two to save for old age. Most are too busy to really observe what is actually happening around them, and so, whenever someone tastes an ugly truth, they spit it out and when someone else offers them glittering lies, they gobble them down. Glittering lies are like lead oxide however, it tastes sweet, but is poison. Moreover, to believe those ugly truths requires action, and who has time for that? What truth could be more ugly, than to hear the elite actually seek the destruction of the western way of life, to be replaced with a world wide socialist tyranny?

Those in the media that calls itself unbiased, and progressives in all political parties, love to claim anyone who listens to their words, comprehends the results of their actions and understands the historical precedents of their policies, is a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. Yet they make the most absurd conspiracy theories up, like Hillary Clinton’s vast right wing conspiracy, conservatives hate the poor, anyone who disagrees with them are haters, the Koch brothers are evil, aliens started life on Earth, etc… Progressives have the most insane ideas, and if you think of it, wouldn’t the ideas of anyone who seeks to destroy our civilization, the civilization that has resulted in the most prosperity for the most people, unprecedented technological growth, coupled with the most liberty the world has ever known… have to be nuts?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Exploiting the Suffering of Children for Political Ends…

Monday, April 27th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, everyone’s goal should be… to have every child brought into this life, loved unconditionally, nurtured to reach his or her full potential and have their material needs met to present US standards, no matter the situation one is born into or where they are raised. All human hearted people want this to be a universal paradigm. Those who argue, as a matter of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with the path they call for to meet this laudable end, is against children, is being ignorant at best and conniving at worse. This should be obvious to everyone, but the lie propagated by the media that calls itself unbiased, that if you disagree with new class socialists you want children to suffer, is as much in vogue today as it was when Marx made it. Such a viciously underhanded argument is simply a means to shut down debate, and in fact creates the conditions where children will be born into poverty, lack opportunities and grow up unloved.

It is patently evil to want any child born into poverty, unloved and without opportunity. Only the most vile human being possible would want that, yet progressives use that argument in a myriad of ways, to discredit those who honestly seek to improve the lot of children across the planet, showing progressives, socialists and Marxists to be people who are willing to exploit the suffering of children, to meet their political goals. If you exploit the suffering of someone to meet your own ends, by definition, you cannot care about those you exploit, you only care about the suffering you are exploiting. I would think anyone with the reasoning ability of a house fly could figure that out for themselves but such spurious arguments have worked wonders for decades.

This fallacious argument, that libertarians and conservatives seek the suffering of children, is everywhere. False analogies fill the press, Facebook and Twitter. The convention is simple, point to some sad statistic about children then draw a false analogy to some action the new class wants to stop. “Childhood homelessness has increased X percent in the last five years and the republicans are doing Y…” where X and Y have no logical correlation, only an emotional connection, is a perfect example. If you think about it even for a moment it should become obvious… the person making that argument is exploiting the suffering of children for a political end.

The argument works though. Even though it is clearly exploiting the suffering of children for political ends, and therefore shows the arguer to be vile, hateful and power hungry, it works wonders to shut off debate, allowing the vile, hateful and deceitful to have their way. For this to work however, the lot of the children must never get better, only deteriorate. If we glance at the results of those who have made this argument, that libertarians and conservatives must hate children because they don’t support the usurpation of Constitutional rule, you see that the longer progressive policies are in place the more children are born into poverty, suffer little or no opportunity and live unloved. But then again, those who exploit the suffering of children for political ends, don’t care at all about children, only power and wealth, and the more the children suffer the stronger their spurious argument.

The evil of socialists, Marxists and progressives, is shown clearly for anyone with their eyes open. Variations on the theme are used to justify a plethora of evil policies, abortion for example… because would you want to be born into a life where you are unloved, abused and have no opportunities? If you are against the evil of abortion then you must want children to suffer… and the lot of humanity is lowered another notch, while the socialist amasses more power. Those who lower the standard of living of children, then claim anyone who stands against their policies hate children, are a special kind of evil. Heartless, greedy, lustful and gluttonous people, they prove it every day, by their policies and their arguments. To fall for such scams is not only ignorant and shows a lazy mind, but since the sophistry is so obvious, it also takes a sort of complicity that blackens the faces of those who accept it. Do you?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Shall Not Be Infringed

Monday, October 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The “Greater Good…”

Monday, October 6th, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, whenever someone claims something is for the “”greater good”.” it is always for their personal good and against the best interest of the rest of us. Connivers always use such deceptions to get us to act against the interests of humanity, by appealing to our humanity. When humanity is used to lower the lot of Man it is patently evil. This type of falsehood is evident in much of the propaganda we see and hear every day. Politicians calling for banning guns, separation of church and state, censorship, more redistribution, etc… The meme is always that it is for the “”greater good”,” while nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who are human hearted must always be on the lookout for connivers, who appeal to our humanity, to lower the lot of Man, else we become unwitting pawns of evil.

 

Most people want to do the right thing. We often get caught up in bad things from our impetuosity however. Those who scheme for power know this and exploit those qualities to manipulate us. When they do, and we go along, we become unwitting accomplices in the lowering of our own standard of living, while ceding arbitrary power to evil people. Our desire to help others, coupled with our innate impetuosity and laziness, combine to make us very susceptible to this type of manipulation.

 

Calls for banning guns is one such example. Those who seek to disarm the general populace always arm themselves and their cronies to the teeth. This leaves the rest of us at the mercy of those without mercy. The more we are maneuvered into giving up our guns for self protection the easier it is for a usurper to seize power by the violent use of force. The US Constitution guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against potential tyranny. The framers of the Constitution understood all too well the propensity of the elite to abuse any power that is given them, and the people’s Right to self defense was to apply equally to an out of control government, as to a murderer. The violent despots however argue it is for the “greater good”… peace.

 

Separation of church and state is another spurious argument that calls for the “greater good”, while actually separating us and our children from the font of goodness, and brings us closer to the pit of despair. Why would someone who is an atheist do good works if there is no God, punishment or afterlife? There is no reason to, why not just live for today? Moreover, why do good at all since the very concept of goodness is based in religious philosophy? Abolish Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism and the source for any incentive to do good works is gone. Now that the pernicious intolerant meme of separation of church and state has become ingrained in the zeitgeist, the diabolical elite are moving it a step further, of freedom from religion. The elite are systematically banning Christianity, the philosophical foundation of the US Constitution, our Rights and the reason we are essentially good people. In their intolerance of religion and goodness, they pervert right into wrong, and wrong into right, all by appealing to the “greater good”… tolerance.

 

The Internet has been a boon for free speech. The monopoly of information that the new class progressives once had has been demolished. We are awash in information, information that would never have seen the light of day when the exclusive control of all information, was from the new class progressives at ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. The new class is fighting back with subtle, (and some not so subtle) demands for censorship. The British government has openly called for the silencing of “nonviolent extremist speech.” But notice who is called extremist today. Tea party conservatives are called extreme by the new class elite not violent Islamic terrorists. We are supposed to believe, those who follow the law and want government follow our Constitution are extreme, and those who wish to overthrow it by force, if necessary, are mainstream. The elite’s desire to exclude anyone who is not on board with the Fabian socialist/progressive agenda from the marketplace of ideas, is just another call to the “greater good”… inclusiveness.

 

This is why when someone appeals to the “greater good” our radar should go off. Those who actually seek the “greater good” never demand from others, they do it themselves, connivers demand from others that which they refuse to give up. Hypocrisy is the bailiwick of such people. They call for the rest of us to give up our sovereignty while they demand arbitrary power, they look teary eyed into a camera and argue it is for our own good to give up guns while they surround themselves with well armed bodyguards, they claim we are too demanding if we ask them to follow their own laws because their laws are too hard to follow… for them. They argue Christianity should be removed from the public square, while imposing a diabolical agenda that calls evil good and good evil. All the while, they seek exclusive control of information, to render us incapable of mounting effective arguments against their perverted agenda. Done by calls for us to destroy ourselves, our children and our society… all for the “greater good”.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin