Government has Rights… We have Priviledges

Posted on April 11, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if you have to ask permission to do something, it is not a right. That should be pretty obvious. Unfortunately, it would appear that such a statement flies in the face of modern governments. They demand the people ask permission to do everything, while they do whatever they want, without question. The concept of liberty has changed, from the freedom to do as the individual wants, to the ability to do whatever the government wants us to do. What it really means is that we no longer live in liberty but a form of soft tyranny. Soft tyranny where in theory we are free but in fact we are limited by government in every way. Since we live in soft tyranny, what will the government or more precisely, those who run government, allow us to do. Obviously they will not allow us to act against the interests of government or the elite that run it. Moreover, it is in the best interests of the rulers to keep us from getting too rich, too much power or too much independence, that would threaten the elite and their monopoly on power, as well as their total freedom to exercise that power. What we are allowed to do then, under the regime of soft tyranny that we live under now, are things that don’t threaten the elite, go against their interests or get us too much power.

By dribs and drabs we have allowed our rulers, those who were once our servants, to usurp our power, political, economic and cultural. We have allowed our government to do for us. Government is only too willing to do for the people, in fact, government would prefer to do everything for us. The more dependent we become on government the less able we are to do for ourselves. The less we can do for ourselves the more power we cede to government. Eventually government becomes omnipotent and we are impotent. We have allowed, no encouraged, government to usurp our sovereignty. Once government is all powerful only violent bloody revolution can return the people back to liberty.

Either the power of government grows, while the power of the people shrinks, else the power of the people grows as the power of government shrinks. It is impossible for both to grow at the same time nor is it possible for both to shrink at the same time, one grows as the other shrinks. Every law, regulation, ordinance and edict, diminishes our power and grows the power of government. The more efficient government becomes at passing new rules for us to follow the faster we devolve to autocracy. Now with the advent of bureaucracy, government has tens of thousands of bureaucrats working diligently in the dark, passing regulations controlling every aspect of our lives. The power of government has never expanded so fast or so efficiently.

Government on the other hand sees less and less oversight. The media that is supposed to keep us informed, is on the payroll of the democrat party in the US, and is beholden to other partisan political ideologues in other nations. The media is the most biased it has ever been. Government itself today routinely breaks it’s own laws, violates our Constitution and the elite get away with the most clear transgressions of law, without any negative consequences. The government itself allows us less and less information into it’s workings, using excuses like national security, executive privilege and an arcane maze of rules to hide the workings of government.

We are barred from even the most mundane knowledge of what our governments are doing, how they are doing it and even why. The why is assumed to be in our best interests but does that really make any sense at all? Does government work in our best interests or the best interests of the elite? Look at every government program ostensibly designed to “help” some politically favored group. Farmers have been coddled since the FDR administration and the family farm has for all intents ceased to exist, the steel industry has been given a great deal of attention from government and now steel is mostly produced overseas, education has long been a leading project of government and now our children graduate school unable to read, write, do basic math or pick the US off a globe. Everything government touches, in the name of helping us, is destroyed.

Government and the elite on the other hand are empowered. Government hatches whole new departments to destroy that which they have pledged to help. The department of energy is the poster child for government failure but has a budget that exceeds 9 billion dollars annually! NASA, which was initially designed to allow the US to put human beings into orbit and beyond, has failed so bad that only now since the 1950’s, the US cannot put a man into space but needs to rely on Russia. There is not one single department, program or initiative that has not failed. Failed in their stated objectives, but succeeded wildly in growing the power of government. That is because, if they were to succeed, the need for them would go away… and that would be unthinkable!

The government need not ask permission of the people to do anything anymore. A handful of elite change the Constitution, as they see fit, altering the very nature of the relationship between the governed and the governors. Naked violations of law like Fast and Furious go unpunished therefore encouraging more law breaking. Even the elite themselves get caught red handed violating their own laws without consequence. Remember Al Gore saying there is no overriding legal authority? There wasn’t for him, but when Dinesh Dsouza was caught breaking the same law to a much lesser extent, there was. We on the other hand, need to ask permission to do anything. Buy a gun, get government permission, start a business, get a license and permits, engage in religious acts, get government’s approval else pay stifling taxes, even driving a car is a privilege for citizens but a Right to illegal aliens. There is not one aspect of human endeavor that does not require first, the government’s permission, as the limits of government evaporate away like so much dew. The only question left is, how long before soft tyranny becomes hard tyranny?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Judging the Humanity of a Human Being

Posted on April 6, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the the reason an unborn child must be taken as having full human rights is because, an existence cannot be judged until lived in it’s entirety, the whole cannot be judged by the part. Therefore, future life must be taken into consideration, whenever the humanity of any one of us is taken into account. The question whether or not a person has access to the rights enumerated in the various constitution is of the greatest importance. The fundamental rights of the individual are at stake, life and liberty. Questions of such weight must be answered carefully. To make a distinction between humanity or not, flippantly, is not simply immature but outright evil. All considerations must be taken into account and the future life of the individual must be taken into consideration.

There is a story of Solon and Croesus. Solon the lawgiver of ancient Athens was widely renown as the wisest man in the world at the time. Solon had just saved Athens from violent revolution, and had called upon the people of Athens to ostracize him in the name of liberty, as Solon considered his popularity to be a threat to liberty. During his ostracism Solon was traveling the world when he landed upon the shores of Lydia. Lydia was one of the richest countries on the planet at the time. Upon hearing that the renowned Solon was traveling his country, Croesus, the king of Lydia sent for Solon to meet him.

Solon met Croesus in Croesus’ magnificent throne room. After talking for a bit, Croesus became impressed with Solon’s acuity and intellect, so he asked Solon, “Am I not truly the happiest man on Earth?” To which Solon responded, “I have no idea only having just met you.” So Croesus told his people to give Solon a tour of Lydia’s farms, Croesus’ treasury and harem. After Solon had been shown all the riches, people and agricultural wealth of Lydia Solon returned to Croesus’ throne room. After being asked again if Croesus was not indeed the happiest man Solon said… no.

Solon had met a woman who’s sons died pulling her wagon full of goods to the Olympic games, She, Solon said, was happier then Croesus. Croesus fumed, surely and old woman who’s sons had died could not be as happy as the richest man on the planet. Croesus pushed further. “Than I am the second happiest man ever…” No, Solon replied again and related another sad story. Croesus became infuriated. “Begone from my presence!” Croesus demanded. Solon left but turned as he left and said, “The happiness of a life cannot be determined until that person has breathed his last.”

Years later Cyrus the great invaded Lydia. Cyrus’ camels terrified Croesus’ horse infantry routing Lydia’s cavalry. After Cyrus had captured Croesus he ordered Croesus burned at the stake. A huge pile of dry wood was stacked and Croesus was dragged to it. As Croesus was tied to a stake at the top of the pile Cyrus asked Croesus if he had any last words before being burned to death. Croesus shouted to the ghost of Solon, “You were so right Solon, it was I who was the fool!” Cyrus was curious. He asked Croesus who this Solon was, a God perhaps? Croesus related the whole story of Solon’s visit to Lydia, Croesus’ question and Solon’s answer. Cyrus was so impressed that he ordered Croesus untied and made Croesus his chief advisory.

The moral of the story is… the life of a man cannot be judged until he has breathed his last. Croesus thought that because his circumstances were great that they would always be great. He made the mistake of judging a whole based on a part. The whole can only be judged in the whole, no part is ever sufficient to judge the whole. If you were judged by your eyes only the observer might think a human is wet, fragile and spherical. The same applies to age. If another observer saw only an old man that observer might think the entirety of mankind is to be shriveled, wrinkled and bent over. Clearly, that is not the true quality of man. To judge a human in the same way as having no worth because they are merely a fetus in the womb, is judging a person by a part, while ignoring the whole.

Future life cannot be predicted with any accuracy but it need not to give a human being value. A human life cannot be judged worthless or worthy by her hair, his stamina, her wit, his intellect, her wisdom or his age. Such are parts and do not make up the whole. Only the whole can be judged accurately. Therefore to judge a person not a person based on a part is to commit a logical fallacy. A fallacy that can end the life of a human being in the name of political correctness, expediency and selfishness. To deny a human being is a human being based on a part and not the whole, is a form of malevolent ignorance forwarded by egoists to lower humanity, since the loss of any human being diminishes us all, especially one with such promise as a baby, unborn or not.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Double Standard is Slavery

Posted on April 4, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, today while the lowest of us are held to the highest standard, the highest of us are held to the lowest standard. The mechanism of it is appeal to authority. Of course that was what the Enlightenment was all about, rejecting appeals to authority and settling arguments by logically reasoned, rational discourse. Rational discourse however, is and has been, a means for the people to wrest power form the elite and so is discouraged. In doing so, those who run our governments, banks, corporations, journals, and adjudicate law, are devolving us back to a time and philosophy that predate the Enlightenment, to a form of slavery. Think about it, is a slave allowed to do that which a master can, of course not. The master has free reign to do whatever he or she wants and the slave must toe the line. What if a slave acts up and does something the master disapproves of? The slave is punished. The more obvious the double standard becomes, the more secure the elite feel in their dominance over us, now that the double standard cannot be denied our slavery is all but complete.

The Enlightenment was a watershed event in human understanding. It rejected appeals to authority, which prior to the Enlightenment, was the basis for all discussions. If the authority said something, it became the truth regardless of the absurdity. The Enlightenment made the case that disagreements in the sciences, politics and economics should be decided by rational discourse. The person with the most logical best reasoned argument would win. This doctrine gave rise to the market system, the industrial revolution, constitutionalism, science and a constantly rising standard of living. Such an important advance in human understanding should be protected, nurtured, enshrined and taught so it can keep benefiting the whole of humanity. Sadly, it gets in the way of the elite’s interests and so has been hidden, perverted and mischaracterized.

Constitutionalism was probably the most important advance that came directly from the Enlightenment. Science, it can be argued, was more important, but science in and of itself cannot raise the standard of living, or the humanity of a people, limited government does and limited government gives rise to the conditions that allow science to flourish. Constitutionalism, and along with it, limited government, was a rational reaction to the history of human governments. Many had been birthed in liberty but had always aged into tyranny. A constitution is a contract between the governed and the governors describing what powers the government has and what powers are reserved for the people. Since mankind’s first attempts at writing constitutions the idea of a constitution limiting government has been perverted by the elite to empowering government. Like Obama said, the US Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, in that it limits what government can do to you but in Obama’s view, a constitution should limit the people rather than the government, empowering government to do for us. That is the modern philosophy that returns us to a doctrine of appeal to authority and thereby… slavery.

Why wouldn’t everyone want to be a slave? You get three hots and a cot, your day is planned for you, your freedom to act is strictly enumerated, you have free healthcare and you are protected. Liberty is why people hate being slaves. We all crave liberty. Liberty comes from equality. When some people are allowed more liberty than others, the argument cannot be made there is equality, and if there is not equality, there is no real liberty. Those who are limited in their actions are the slaves and those who have freedom are the masters. If a slave speaks back to his master he is punished and made an example of. A slave’s actions require permission from her master while a master’s actions require no permission from their slave.

Today we are awash in double standards. Al Gore was caught red handed violating campaign finance laws, and had the audacity to stand before the nation declaring there is no overriding legal authority to hold him to the law, and that was accepted by the slaves. Hillary Clinton was caught red handed using an unsecured server to store top secret information putting the entire nation at risk and to date there is no negative consequences for it. If you or I, on the other hand, were to violate campaign finance laws as Dinesh D’souza did, we would go to jail, as he did. If we were to endanger national security, even accidentally, we would be imprisoned. The elite, like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel, regularly get caught lying on their taxes with no punishment, if you are caught doing it to a much lesser extent, there are life altering consequences. As Obama was threatening gun owners and sellers along the Mexico boarder with sanctions, for supplying Mexican drug cartels with weapons, Obama himself, as it turned out, was the one supplying the weapons! He faced no such sanctions however. The list of examples where the elite, our masters, have liberty where we don’t could fill a tome the size of the national register.

Global Climate change is the best example of how the elite are moving us away from the advances of the Enlightenment back to appeal to authority. You are not allowed to question the voracity of man made climate change because the authorities have made their determination. Arguments are even met with threats of imprisonment. The concept of limited government has been so veiled in propaganda, misdirection and taught ignorance, most people believe the liberty of others is a bad thing, and so destroy their own liberty by their lack of understanding. We have become so ignorant, needy and selfish we allow our noses to be rubbed in a double standard. That double standard is proof positive there is no true equality, and therefore, no true liberty. When some people are above the rules, they are the masters, and when others are below it’s protections, they are slaves. You are a slave, even if not in name, but in fact.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limited Government or Usurpation

Posted on March 30, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, what limit to the law if the lawmakers are not held to it, furthermore, if the lawmakers do not follow whatever constitution they are supposed to, then what limit on government? Law then must become mere usurpation and government must serve the elite not the people. It is a self evident fact that when a class serves only it’s own narrow interests, economic destruction ensues, social upheaval follows and violent revolution comes shortly after. History is unambiguous about this. In fact, there are names for the various wrong forms of government enumerated by Aristotle, Tyranny when a monarch serves only his own interests, oligarchy when the aristocracy (elite) serve themselves and democracy when the polis is tyrannical. Everyone is served best when everyone serves everyone.

The class warfare theory of human history is undeniably false, at least as it pertains to economic classes since most of human history has seen tension between factions of the elite, and only rarely between the elite and the people, but when class is defined as faction then it holds some truth. Faction is like fire, it consumes a nation, leaving it in ashes. Every great nation, city state and empire has seen this happen to it. At the outset all the people work together to build a great society. Once the society has been built, the people split into factions, each vying for themselves. The more prosperous the nation becomes the more factious the people become. Naturally, the faction that has the most power is the one to come out on top, these are almost always the lawmakers.

Those who write the laws may be the people as in ancient Athens, the aristocracy as in Venice or a monarch as in feudal Europe, but in all cases there is a defined group that writes the law. When a monarch writes law that benefits all of society, that society flourishes, and when he or she writes laws to serve him or herself, then the country crumbles. The same holds true if the lawmakers are a class, faction, heirs, elected or appointed. The type of government is also irrelevant. Monarchy can have liberty, private property and prosperity while democracy can be illiberal, usurp private property and be filled with poverty. What generates wealth, liberty and prosperity is that the factions, classes and groups work for the benefit of the whole.

Lawmakers usually are not constrained in their actions. There is no overriding legal authority to hold them to their laws or constitutional limits, except the police and military, which they have total control of. If the lawmakers choose not to hold themselves to their own laws then why would they limit the law? They could freely use law to advance their personal self interests with impunity. Passing laws that move ever more of the national wealth into their own hands would be a snap. Money isn’t the only thing that can be usurped. If they sought sexual gratification rather than wealth then they could molest interns as they wanted, if they wanted to never be criticized they could pass laws to jail anyone who criticized them and if they desired godhood they could merely have statues made at the public’s expense and placed in city centers. If those who make the law are not held to those laws there is no limit to the usurpations they can engage in.

Constitutions were an invention to constrain those who write the law, but even under a constitution, if the lawmakers don’t hold themselves to it, no matter how well written, how insightful or how intelligent the framers were, it is moot. Since people are usually unwilling to hold themselves to a rule that limits their self interest, especially egoists, then constitutions cannot function alone. To argue those who make law are somehow not human but angelic is to argue up is down. Especially in the light of past human governments, where the lawmakers were not held to their own laws, or indeed the constitutions that were designed to constrain them. Until the lawmakers are forced to follow every law and letter of the constitution, there can never be real liberty, true prosperity, no one’s private property or person is safe from usurpation. Until there is a NUMA or Fourth Branch, creeping tyranny will ever hold mankind in it’s cold selfish clasp.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Individualism and Egoism

Posted on March 28, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the egoist demands liberty for himself but slavery for everyone else, while the individualist seeks liberty for everyone else and self control for herself. There is a tension that is inherent in egoism that results from this underlying conflict. The egoist demands from others that which he is unwilling to give. Individualism however lacks the conflict since the individualist demands of himself more than he demands from others. This vein in human relations passes through many other qualities of personality. Moreover, it has profound implications in the wealth of a society, it’s civility and social cohesion. Sadly, egoists seek political power to assuage their egos, while individualists humbly seek to live their lives in peace. This is why government is such a destructive force, those who should be in power are not and those who should not be, are.

