Humility Is Condensed Wisdom

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, humility and gratitude are characteristics our leaders lack. They then model these characteristics for the people to follow. Is it any wonder then that our society is bereft of humility and gratitude? The stupidity of arrogance replaces those virtues. Humility only benefits the humble just as gratitude’s primary beneficiaries are the thankful. Gratitude and humility create smart people. The humble don’t stupidly impose their will on others, as the thankful aren’t entitled. Meanwhile, those who are arrogant and entitled (the opposite of humble and thankful) harm themselves and everyone around them. This is the very definition of what Bonhoeffer called stupidity. Pragmatically then, the way to a better life for us and everyone around us is to be and model humility and gratitude.

The arrogant and entitled are the acme of what Bonhoeffer called stupid. An arrogant person has no need of other opinions, accepting someone else’s opinion would be showing subservience. This is tantamount to saying someone else might be smarter than I. This is something the arrogant will not do. Another characteristic of arrogance and entitlement are that self-absorbed people don’t notice when others are harmed by their actions. They don’t care. The mirror holds their attention all too well. This is Bonhoeffer’s stupidity in action. When was the last time you met an arrogant person who admitted a mistake? The hubris and ego of the arrogant will not allow such behavior. These and other characteristics make the arrogant and entitled suboptimal leaders.

Humility is a form of wisdom. The humble acknowledge that they are not immortal omniscient islands upon themselves. That understanding in and of itself is condensed wisdom. Why? The understanding that we are parts of a greater whole, yet individuals, allows us the perspective to see ourselves and others in a more nuanced light. Humility drains away arrogance, and so too the mistakes of the arrogant. A humble person doesn’t seek leadership… and so they are the most qualified to be leaders. This is because a humble person will accept good advice, set aside their ego for the betterment of all, and delegate authority willingly. These are the actions of wise leaders. Moreover, history shows this to be true. Confucius’ sage emperors ascended by merit, Numa Pompilius of Rome, and Solon of Greece.

The quality of gratitude is rare today since our leaders have modeled ingratitude so effectively to us for so long. The most blessed people to ever draw a breath do nothing but complain. This is not only ungrateful but absurd. Such people are entitled. They believe the world owes them. Therefore, such people don’t contribute. Why should they? The world owes them… they don’t owe anything to anyone. The result is that nations, cultures, and societies that lack gratitude also lack prosperity, freedom, and food. So you could say that gratitude benefits society, but it benefits the thankful far more. Those who are thankful also don’t dwell on negativity. That is the bailiwick of the entitled. This means the entitled are in constant self-imposed agony while the grateful live in self-imposed happiness.

It’s hard to be grateful and humble in a world run by the arrogant and entitled. We follow our leaders. That’s human nature. It’s up to us then to model humility and gratitude for others. Moreover, ridiculing arrogance and entitlement is pretty easy. They are made to be mocked. What is the difference between an arrogant person and a marble statue? The statue has more humanity. Ridicule has a way of changing behavior. Usually for the better. This is because ridicule tests behaviors. Therefore, if we use it against arrogance and entitlement, those vices will become less socially acceptable. Social acceptance is crucial for political power so socially unacceptable behavior is undesirable. This would drive the elite to model humility and gratitude… leading society to be as well.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

There is a coalition of nations called the EU,
Run by scumbags much dumber than glue,
An arrogant lot,
Solid as snot,
And the elite halfwits just don’t have a clue.

For the elite despotic rule simply enlarges,
Floating on taxpayer funded garbage barges,
Seeking just restitution,
Is vindictive prosecution,
But for you and I there are criminal charges.

There once was a culture toxic,
Making girls brains quite hypoxic,
An evil creation,
To destroy relation,
Teaching ideas so very paradoxic.

Power itself has a magnetic draw,
But human nature has a flaw,
Thrasymachus forsooth,
Learn this truth,
The politically favored are above the law.

Bonhoeffer said stupidity is a deadly maw,
Compounded by elites who are above the ___,
Believing absurdity,
Creating ______,
But legalism to a despot has a magnetic ____.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shanrang

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, at the founding of the US, the ideology was Confucian, Shanrang. By that, I mean to say that the founders thought that laws are a poor way to regulate people, so they should be as few as possible. Meanwhile, self-control is a far better way for people to order a society. Such a system, while efficient, doesn’t serve those who would rule. Legalism serves their interests far better. Clearly, those who seek office seek power and with the intent to use that power. So the type of person who seeks to rule will exploit the reins of power and manipulate the culture, institutions, and legal system towards legalism and away from Confucianism. I would further say that there are many other examples of “Confucian” societies. Rome, Sparta, and the “Sage Emperors” until Yu upended the system.

Confucianism is based on moral acting and self-control. This is exactly the philosophy of Christianity. Moral self-control leads to the best life. If people were perfectly moral, there would be no need of laws, and if people were perfectly immoral, no amount of laws will constrain them. Therefore, the optimum way to organize a society is by morality, not law. Shanrang is the idea of a merit based society that self-regulates by moral action instead of draconian laws. One advantage among many of this system as opposed to legalism is that correction is distributed, not concentrated. This makes for a high trust culture. Such a culture is always prosperous, safe, and desirable. These qualities feed back to the others and magnify them. Migration proves that people prefer high trust societies as well.

The United States used to be a high trust society and culture. After the Constitutional Convention, Franklin was asked what kind of nation they had created. To which he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” He and the other founders had institutionalized “Shanrang” that led to a high trust culture. Sadly, the elite are never trustworthy, so all high trust societies lose trust of the elite first, then self-discipline is replaced by legalism. Letters from and to representatives, senators, and their constituents used to be free both ways. That privilege was so abused by the elite that it was taken from everyone in a fit of outrage. Then once the corruption had been memory holed, the elite gave free postage back to themselves, but denied it to those who hadn’t abused it. It turns out the powerful can’t be trusted.

Those who seek office by definition seek power. In a republic with limited government, the power they desire is out of reach. This is because of the limited nature of such governmental power. So once they have power of any sort, they set themselves to corrupting the system. Their corruption requires more laws and less morality. Then the people follow their example and become corrupt… driving a need for even more laws. This cycle continues until Shanrang is replaced with full legalism. This is the system we have today. Some argue that Legalism is the ideal system. Shang Yan,g the Legalist, was convinced to commit suicide in jail just as the Emperor of Qin was about to adopt it. This episode shows the lack of wisdom of the legalists, as well as the outcome of that philosophy… despotism.

A return to Shanrang would require a collapse of the entire legalist system. This initial stage, collapse, is desired by those who would erase the last of the Confucian moralist system of the Enlightenment and US Founding Fathers… with a pure global legalist system. People who are guilty of the things in the Epstein files are not going to provide a wise, good, or virtuous example to follow. The answer is a return to Shanrang. Eschew collapse and instead, inculcate an ethical mindset in the youth, ridicule and mock the unethical into shame, and demand corruption be rooted out of government. Then limit government back to Constitutional limits. Let’s write off the entire progressive experiment and go back to what pragmatically works… limited government, ethical people, and merit.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

It’s not going as the brainiacs planned,
Their numbers are the waving of hand,
They might be slow,
Because you know,
That prices are set by supply and demand.

There once was a philosopher smart,
His ideas generally came ala carte,
He thought so deep,
His mind would creep,
And his ideas often smelled like a fart.

The swindlers are ringing the alarm bells,
Pointing at fear and exposing their tells,
A profitable gig,
A sly little pig,
And they do it because terror sells.

There once was a great one who saved mankind,
A sinless man stumbling stone and a rare find,
He died on a cross,
He could have been boss,
But his humanity and godliness made him too kind.

The stupid think there gods of a ____,
Dunning and Kruger not in their ____,
Distracting us for fate,
But we’ll have to ____,
For the new Eden promised to mankind.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

The elite chant in a crashing sound,
Give us power wealth and a crown,
We’re sitting high,
So step aside,
Because we’re riding this horse into the ground.

Corporations are always scanning,
Their competitors they are banning,
It may be forsooth,
But know this truth,
Monopoly is impossible without central planning.

They say our civilization thrives on diversity,
Especially at a think tank and elite university,
It’s not what they bought,
It’s the color of thought,
Because uniformity of opinion breaks complexity.

There once was a physicist crazy,
His math was always a bit lazy,
A lovely chap,
Taking a nap,
And his mind was often quite hazy.

The elite are heartless beasts made of lead,
Corporatists as Goebbels once slyly ____,
Not independent ________,
They’re nudge nudge winkers,
Who feed from the ideas of a _________.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

War in Iran

Dear Friends,

It seems absurd to go to war with Iran when we have squandered so many opportunities to topple the regime without firing a shot. It’s almost like not killing thousands of boys in war would be unfair or something. The elite favor each other far more than they do us. This discernment is based on actions, theory, and outcomes. Their actions are those of people who love war. They revel at wars starting and become despondent at their end. Elitist theory explicitly says the elite have more in common with each other than they do the people they rule over. This is despite the apparent political conflict. Pragmatically, intent is irrelevant, outcome is all that counts. Since the outcome of the elite’s actions is uniformly more war and conflict, pragmatically, war is the goal.

Right after the Iraq war, if the US deployed troops to the border of Iran and bivouacked them there… in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those troops need never fire a shot. Iran would have had to call up the entire army and place them at the border to face US troops. Then pay the enormous cost of maintaining an army in the field. That cost is economic, social, and political. That the US had no intent of invading… just looking like it was going to invade would have toppled the Iranian regime in under a year. Keeping an inducted army at high alert and in the field is economically brutal to a bankrupt regime. US troops, on the other hand, needed to be camped somewhere in Iraq… so why not at the Iraq and Afghanistan border with Iran. The lack of bloodshed is probably why they didn’t do it.

Instead of punishing the Persian people for the regime’s crimes, maybe it would be more efficient to punish the regime itself… politically. Sanctions harm the little guy but ridicule and banning from international organizations are delegitimizing. Did you know Iran is chairing a UN council on human rights? Such actions legitimize a regime that it is said has killed tens of thousands of protesters. Others say those killed were insurgents trying to overthrow the regime. Nevertheless, had Trump ordered the killing of tens of thousands of Americans, you can rest assured he would be indicted in the court of public opinion. Legitimizing a regime helps insulate it from the results of its mismanagement. So either the UN is stupid or wants a regime that supports terrorism across the world to stay in business?

During the recent uprisings, the rulers of Iran were hunkered down in their bunkers. At the time a small contingent of stealth bombers could have beheaded the Iranian regime with one strike. Then let the people sort it out. Another brutal solution would be to launch an airstrike against the Iranian parliament while the Ayatollah is speaking. This also would remove the ruling structure. Those solutions were off the table, however, because that could have led to war. So instead we go to war. The only legal (though immoral) way to remove a regime is to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent kids to get to the rulers. Then arrest the criminals and give them a good fair trial. Too bad those Persian and American kids don’t get a trial under that 150mm Howitzer shelling.

What else should we expect from the elite that the Epstein file proves are as far above the law as we are below its protections? Those emails are clearly between people who are the worst people to ever live. Why would such people avoid a war? They wouldn’t. That’s why eliminating the Iranian regime without firing a shot is off the table. Moreover, beheading the Iranian regime is unthinkable. Look what happened when Duke Ferdinand was assassinated? Forget the powder keg he sat on. So the elite say the only way is to amass huge armies, spending titanic amounts of money, and slaughter their way across a nation, to topple a regime that could have been toppled by cheaper means. I suppose that’s why we are stupidly going to war with Iran rather than toppling them smartly.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in International Power | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

They Thrive on Category Errors

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, progressivism, communism, and indeed any socialist ideology thrives in category errors. They look at one category of thing, then try to apply it to another. A factory and an economy are in a different category. Mentality and physicality are also different categories. Moreover, it’s obvious that applying a solution for the wrong category probably will result in further harm. For example, if someone has pneumonia, taking them skiing for emotional support might be a sub optimal solution. This category application error of central planning systems may be a bug or a feature. Imagine if you wanted to sow chaos to collapse a system, to rebuild it as you would prefer. Wouldn’t applying the wrong category of solution be an ideal game? They can claim to be “helping…” or they could be stupid.

Mental versus physical is a category error that has been forced on us by the elite. The new class has come to the conclusion, apparently, that if one has a mental illness, the solution is surgery to change the body to suit the mental illness. If that mentality changes, use the scalpel again. Their solution is elegant in that the mental illness need never be addressed and the surgery is very lucrative. Obviously, mentality is a different category than physicality. So the result of changing physicality to suit mentality is further harm. Just as psychotherapy is ill suited to cure tuberculosis. This category error has cost many youths their futures. It does however create chaos in the form of mass shootings, ruined lives, and all the other undesirable outcomes of untreated mental illness.

Confusing the categories of a simple system versus a complex system is classic. A factory, farm, or corporation is a simple system problem. A farm needs to do one thing and anything that leads to that singular outcome is a step up the slope of Mount Fuji. To a single optimized top. An economy on the other hand, is a complex system. There is no single point at which we should aim. Instead there are hundreds of small peaks. Reaching the top of one means others are neglected. A single point of control is only really able to aim at one thing at a time. The result is applying a single point optimization strategy against a complex system. Just as a factory without a manager is probably not going to be productive. This category error is historic, and is proven effective at generating poverty.

Law is a different category from morality but they are often conflated. What is lawful is often considered moral and what is unlawful is considered immoral. Moreover, mere application of law or not, teaches the people what the state considers moral or immoral. This is done by the decision to indict or not. Yet in some places slavery is legal and escape from slavery illegal. Would you say that is a moral law? In the US, we have been astonished by the Epstein files showing our elites are Satanist, pedophile, cannibals who are as far above the law as we are below its protections. This shows us that law and morality are utterly different things. Morality is a universal, defined by the Golden Rule, and law is defined by Thrasymachus… a tool for the strong to use to exploit and extract from the weak.

These are examples of category errors. Applying the solution that works in a factory is disastrous when applied to an economy. That’s because the category is wrong. Conflating the categories of law and morality numbs the minds of the victims to their victimhood. They believe their exploitation is just, because it’s legal. Imagine if the elite started saying that psychotherapy is the best solution to syphilis. It wouldn’t be long before the galloping crud was an epidemic. However, we are expected to accept that a scalpel will solve a mental illness? These all lead to chaos in a myriad of ways. It may be that the elite are simply stupid, and that’s why they so often apply the wrong category of solution, but then again, the Satanist pedophile cannibals could be up to something.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

There once was a man filled with hate,
With such people it’s useless to debate,
Ad homonym attack,
Leave the flack,
Because his hatred is impossible to slake.

There once was a team that ate together,
Friends and colleges like birds of a feather,
A protective bunch,
Enjoying lunch,
And withstood chaos and even stormy weather.

There once was a faction of win lose,
With morals and ethics quite loose,
No shade of gray,
It must be their way,
Because they think win-win is a ruse.

Prices are set by supply and demand,
You pay for what you have in your hand,
It’s a simple quip,
But as a lost ship,
Elites’ say it need never touch land.

The progressives are a mind numbed crew,
But they do hang together this much is ____,
Win at all _____,
Even at a loss,
Replacing parts names but it was never ___.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in business | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evolving Language

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, language evolves often quite quickly. The word fascist for example. Fascist used to mean someone who believed in central planning binding the public, corporations, and government together as a fasces. This way they thought, anything can be achieved. That was the accepted definition in the 1940’s. Today that definition has evolved. Now a fascist is someone who may not agree with you, but would fight to the death to protect your right to say it. Fascists also believe in limited government now as opposed to central planning as before. To be a fascist today one has to hold all races as equal. The old definition of a fascist, someone who hates certain races, like progressives who hate whites and Christians, is no longer applicable. Words evolve and sometimes very quickly into their opposite.

The word fascist has evolved in a very short time to become an inversion. One wonders if this was organic or fabricated? If it was organic then the new definition should be obvious and commonly known. The phrase NPC grew organically, is well defined, and common knowledge today. Fascist, however, is ill defined because everyone has an idea of it but no one understands what it is. This makes me suspect that fascist has been redefined or its definition blurred, and is fabricated. To what end only those who carpeted our psyches with Astroturf can say. We can deduce that ill defined fascism serves some purpose. Not our purpose but that of those who evolve the definition. Various pressures build to force the evolution of language.

Language also depends on perspective. What appears obvious to one may appear absurd to another. This often depends on perspective as much as reality. Ten different witnesses to the same act will have ten different stories. Taking this into account, it would seem that the definition of fascist isn’t as much a fixed definition like “cup,” “glue,” or “steel.” Some people may believe the term fascist then means anyone who is evil from their perspective. In that case a central planner would indeed see a populist as fascist. Since they are synonymous in that mindset. Being ill defined allows such mental manipulations to happen. This means that terms often have no meaning other than that given to them by the speaker. A Nazi is now a zealot for freedom. Such actions undermine the very utility of language itself.

Fascism then becomes a universal that can’t be defined. Like all universals it is subject to modification into something else. Fascism is often called nationalism. By some definitions nationalists are fascists. So is a free nation a fascist nation? Because it’s a nation? What about a globalist who believes the exact same ideology of the original fascists? Are they fascists? Or does being a globalist mean they can’t be fascists? What this suggests is that unlike the term, dirt bag, fascist is a slander that can’t really be defined. This makes the word a slur only. A libel with no real definition, based on perspective, and therefore merely a projection of the speaker’s perspective. One wonders what the correct term is, however, for today’s advocates of central planning?

Since fascist has no real meaning, what are we to call those who favor central planning as the Nazis, Marxists, Bolsheviks, Fascists, Maoists, etc… do? Language seems to have defined out any negative connotation to central planning. Indeed those who oppose central planning are slandered with those very same monikers. I have to wonder if that definition change wasn’t fabricated to suit the central planners. Those terms not only define central planning but also illustrate its effects. No one disputes that fascism, Nazism, Marxism, communism, etc… bring poverty, despotism, and war, but now that everyone is a fascist, those experiments can be tried again. This time under the guise of globalism. Yes, language evolves sometimes very fast, if it suits the central planners.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Taking fertilizer from out of the air,
Seems to me to be eau contrare’,
To fix a hoax,
On little folks,
But it makes the plants say not fair.

There once was a faction of fraud,
Thinking their crimes were mod,
Above the law are they,
Swindling games to play,
And offensive in the eyes of God.

There once was a man with big eyes,
He wanted more than he could realize,
So he connived for a loan,
It severed a bone,
But his friends were cut down to size.

There once was a media with ethics of slug hair,
By the look in their eyes they were barely there,
Focused only on Trump,
Ignoring the data dump,
Hiding and shilling evil without a single care.

The world we see is a fiction to please,
Run by conniving and full of ______,
Eyes bigger than stomach,
So many are out of ____,
The elite covered with journalists like _____.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment