On Cannibal Giants

Posted on October 18, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, just as a weak man is not a good man, while a strong man who restrains himself can be called a good man, nations that restrain themselves can be called good, while those that do not restrain themselves are bad. Even the weakest nation has agency to harm and self-restrain. North Korea for example. Those without international power have power over their citizens. That means they can be judged by how they treat their citizens, if not other nations. In this a nation or any form of state can be judged by its self-restraint. The natural fall back for a hypocrite with a monopoly on violence… is violence. A complete lack of self-restraint. Meanwhile, that state that practices self-restraint will lead by example, and the personal example of the outcome of their policies will make people follow.

Does might make right? Shang Yang thought so. He was of the Legalist school. Philosophers like him and Draco thought that the state is the ultimate. What follows is draconian punishment for even the most minor infraction. Shang Yang’s philosophy was adopted by the king of Qin… and ironically led to Shang Yang’s own execution. Although, it allowed Qin’s conquering of China. Then the Qin dynasty collapsed and was replaced by the Han dynasty. Might made power but it didn’t make right nor did it last long. Legalism was proven all the way back then to be a failure. The Han dynasty reintroduced Confucian Moralism while keeping some of Shang Yang’s Legalism. Legalism then calls for a lack of self-restraint on the part of rulers, while Moralism requires self-restraint.

One must be able to control oneself before being able to control others. If this is the case the control of others is easy. One merely needs to lead by example. When someone is unable to control themselves, however, they must resort to violence to control others. This is the path of the hypocrite. He or she is someone who can’t control themselves but need others to be controlled. I once heard a story about Confucius in the court of the Duke of Lu. The Duke asked Confucius how he could get the people to stop lusting after other men’s wives, gambling, and stealing… to which Confucius replied, You could lead by example and stop doing those things yourself. Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state the next day. When self-control is off the table, self-restraint is as well.

Nations are just people on a different scale. A nation, corporation, or mob is just a group of people. Therefore, such an entity is the aggregate of the people in it. Moreover, groups have several tendencies. Some of them are distributed blame, distributed responsibility, and distributed accountability. These act on the individual to erode his or her personal morality. This justifies a lack of self-restraint. The story that illustrates this is the Nuremberg Trials. The defendants said they were “just following orders.” The premise of that argument is distributed accountability. Each link in the chain of atrocity passing the buck to the one above. Meanwhile, the top link is so far removed from the horror he or she can claim ignorance. Without the self-control accountability teaches, self-restraint is impossible.

A good nation is one that restrains itself while a bad nation is one that lacks self-restraint. The weakest nations internationally are tested just as the strongest. Nations that commit atrocities, rule despotically, and censor are by this measure bad. They are bad because they refuse to practice self-restraint. They are like a cannibal giant. A giant that practices self-restraint could be a great benefactor but when he or she eats people they make themselves a menace. The US has traditionally practiced internal self-restraint leading to prosperity, and externally a lack of self-restraint leading to wars. Hypocrites who believe might makes right believe it only as long as they have the might. This means that a monopoly on violence in the hands of hypocrites who can’t self-control is a mortal danger.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Mercy | Tagged | Leave a comment

Limericks – Golden Gleams

Posted on October 17, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

Every news story has a theme,
They are deeper than they seem,
Each involves trust,
Turned to dust,
By the corruption of the elites’ team.

There once was a zealot in mint,
Thought he knew but he didn’t,
Spoke loud and blind,
With arrogance unkind,
And made a fool of himself in print.

Anyone who complains is a racist and such,
No money for you so you’ll have to go Dutch,
Spending shows priorities,
Of the captured authorities,
But for replacements no amount is too much.

That which doesn’t reproduce then converts,
And therefore its nature is that it subverts,
Made not born,
From God shorn,
So it should be no surprise that evil perverts.

Narratives oft replace truth it _____,
Even as the ignorant produce _____,
Warping ________,
Building causality,
Trapping the gullible with golden gleams.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Gray Is The Color Of Money

Posted on October 16, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, morals serve all… while law serves those who write it. Those of us who are subject to the law are not served by it. Meanwhile, those who write it are served by it. That law has an ordering effect and does have a place is not disputed. My position is that beyond basic laws against murder, theft, and fraud, (moral laws) other laws (order laws) serve those who write them. Morals serve all equally. It’s wrong to steal, unless you’re a tax man. It’s wrong to kill unless you’re an executioner. It’s wrong to lie, unless you’re the government. That law serves those who write it at the expense of those subject to it is illustrated by double standards, political courts, and asymmetric benefits. If you see any or all of those things happening, law serves the authors… not you.

There are moral laws and order laws. A moral law is one that everyone understands, punishes for violations of universal morals, and conforms to standards. An order law is one that requires a doctorate to understand, punishes for violations of elite demands, and creates double standards. Take the law against murder. In no place is the wanton killing of an innocent person legal… unless the killer is above the law. When a murderer is above the law, law serving its authors reaches its apex. Nevertheless, everyone understands why murder is illegal, we all recognize the justice of punishing it, and the ban is a near-universal standard. An administrative state regulation, like the “anti-fraud” paperwork to get a bank account for example, is arcane, needlessly demanding, and effectively de-banks the poor.

Morality serves all. Stealing from anyone is immoral. Their political, economic, or social status is irrelevant. Morality tends to be black and white while law prefers gray. Moreover, morality requires empathy. The moral stance is that which comports with understanding the perspective of those affected. The Golden Rule requires empathy. We can all put ourselves in the position of victim. We have all been victims in some way or another in our lives. Moreover, it’s just as easy to put ourselves in the position of villain. We have all been villains at one point or another in our lives. This ability to empathize with both sides is why we understand that theft is a moral question, answered by law. More to the point, it’s supposed to be banned by law, yet is often allowed by it. Civil asset forfeiture is an example.

Law serves those who write it. The great struggles to get to be the one who writes it expose this fact. If writing law provided no benefit to those who do, then no one would care who writes it. Why put effort into a fruitless task? We only put effort into a task that we can derive a profit from… like writing law. One reason law favors gray is because it’s the color of money. There is profit in gray areas. Meanwhile, morality has no profit motive. A corporation then has a duty to its shareholders to keep a hand in regulation. This ensures that regulations put a barrier before potential competitors, protect its markets, and seek rents. Taken far enough, lobbying is more profitable than producing goods and services. In this case corporations will put more effort into lobbying than R&D.

If we agree that law serves those who write it while morality serves all, then we have some choices. We can advocate for cutting back on laws and reintroducing morals. Some will take advantage of the paradigm and fight to write the laws. There is a third option that most will take… to sit on our hands and do nothing. Those who have the morality and gumption to act should understand that the goal is not anarchy, nor is it despotism… the goal is to cut order laws while maintaining or strengthening moral laws. Other people, the immoral, will exploit the law to their advantage to zealously seek power. The more someone must have power over us, the more important it is to deny it to them. In other words, the more order laws there are, the more true the statement… law serves those who write it.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

Limericks – Rent Seeking Is What They’re Stalking

Posted on October 15, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

I stand amazed from across the pond,
Looking at absurdity lies and beyond,
Hypocrites in charge,
With egos so large,
Who believe censorship is a magic wand.

The world we live in is a nightmare of a curse,
It is dog eat dog in our rat race universe,
But elites take the cake,
The scandals in their wake,
When I thought I’ve heard it all it gets even worse.

Driving off a cliff with a steely stare,
Convinced they’re right while in the air,
What’s the complaint,
We’re weightless mate,
What happens tomorrow isn’t our care.

Getting something for nothing is always a great ruse,
Corporations follow the example of our political muse,
It’s just a dirty biz,
The ultimate goal is,
To get a monthly payment for something we don’t use.

The arrogance of some is just _________,
Elites’ sins come to light is world _______,
They dwell on the now,
Ignore the future _______,
Because rent seeking is what they’re stalking.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Moral Dams

Posted on October 14, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, morals are like dams and laws often breach those dams. Morals, based on the Golden Rule, say that killing human beings is wrong. Morality then puts a dam between us and killing others. Law, however, breaches that dam in a limited way. It says you can kill people if they did a bad thing, assist the suicide of an elderly person, or kill an enemy combatant in war. These breaches seem perfectly reasonable. The problem is that any breach of a dam results in the eventual collapse of that dam. To argue it has been breached for decades and hasn’t collapsed is spurious, since the speaker has no knowledge of the interior damage that breach has already caused. This explains why reasonable seeming laws grow to be unreasonable in time.

A breach in a dam widens over time. That’s the physics of dams. Dams created by morality are no different. Once they are breached, then a small increase in size to account for special cases is warranted. Then another increase, and another until the dam is hollowed out from the inside. Then the dam collapses. Everyone exclaims they couldn’t imagine it could have collapsed so fast… both earthen dam and moral dam. This is because a dam collapse is effectively a tipping point. It happens slowly at first. Often so slow it’s imperceptible. But once the damage has reached some threshold, there is a sudden tipping point. The dam collapses and sends a torrent of water to whoever is below. In the case of morality that torrent of water is retribution, feud, and every form of immorality there is.

If no one is allowed to kill anyone then murder charges are easy to prosecute. If there are exceptions then not so much. Even when the facts are indisputable… if killing is not a moral wrong but a legal one, the question then shifts to, was it justified? The scale of justification is a sliding one. In all cases of law the political favor of the litigants or defendants bears far more weight than the case itself. The Lindsay Clancy case for example. This means that sliding scale of justification depends on the person more than the law. Such a system cannot but create an aristocracy who are above the law. The collapse of dams always creates slippery mud covered slopes. An aristocracy is not the only nor the worst outcome possible. The slow erosion of morals by the legal breach opens us up to ever greater atrocities.

The breach of assisted suicide has already hollowed out the ethics of the Dutch, who are killing toddlers. While in some places assisted suicide laws appear to be in stasis, that’s because the damage is being done out of sight. Imagine a car in midair. The people inside complain. While in flight the driver can say, “I feel fine don’t you? Then what are you complaining about?” This is because it’s not the fall that gets you… it’s the landing. Or in the case of a breached dam, the collapse. In the US, killing is illegal unless it’s done for “national defense.” The justification of national defense, obviously, is a sliding scale. It allowed Obama to kill an American citizen in a foreign country by drone, and his teenage son a few weeks later… without trial. That is quite a breach in thou shalt not kill.

This is why we must guard against breaches of moral dams by law. These breaches seem sensible in the present. The long term damage to the dam itself doesn’t come up. People talk about the good that will come of breaching that moral dam. We will breach a moral dam to get retribution, make an example, or get an advantage. Self-defense isn’t a breach, because the person trying to kill us already breached it. Then there are regulations that give a politically favored group an advantage. That breach opens us up to favoritism breaching the dam of merit. Once the damage is sufficient, merit will be eschewed for political favor. These are just a few of the outcomes of breaching moral dams with law. Maybe it would be better to use law to shore up moral dams… instead of breaching them?

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged | Leave a comment

Limericks – Wield A Lot Of Clout

Posted on October 13, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

There’s a danger more topical than robotics,
Deft at avoiding blame and other acrobatics,
A corruption mart,
Take this to heart,
There’s nothing more destructive than politics.

Regulation is every state’s hoppy malt,
And money printing flavored with salt,
Driving up all prices,
Until there’s a crisis,
As inflation exposes government default.

Some groups have a paradoxical ideology,
They seize control then deliver a calamity,
Am I pedantic,
Or is it Satanic,
To seek that mankind live in perpetual enmity.

They say Tom Tillis is a man about town,
In some circles he has some renown,
A senator of authority,
Who bucks his majority,
Because he’s just a deep state clown.

The most dangerous things just lay _____,
Sometimes masquerading hidden in _____,
Either a stupid faction,
Or enemy ______,
As the deadly hide and wield a lot of clout.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Limericks – A Government Self-Slandered

Posted on October 12, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

Danny Tomo was refused bail today,
Because of a rubber boat he did flay,
But terrorists are let free,
A double standard you see,
To keep the indigenous people at bay.

A society that denies the truth,
Inculcates its lies into the youth,
It flounders socially,
Collapses economically,
And is painful as a rotten tooth.

We’re a problem to the corruptocracy,
As we complain about their profligacy,
Rule by the few,
And in the EU,
Elections are a threat to democracy.

Government abuses its every tool,
They spoil their own currency pool,
The elites to anoint,
It’s got to the point,
Where anyone who buys debt is a fool.

A nation with obvious double _________,
Is a place where truth is just _______,
The corrupt sell __________,
The stupid buy the oddity,
Leading to a government self-slandered.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

When Power Is Currency

Posted on October 11, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, campaign expenditure reveals the actual value of political power. In a capitalist system the rational cost for a position would necessarily be less than the wage the position pays. In a socialist system much of our lives is determined by the government. It’s political power that donors are buying, not a wage. Control of the vast swaths of national wealth that flow through the hands of the government becomes the incentive. We can tell which kind of system we live in by this measure. Top spending runs north of 60 million dollars for a seat that pays roughly 1.3 million in salary, benefits, and other perks for the 6 year term. Under a cost/benefit analysis this seems absurd. Such out-of-balance spending suggests the income of the position is not the primary consideration… the power it wields is.

Free market economies are based on profit/loss, cost/return, and asset returns. In capitalist economies, profit is measured in money. This is in stark contrast to socialist economies where profit is of secondary consideration. Political power is always of primary consideration. This is because in a socialist economy political power is the currency while under free enterprise money is. In other words, access to power yields a return while producing goods and services yields taxes, regulation, and can draw the eye of Sauron. Even in fascist economies being too good can get one in trouble, but in Marxist ones it’s a gulag or worse. Standing out from the crowd is only acceptable in a socialist economy if one has the political favor to do so.

Limited government is as conducive to free markets as despotism is to socialist forms. If the power a senator wields were limited, then the value of the position would diminish back to the total pay plus benefits. No one would purchase a senator if there were no benefit to them. You would never see a campaign that cost more than the total return. Therefore, the less power in the hands of government, the less campaign costs would be. On the other hand, the more power invested in the hands of government, the more costly campaigns would be. That’s because the return isn’t in pay and benefits… it’s in power. Under a despotic government that power is unlimited so the cost people would pay to get that power would also be unlimited. Some would sell their very souls.

People pay more than just money to get that power when the power is the pay. There are people who would kill you for a 10 dollar bill in an alley given the chance, so how much more would such people do for the power to control trillions? The thought makes my blood run cold. We could identify them by their absolute lack of ethics, shame, and their perfect hypocrisy. Moreover, such people once in power would do their best to increase and protect that power. Spending caps and public financing hide the real value. Without them the price rises to reflect the value. Once power is sufficiently lucrative the courts get involved to normalize and expand it. This can be identified by courts that display double standards, disregard precedent, rule politically, and hold themselves above the law they adjudicate.

So I ask you, what type of economy do you live in? Judged by the spending in money, ethics, and reputation, do people pay more than the position is worth economically or not? Is the cost of getting hands on power going up or down? Are the courts staying well within the guardrails of law or are they out in the field cutting trail? These are questions to ask and answer to discern if your nation has a free market or is socialist. In free markets money is the currency while in socialist nations political power is. Once that question has been answered, ask yourself, do I want to live in a system where political power is paramount or one where diligence, merit, and intelligence are rewarded instead? The answer to that question will largely rest on one’s self-judgment.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Limericks – Just Rage Of Victims

Posted on October 10, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

Capitalists and Marxists were in bed,
Creating the CCP the two were wed,
Communism doesn’t work,
So instead of being a jerk,
The CCP adopted fascism instead.

The CCP is quite aware,
A blank smile and stare,
Doing it quick,
Poison and trick,
In all but kinetic warfare.

Terrorists released out on bail,
While British patriots rot in jail,
A government corrupt,
Will end abrupt,
To gnash their teeth cry and wail.

The oikophobic elites are a cancer,
Emotional reactor and logic dancer,
Double standards abound,
Get used to the sound,
As elites think genocide is the answer.

Failure isn’t a problem to a ______,
Perpetual enmity to all of our ___,
Double standards abound,
What’s that horrible _____,
It’s just rage that victims brought.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Unaccountable Asymmetry of Power

Posted on October 9, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when there is an unaccountable asymmetry of power, the side that wields the asymmetric power is despotic. Take the laws against perjury for example. They are only applied to the people, never the government and only to officials if it suits the bureaucracy. As the old adage states, if your government lies to you it’s just politics but if you lie to your government… it’s a felony. That is a classic asymmetry of power. The state has the power to jail those who lie to it but it can lie with impunity. That means the state rules the people. Now, this may not seem an astounding revelation, except, in the United States, the people are supposed to rule the state. This means the present paradigm in the US is an inversion of its founding principles.

The founding principles of the US were limited government. The branches separated to minimize the possibility of one becoming ascendant, and pitting faction against faction to further limit the power of faction. The whole system was set up to keep the power of the elites and people limited. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton laid these ideas out in the Federalist Papers. The courts were severed from the Executive Branch to cut off that potential avenue of despotic executive power. The founders worked diligently to create a system of governance where the government was ruled by the people, not the other way around. Today, judged by the asymmetry of power between the state and the people, that system has been perverted. This is shown by the increasingly vicious struggles for power.

The reason the Founding Fathers were so adamant that the government serve the people, instead of the people serving the government is that once there are rulers and ruled, we are back to the Divine Rights of Kings. That’s the very thing they fought against. They laid out the argument against rule by the powerful far better than I can. So suffice it to say that where government rules the people that system is effectively the Divine Rights of Kings, but in different words. The language changes but the despotism stays the same. How do we gauge the despotism? By the asymmetry of power. The greater the asymmetry of power the greater the despotism. The unaccountable asymmetry of a judge’s power is why the courts have become a political battleground. Many think a lack of abuse equals kindness.

The existence of unaccountable asymmetry of power is a reversion to the Divine Rights of Kings. Call it what you will, but if I put biscuit dough in a hot oven for twenty minutes I expect to get biscuits. Call them hoe cakes, short cakes, or scones but they’re still biscuits. Asymmetry of power is the same. It’s the dough and what you call the result is irrelevant. The same arguments rationalizing the Divine Rights of Kings apply to all asymmetries of power. The people don’t know what’s best for them, monarchy is efficient, and the ever popular if laughable, the kings are accountable for failure. I recall Hitler using that con in his book Mein Kampf. He then went on to be unaccountable once in power… go figure. So you see why learning to recognize that asymmetric power is a sign of despotism is important.

When you interact with your government, do you feel in control or like a little child being scolded? If you feel in control then there is a symmetry of power. If, on the other hand, you feel like a child being scolded there is an asymmetry of power. An asymmetry of power is indicative of despotism. Those who live in a sewer stop smelling it, remember to smell it. Don’t make the mistake of thinking a lack of abuse is kindness. The abuse could come at any time or never, depending on the whims of the powerful. Don’t be fooled by the rationalizations for the asymmetry of power. That’s why we must not only be on guard for asymmetric power, but fight it where we see it. Hold the elites to the same standard they hold us to… or we accept despotism. Those that don’t trust us can’t be trusted.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Judicial Sysytem | Tagged | Leave a comment