Egoism is an immature human trait that has held humanity back since the dawn of time. Sociopathy and psychopathy are extreme forms of egoism but not the only ones. Egoism takes many forms. The egoist need not be unbalanced only selfish. The “great men” of the ancients had egoism in common. An emperor will invade a peaceful neighbor killing thousands, a king will execute a subject for something he does all the time, an aristocrat will order someone flogged for an inadvertent insult, and a bureaucrat will charge and fine or imprison someone for violating an arcane impossible to know regulation that the bureaucrat made up that afternoon, all without a spec of sympathy, remorse or humanity.

We are born egoists and slowly grow out of that immature state to the wisdom of adulthood by the efforts of our parents and society. Of the two however, parents and family life are the biggest positive factor in our maturing. Philosophers have described the maturing effect of family life since the time of Socrates and Confucius. The destruction of the family has shown some of it’s pernicious effects in the rise in the percentage of the population that are egoists. With the rise in the population that are egoists, social cohesion must fail, our economy can only be depressed and our governments naturally become tyrannical.

Individualism on the other hand is a mature state of being. The individualist is tolerant because she seeks tolerance of herself, he is forgiving since he wishes to be forgiven, she is compassionate because she understands people are flawed including herself and he is honest since he wants others to be honest with him. The individualist seeks to be left alone and doesn’t seek power over others. It is learned in the family environment. We each learn to get along with our siblings by the give and take that family life demands. The actions that betray egoism are discouraged by our parents. Lying, stealing, fighting, etc… are all things immature children do. Those actions are punished by good parents teaching children not to be selfish but tolerant.

The vein of holding others to a higher standard than oneself, exposes itself when those with no tolerance demand their evil actions not only be tolerated, but appeased. An egoist will demand their antisocial, selfish and even violent actions be tolerated by others, while at the same time being intolerant of anything she doesn’t like, even the most virtuous actions. Simply demanding tolerance for the intolerable actions of an egoist is not enough but the rest of us must participate. Like the Mapplethorpe exhibits that were intended to offend Christians. Christian individualists tolerated that the exhibit existed but were upset that they were made to pay for it. Meanwhile those who forced Christians to pay to be offended, demand they not be offended by Christianity, let alone pay to promote it.

Political power is to the egoist as heroin is to a heroin addict. The egoist is an immature small person, who holds himself to a very low standard, if indeed he holds himself to any standard at all. Yet the egoist demands everyone else toe the line and will use violence to force tolerance and even participation in their childish antisocial actions. Government is the perfect place where the egoist can get her wants met. The coercive power of government allows the egoist to enforce her own twisted desires on the rest of society. The government’s monopoly on violence gives the egoist the security to apply violence to anyone who seeks independence from the egoist’s will. That is why government is such a powerful force for destruction, economic, social and civil, governments are populated by egoists and shunned by individualists. The exact opposite of what would form good government.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

European Villains

Posted on March 24, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in Europe the Islamists have succeeded magnificently, abetted by the traitorous European leaders. Not simply because of the Brussels attacks but because of the perpetual state of marshal law that is oozing over Europe. The blood of the innocents killed, maimed and wounded in those attacks, isn’t on the hands of the Islamists, that blood stains the hands and faces of the European leaders. Partly because the traitors allowed unlimited numbers of Muslims, some of whom are perfectly decent people, but the wheat cannot be separated from the chaff, those with malevolent intent cannot be separated from the people seeking a better life. The leaders of Europe know this as does anyone with an operational cerebrum. Moreover those traitors are using the terrorist attack, attacks they helped happen, to turn Europe into an autocracy. Never ending marshal law, chaos in the streets, daily terrorist attacks and a collapsing economy all combine to make the natives of Europe into panicked sheep, ripe for tyranny

These attacks are the responsibility of the leaders of Europe. They destabilized the Middle East, seeking regime change there. Even after the catastrophic invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein, or maybe because of it, European leaders insisted on overthrowing Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar Al Assad. They knew that such actions would lead to a humanitarian crisis. If they didn’t they are too stupid to operate a mop. In full knowledge of what they were doing they created chaos, bloodshed and pernicious incentives for despots the world over, creating waves of refugees. Moreover, instead of sending those refugees directly back to their native countries, or countries that have Sharia law, European leaders gave them free food, spending money, housing, healthcare, smokes and women to rape. Thereby creating an impossibly strong incentive to flood into Europe.

The terrorist attacks were as obvious as wet ground during a rain storm. Hundreds of thousands of Islamic people, people who have no concept of liberty, tolerance, freedom of religion, democracy, equal treatment under the law or the market system can only lead to civil unrest. The leaders of Europe have embarked on a scheme to replace the Christian Europeans with Muslims. With clear malice in thought the leaders of Europe are committing genocide on their own people. Encouraging so many people to flood into Europe, who have some percentage of Islamofascists in their ranks is madness of the highest order… unless there is a plan for the violence they will foment.

Not so much the attacks themselves but the government’s reaction to them is what is truly telling here. France is under a perpetual state of marshal law. Belgium is soon to follow, Sweden is looking into radical measures, Germany is nearing chaos and Britain faces more beheadings on their streets. All it will take is a few more major attacks to take place and most of Europe will be under unending marshal law. Islamic State claim they have over four hundred terror cells waiting to be activated all around Europe, if that is the case, many more attacks will come. The native European people are facing terrorism in their neighborhoods, no go zones where Christians simply cannot enter, their government arrests them if they speak out about the invasion and now they have to endure under marshal law.

Every drop of blood shed by the Islamofascists is on the hands of Europe’s leaders. They created the situation and now have exploited it in their play for total authority. Europe is most certainly lost. Soon, all the beautiful places people loved to see will be no go zones, the magnificent cathedrals will be torn down so as not to offend the Muslims, the native European people will be slaves and the seat of the Enlightenment will become a throwback to feudalism and arbitrary rule. History will not be kind to the leaders of Europe, they will be held in the same, or even greater contempt than Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or the Marquis De Sade. Clearly, the bloodshed, rapes, chaos, collapsing economies and being judged villains by history is a price the elite in Europe are willing to pay… to become tyrants.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Correctness, the Tyranny of Imagination

Posted on March 21, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, many of us would rather imagine what a thing is, than examine it’s reality. There are all sorts of things that captivate our imaginations, movies, books and music, but when we use our imaginations to “believe” some aspect of a thing, be it religion, philosophy, a politician or a political system, we are doing ourselves and the world a great disservice. That is because our imaginations never actually capture the reality, the essence of a thing, our imaginations project an idea that may be in direct contravention of that thing, imbuing it with virtue or villainy that is simply not there. Not only do people do this about a myriad of things but once we have done it, many will fight to the mat that their imagined qualities are true, further harming our societies, economies and cultures. Political correctness is the legitimization of this very tendency.

To argue about the qualities of a thing is human nature. Three blind men approach an elephant, one grasps it’s trunk, another the tusk and the third the tail. Afterwards, they argue over what an elephant is… but at least they had some first hand knowledge about an elephant, each had only a portion of the truth but each had a portion. How much worse when one or more of the participants in a discussion have no real knowledge but only their imaginations to go on? How do you argue logic and truth with someone who holds his or her imagination above empirical reality? You cannot. Those who have imagined the qualities of a thing are the hardest to persuade, they refuse to look at evidence, they obstinately talk over you and hold you and your empirical evidence in contempt.

When Obama ran for office he ran on Hope and Change. He didn’t outline a plan for that hope and change, he didn’t qualify what it was nor did he allow any personal information, about him and his past to leak out. When some did the media that calls itself unbiased went to great lengths to obfuscate it. As a result people projected whatever they wanted on him. To a capitalist he would restore laissez faire, to a communist he would be the second coming of Mao, to the poor he would make them rich and to the rich he would protect them from the huddled masses. He was everything to everyone. People imagined what and who Obama was and voted based on their imaginations.

Many people imagine socialism as being more fair, more just and more humane than capitalism. They dream about how everyone will get along and work hard for the collective. To those who imagine a better world through despotism, any argument about history, reality or economics falls on deaf ears, they have made up their minds based on their imaginations. The further people get from real Marxism and , the easier it is to imagine what it is, rather than look at the reality of what it is. Reagan’s policies dealt a blow to communism, but without that example of a very real and undeniable socialist nation, where people fled at the risk to their very lives and their children to escape, has allowed people to imagine what socialism is.

Many who have never studied Islam claim to understand what it is far far better than Islamic scholars. In the face of the reality of Islam, after a mass beheading for example, they rush to the news programs and claim such acts are a violation of Islam, even as Islamic scholars claim otherwise. We are to believe the atheist, who imagines Islam as a light in a dark world, over those who have spent their entire lives studying the words of Mohamed. To do so is absurd. Do you believe that a witch doctor or faith healer can set a broken bone better than someone who has spent their entire life learning and working in medicine? To believe he who imagines what a thing is in that case would lead to a badly set leg, a limp for life and perhaps even death, how much worse to believe a politician is everything to everyone, socialism isn’t despotism or the realities of Sharia and Jihad?

Political correctness is the imagining what a thing is and forcing others to follow what is imagined not what is real. The market system teaches those raised in it to be pragmatic, look at the reality of a thing and measure profit against loss, not just in business but in our daily lives. Political correctness seeks to change that paradigm of the lesson of the market system. Political correctness will not broach the reality of a thing to enter the conversation, it demands blind faith in the imaginations of another. Arguments about reality can be derailed by mere ad homonym attacks to protect the imagined reality of the politically correct person. The market system , is a force for pragmatism, examining reality and weighing the profit versus the loss of an action or philosophy. Political correctness is the polar opposite of the lessons of the market system and as such will always be in contention with it. So what do you believe? Your imagination, or reality, you cannot believe both.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keynesian Economic Crystal Meth

Posted on March 17, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, economists have been seeking the holy Grail of nonstop economic growth for as long as there have been economists… but as with all natural complex systems, the economy must expand, sleep then expand again. The expansion part of the cycle is where new ideas are implemented, and the recession part is where old inefficient ideas are destroyed, to free up the resources for the next wave of new ideas. Like an animal or plant, an economy grows rapidly for a while then sleeps. If someone were to force a plant or animal to stay awake forever, as speed addicts do, the animal or economy becomes sickly. Economists and politicians want the laws of economics to bend to their will but like all of God’s laws they do not lend themselves to bending.

A politician may want to be able to eat belladonna, but no matter how much they might want to, the moment they do, they die. Someone else might want to fly without wings but jump from a towering cliff and God’s law of gravity enforces itself. The point is, God’s laws are not flexible, breaking them always has consequences. No matter if someone poisons himself, jumps from a cliff or snorts crystal meth to stay awake, God’s laws do not broach noncompliance. Trying to force an economy to only grow is just such a violation of God’s law of economics.

Great depressions are caused when government backed by economists try to stop the boom bust cycle of economics. FDR turned Herbert Hoover’s recession into a great depression by trying to force economic growth by fiat. Following Keynesian economic theory, Roosevelt attempted to force economic growth by controlling how much and what a farmer could plant, determining the prices retailers could charge, employing people to do absurd things like count the tips on maple leaves and huge government paid for engineering projects. What he got was a depression that lasted for a decade, soup lines, mass unemployment and a dependency class.

Obama and his economic brain trust have attempted the same thing. He has had the good fortune of having a federal reserve that has kept interest rate at or near zero for the entirety of his term, he has run up a deficit greater than all the Presidents before, he has passed reams of new regulations and usurped a third of the national economy with the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, like FDR, he has had a fawning media cover for him at every turn. Today, the soup lines are hidden by food stamps which is at an all time high, the unemployment numbers are massaged by the BEA with terms like U6 unemployment, virtually all the jobs that have been created are low paid part time work and the stock market has expanded because of firms buying back their own shares, on margin, instead of organic growth by investors.

Now the latest gimmick the brainiacs are trying are, negative interest rates, helicopter money, bail ins, and banning cash. Negative interest rates are already being used in Europe and Japan to push demand. What they are, is exactly what it says, savers are charged interest to stash their money in a bank or by buying bonds! To keep people from pulling all their savings from the banks and setting on cash, which would drive the banks out of business, the masterminds want to ban cash. Helicopter money is where the Federal Reserve would print a few billion dollars, lowering the value of all the money now in circulation, and deposit it in people’s bank accounts. If all that fails to save the economy and threatens the banks, those of us who have saved money will have our money withdrawn from our bank accounts, and given to the banks.

Methedrine can make a tired person wakeful, the negative side effects will manifest themselves sooner or later. Keynesian economics, or demand side economics, is like using crystal meth to keep the economy awake even when it needs to sleep. There are two competing philosophies of economics that don’t seek permanent economic growth, the Austrian school which stresses the effect of savings on an economy, and Joseph Schumpeter’s boom bust theory. The Austrian school’s theories have only been used twice in the US, once during the 1920’s and then in the 1980s. The result was fast economic growth with short weak recessions. Meanwhile, every time Keynesian crystal meth has been tried, the long term effect has been depression and outright economic collapse. Gods laws cannot be compromised, no matter how smart a brainiac is, or how much she might want to. Isn’t it time for politicians and economists to grow up and follow the laws of economics? Just say no, to economic crystal meth.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Law, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crime Unpunished

Posted on March 14, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… crime unpunished is crime encouraged. Remember when you were a child and you ran into the road? Your mother, father or both would give you the dickens. That was because they understood that if they didn’t, you would sooner or later run into the road and be killed. Because of their love of you they needed to change your behavior. Condemning the truck drivers will not stop a child from running into the road, a slap on the behind will however. Throughout our childhoods, those of us who had nurturing, loving parents, were taught to be civilized. It probably took standing in a corner, a slap on the behind and a few cross words, but the barbarian in us was molded into civilization. It does no good whatsoever to change the negative behavior with praise of the wrongdoing, blaming the victim or cry racism, when someone acts the barbarian. This is such an obvious truism you would think everyone knows it instinctively… but apparently many don’t.

Hsun Ching said the congenital nature of Man is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. By that he meant when we are born we don’t know, right from wrong, we don’t have empathy, we think we can just take what we want, etc… basically, we are little barbarians. Our empathy, virtue and humanity is taught us by our upbringing. Those who have been civilized operate well in any system while those who have not been civilized only operate well in a very structured environment, with draconian punishments and constant monitoring. Hsun Ching’s philosophy has a direct impact on adults as well.

An adult who has not had the benefit of being civilized will commit crime, that is obvious, but what seems to be not well understood is that when an adult is allowed to commit crime and is not punished for it, they are far more likely to commit more crime later. The more they get away with the more heartless and heinous the crimes they commit. In fact, blaming the victim, claiming racism or simply avoiding addressing the crime, empowers and emboldens the criminal. They feel they have a right to victimize others. The criminal becomes even more callous to the wants and needs of other human beings, and in doing so they become less human themselves.

Humanity means to have compassion, to be kind to others and even animals, it is a quality of being a fully actualized, human hearted human being. Humanity can be grown by changing the behavior of those who act inhuman and it can be corroded by allowing crime to go unpunished. To have humanity is to understand that other people exist, have feelings, want pretty much the same things you do and are as flawed as you and I are. Accepting the flaws of others is part of being humane. A psychopath or sociopath is not humane and has no compassion for others. They are broken. Most people who commit crime however are not psychopaths or sociopaths, they are people who have not been civilized, and so lack some aspect of humanity.

When a society allows some to stand above law, morality and civilization, it provides a strong incentive for others, others who are civilized, to throw off the yoke of civilization and become barbarians themselves. Those with a deeper understanding will resist for awhile but the incentive becomes stronger and stronger the longer society encourages crime. People are adaptable, we will adapt to many things, barbarism is one of those things we can adapt to and in a barbarous society, adapt we must. Those who have virtue in a barbarous society will quickly be crushed. We see that society in the last few decades in the US and Europe has become ever more barbaric.

It doesn’t matter if the criminal is an immigrant from a far away land who thinks rape is perfectly acceptable, or a politician who claims there is no overriding legal authority to punish his open and flagrant crime, the result is the same, crime unpunished is crime encouraged. We are civilized by our parents, that is one of the greatest gifts they give us, after our very lives. Civilization in us allows us to function, socially, economically and personally. Those without the benefit of civilization will commit crime. That doesn’t mean they are psychopaths or sociopaths, it means they are not civilized. A society that fails to punish crime, is a society that nurtures an inhumane, brutish and violent people. People that require intrusive oversight, draconian punishments and onerous laws. Yet even the most draconian punishments, intrusive surveillance and onerous laws will do no good to bring a society to civilization. Once civilization is lost it takes centuries to return to it. Only the most vile, self serving and evil people would want inhumanity for humanity… so why are some crimes unpunished and therefore, encouraged?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judicial Activism is Treason

Posted on March 9, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.

The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.

Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.

Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.

A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.

When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment