The Right to Keep and Bear Arms… Worldwide.

Posted on February 12, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, much of the violence we see around the world would be stopped, if the US Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms was universally adopted. That may seem like a crazy statement… to those who have never been around guns, and have the irrational fear the new class and socialists have placed in them, but to those who grew up with a gun leaned up in their closet, it is utterly rational. Irrational fear based in ignorance is never a good place to argue from. Even a cursory glance at violence around the world, shows that the victims of violence are always disarmed, while the villains are always armed. Especially where guns are illegal. The real reason the elite want to keep guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, is that the elite don’t see us as citizens, but as subjects. We are to be controlled by whatever means necessary and the threat of violence, along with the state’s monopoly on violence, is the “ideal” way. This discussion has deep repercussions for the future of Mankind, will our children live in a world with increasing violence and tyranny, or will we change it to a place where evil men don’t have a monopoly on violence, and so in their utter cowardice, evil men withhold from visiting violence on others.

Lets take a quick look at violence around the world, shall we? The Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris are fresh on the world’s mind so we’ll start there. Had the editors at Charlie Hebdo been armed the attacker would have got one or two shots off before the return fire stopped him. The cold blooded murder of the police officer would have been avoided and the massacre at the Jewish deli couldn’t have happened. In Africa, if the Christians were armed, Boko Haram couldn’t slaughter thousands with impunity and their daughters would be free instead of sex slaves. In the Yugoslavian conflict had the Bosnians been armed they could have staved off the incursions and the bloodshed of that war would have been exponentially less. During the Second World War the Japanese Imperial Army took and invasion of the US off the table… because the US citizenry were armed.

When Australia banned guns the violent crime rate skyrocketed. That is because the evil element in any nation will have access to guns, as they do drugs and other illicit items. Moreover, those who are intent on doing harm have no compunction about breaking the law. The same thing happened in Britain. Whenever guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns, their victims don’t, and the outlaws know it. To sharpen the point further, even in the absence of guns evil people will do evil acts, because they know their victims are defenseless. The youths who ran over the British soldier and cut off his head, then stood there with blood dripping from their hands, finger up and lecturing to the crowd how great their religion is, couldn’t have done that if the citizens… sorry, subjects, had been armed.

The argument that violence would increase if the citizenry were allowed to have weapons is spurious and those who make it know it. In the US, the places where gun crime is the greatest, are those places where guns are the most outlawed. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation and violence is out of control there. Take out the places where guns are the most illegal in the US and the US crime rate drops to one of the lowest in the world. Vermont has no gun laws whatsoever and is 49th in the nation for violent crime. What crime there is is almost entirely crimes of passion. Moreover, when guns were even more prevalent in the US, the 1950’s, where gun safety and shooting skills were taught in the public schools, (along with the Lord’s Prayer), there wasn’t a single school shooting… and gun crime was rare, despite the wide availability of guns… even in school!

The elite however, knowing their ultimate goal is to progress the world to a one world government… with a planned economy, big brother watching our every move and arbitrary rule, know that the human population needs to be disarmed for that to happen. No one who plots usurpation wants to face armed men, they seek disarmed poltroons, armed men shoot back, disarmed poltroons cower in fear. Had the Mencheviks in the 1920’s had guns the Bolsheviks couldn’t have rounded them up, cut a slice into their abdomens and pulled out a small piece of intestine. Then nailed the intestine to a tree and whipped the victim, until he or she tied themselves to that tree by their inwards, and left to die. Instead, the Bolsheviks would have had a firefight on their hands, and no murderous evil bastard wants that! They want their victims disarmed and cowering for their lives. Che Guevera loved shooting someone grovelling and pleading for his life, it made him feel like a man. More like an evil villain if you ask me. Disarm the people and you arm evil.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

The Foundational Ethos

Posted on February 9, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the foundational philosophy, principles or societal myth of a society, create the civilization and culture of a people. It is those foundational principles that determine if that civilization will be shaped in liberty, prosperity and fraternity, or if that culture will be tyrannical, impoverished and egotistic. Just like the foundation of a house determines the shape of the house that sets upon it. The destruction of the foundation of a civilization, as in a house, razes that artifice to the ground. Equally, if the foundational societal ethos is used as the foundation of another culture, the shape of that culture will reflect those foundational principles, no matter who the people are. This is so important it cannot be overstated or inculcated enough. The ruination of many a nation and civilization has been, and will always be, the destruction of the foundational philosophy of a society.

The Marxist, later turned anti socialist, Georges Sorel, came close to this in his theory of the Societal Myth. He stated that movements all have their societal myth, which if undermined destroy that movement, and in being created create a movement. He listed many in his various letters. The Roman societal myth, as stated by Sorel, was the marshal theory of “Glory” being the end all of a man’s life, and that glory in battle should be sought even at the risk of one’s life. When the Roman societal myth was destroyed, Romans turned from glory to selfish egoism, the fall of Rome followed. He explained the persistence of Catholicism as the “myth” that Satan is at perpetual war with Christianity and that since God was on the side of Christianity the Roman Catholic church would always be. These are societal myths as discussed by Sorel. In calling attention to those myths, he was consciously or unconsciously, trying to use the theory of a societal myth as a foundation for Marxism and the general strike. As I said, he came close, but fell short.

The foundational principles of a civilization are never myths however, they are truths, at least to the people that follow them. Moreover, if we look at the results of those foundational philosophies, through the eye of Pragmatism, we can glean those that have value from those that are destructive. American Pragmatism is based on the theory that the rightness of a philosophy can be determined by the fruits it bears. Those philosophies that create a system where people have liberty, prosperity and fraternity, by the measure of pragmatism can be called good, while those that create a situation of poverty, tyranny and egotism can be called bad. Because the lot of humanity under the first is elevated and under the second diminished. The first bears sweet fruit; the second, bitter.

Like a house must comport with the shape of it’s foundation, any civilization built upon a given philosophy, must comport with the tenets of that philosophy. So, if a society is built upon a philosophy that has resulted in liberty, prosperity and fraternity in the past, those new civilizations built upon the same foundation will result in the same outcomes. Exactly as those societies built upon a foundational ethos that has resulted in tyranny, poverty and slavery in the past, will do so in the future… no matter how much an idealist might want it not to be so. This shows that anyone constituting a new country, has a ready template of good philosophies upon which to build, or bad ones, the choice is available if not used.

The foundational principles of a culture, civilization and/or nation, determine the shape. Those who seek to destroy a civilization, to be replaced with another, have at their means a method of ruining a civilization, simply by destroying that foundational philosophy. Usually by a steady chipping away at it by perverting the minds of the children. As those children grow up and they believe the perversions they have been taught, further perversions, things that a generation before would have been unthinkable, become not only thinkable but taught to the next generation as fact. By these means a great civilization, or an evil one, can be wiped from the face of the Earth. All that is required is for a faction to gain control of the school system and higher education. Another way would be to import people who disagree with the foundational ethos. Once the population has been sufficiently replaced the foundation crumbles.

Today we see this happening. Western civilization, with it’s tolerance, liberty, prosperity and fraternity is being systematically destroyed by a faction, the new class, that has seized a monopoly on education. They seek, as their stated goal, to move the planet to a socialist utopia. They understand that unless the foundation is blown up, the edifice that stands on it will last, and so they have been undermining that foundation for generations. We see the crumbling of our civilization all around us. (Which is blamed on the foundation and not on the chipping away of it). They understand the means but not the results of their machinations. Some of them believe the edifice they plan on building will have more liberty, prosperity and fraternity than the one they are destroying. But in their ignorance, or willful blindness, they fail to understand that the shape of the civilization they are creating will follow the same shape of those that have been built upon that foundation before. They lack the pragmatic eye to see that if a foundation has always resulted in tyranny, poverty and slavery in the past, that is the only edifice that can possibly be built upon it.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

The Insanity of the New Class…

Posted on February 5, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Obama is channeling Marx in his latest diatribe against technological growth. Along with the US President, the elite in the media chant the absurdity… that productivity innovations are bad. On Bloomberg radio yesterday, they were interviewing some CEO and the questions constantly turned to how the advance in technology is damaging the middle class, and that the reason wages are stagnant and dropping is because of the advances in productivity. The theme is that labor saving wipes out labor. To someone who is ignorant about economics that might sound logical, but it is in fact spurious logic… an argument made to sound logical but is in fact illogical and used to fool the listener. It is critically important to understand the truth behind this lie. Technological driven productivity gains are critical to an increasing standard of living. Moreover, the reason wages are stagnant and jobs are scarce in the US and around the world is that regulatory constraints on our economies have reached critical mass, and are melting down our economies.

Marx basic theme in his Manifesto was that the mechanical loom was going to drive everyone out of work. He said, “As the forest of arms looking for work grows ever thicker, while the arms themselves grow ever thinner…” Meaning the mechanical loom made the production of cloth so much less labor intensive, and most people worked in the textile industry at the time, mass starvation was just around the corner. That is essentially the exact argument Obama made about ATMs. Of course Marx was proven wrong in his assessment just as Obama is in his. The mechanical loom allowed the price of a wool coat to drop, (the evil deflation), so that the average worker could afford one! Imagine, the mechanical loom allowed a mere plebeian to wear a warm coat! Horrors! He didn’t have to stuff his shirt with straw to keep warm he could wear a warm coat!

The Bloomberg interviewer argued against the Schumpeter model, by saying that those workers in the buggy whip industry got jobs in Ford’s factories making much better wages with less taxing labor, but today, there are no new jobs for the laid off workers to go to. An ignorant argument at best and spurious at worst. The reason that wages are stagnant is that government policies, policies designed to protect the politically favored, are destroying the creation of small businesses. For the first time in US history the creation of small businesses is NEGATIVE!!! Let that sink in a moment, there are more small businesses going bankrupt… than are being created! Creative destruction needs, as a fundamental input, new businesses and new business models. Regulation, taxation and the lack of standards, have so undermined that fundamental aspect of a growing economy that small business creation is now negative.

There was a story in the media the other day about some kids walking from house to house in New Jersey shoveling driveways for spending money. I did that when I was a kid. It is a great way for children and young people to learn that labor creates wealth. In a market system that is an important lesson. In America today however, the police were called, and the kids counter revolutionary snow shoveling business was shut down by the state. There was another story recently about some kids setting up a lemonade stand, they were also shut down by the government, running afoul of some regulation. In a society where even children cannot shovel a driveway or set up a lemonade stand, without facing daunting regulation and a police investigation, how can any business get started?

Without new businesses, creative destruction is destroyed. Giant firms are not entrepreneurial, that is a basic law of economics. Large corporations are run by the new class, for the new class, and against the interests of employees, customers and shareholders. The very definition of the principle agent dilemma. Anything that threatens the status quo is to be feared. Those at the top of large corporations always pay lip service to entrepreneurial ideas, but when faced with the choice of striking out on a new path or staying on the old one, unless there is a large bonus in it for them, the old one is always preferred. That is why new ideas are implemented by entrepreneurial small businesses. If those new ideas are profitable those new small businesses grow to large ones and wealth is created, if not, the risk taker gets a haircut. That is why Capital expenditure is so low while mergers and acquisitions are so high.

The new class progressives have effectively wrested the economy from the Bourgeois, (shareholders and entrepreneurs). Large corporations are able to line the pockets of politicians to protect their businesses from competition. When they do face competition their response is telling of their utter incompetence. Blockbuster is a perfect example of this in action. When faced with competitors who provided a better product at a lower price point, Blockbuster would have preferred to regulate their competition out of business, but couldn’t because of public scrutiny, so they did the next best thing, they raised their prices and lowered the quality of their product… to maintain their profit margin. The new class executives got their bonuses. Of course in doing so, they ignored the basic mantra of any and all businesses, provide value to the customers else they will shop elsewhere. So, Blockbuster went bankrupt, wiping out the investments of the shareholders, screwing their employees and abandoning their customers. The only ones who made out were the new class executives who got their bonuses and new executive jobs.

It isn’t creative destruction that is broken, nor is it the market system, it is the nonsense of the new class, in academia, politics and business, that has broken our economy. Regulation, taxation and cronyism have combined to eliminate small business start ups. So much so that the creation of small businesses has turned negative. Creative destruction requires small businesses to implement the new ideas that every economy, everywhere need, to grow the standard of living of the people. The new class run the businesses they have wrested from the owners, for themselves, at cost to every other element of our population. When faced with competition, lowering price and raising quality are not even a consideration, raising prices and lowering quality are the norm now, to maintain the bonuses of the new class. Deflation, the normal course of price evolution in a market economy is attacked as evil, so government can continue it’s profligate spending, to hide the outcomes of their policies and their cronyism. The “journalists” at Bloomberg are inculcated in the new class way of thinking, as are the “journalists” of every other major news outlet, and so we get one unanimous voice, all agreeing creative destruction is dead and socialism is the way forward… forward into slavery. Just as Joesph Schumpeter predicted.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

What Could Have Been… But Wasn’t.

Posted on February 2, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the state of humanity would be much better had Richard Nixon had continued the space program, and his successors had followed. Instead of fighting a war on terror we would be racing against each other for the stars. The Moon would have people living on it, Mars would be being colonized as this is written and humanity would be mining the asteroids. The economic might such a environment would create, would demand tens of millions of well educated, well paid people, in every field of human endeavor. The trickle down effect of those well paid people buying the production of everyone else would have enriched people in every industry. For the amount of money we pay for Obama’s vacations, we could be doing all these things, had we been investing that money from the 1970’s. Instead, our government has used exponentially more money to send our children to die and be wounded in the desert, spent trillions bailing out the too big to fail banking system, inflated bubble after bubble to create the appearance of growth, and have installed a surveillance state.

The only government spending that has ever paid a real dividend is the space program. Our world today is largely the result of technological spin offs resulting from it. Everything from the digital revolution and cell phones, to the Temperpedic mattress, are directly the result of the space program. So much of what we take for granted, we have, because of that spending way back in the 1960s. Since then the amount of money spent on the space program has shrunk, while the vision has become more and more myopic, until today Obama has set NASA’s priority… to make Muslims feel good about their contributions to space exploration.

In the 1960’s the US had ambitious plans to build a Moon base and go to Mars. That would have led to countless spin off technologies. Spin offs that, as shown by history, would have created destabilizing businesses. Those would in turn kick off cycle after cycle of creative destruction, (the only real source of economic growth in an economy). Those cycles of creative destruction would have put countless people to work, around the world in ever higher paying, stable jobs, supporting that endeavor. There would have been opportunities for adventurous people to man those missions and take those chances. Opportunities would abound for scientifically minded people to build the hardware and mathematically logic oriented people to write the software.

Had the US continued the space race, the USSR would have been bankrupted much earlier… or they would have competed. Either way… the single minded absorption of our leaders how to most effectively end life on the planet, would have been turned to expanding humanity’s sphere of influence in the solar system. Each advancement would lead to the next. Driving humanity from the Moon, to Mars, then the Main belt of the asteroids for needed resources. The result would be that the likelihood of humanity becoming extinct would have largely been eliminated.

There would be no need for the war on terror, because the huge gobs of money that have gone to those regimes that inculcate the most violent interpretation of Islam, would have had to turn their attention to catching up with the US and Russia, (or USSR), in the colonization of space. Instead of cutting off the heads of infidels and Jews, those who seek Islamic global domination would have to hire them, so they could get off planet too, else risk being left behind. They would have spent all that money on building the infrastructure and technology, or buying it, to get off planet. There would be none left for expensive war.

The boon to humanity would not have stopped there. In addition to creating tens of thousands, perhaps millions of high paying good jobs, an elevation of the standard of living the world over, protecting the human race from extinction for any number of reasons, and undercutting the reason for the war on terror… had we continued on the path Kennedy put us on, young people would have a grand vision to look forward to. Instead of the fatalism, driven by their lack of feeling they have a stake in it all, our young people would have something to strive for… rather than doing drugs, creating fatherless children, traveling across the planet to engage in Jihad and becoming dependents of the state.

Sadly, Nixon hated Kennedy and the space program as well. Nixon had no vision, other than his naked political interests, and those didn’t include advancing Kennedy’s legacy. He instead used the money he had “saved” from the space program to create the EPA. A total catastrophe for the American economy. A catastrophe that resulted in a diminished standard of living, lower expectations, a fatalistic attitude for our children, and the rise of the bubble economy to hide the fact. The last 40 years could have been years of progress, excitement and technological advancement, like the human race has never seen before. But in their infinite wisdom, our leaders thought a better use of that money, was to create generational poverty through welfare state capitalism, enrich Wall street bankers at the cost to the rest of the economy, build nuclear weapons, fight needless wars, usurp unconstitutional authority, prop up dictators, set up a surveillance state, etc… And now, for our leaders to take hundred million dollar vacations. Yup, the world would have been a much better place had our leaders spent all that money on the productive use of space. But hindsight is 20-20, and our leaders are who they are… too bad we all suffer for it.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Progressivism, Marxism and Socialism… the Philosophy of Hate.

Posted on January 29, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, progressivism is at heart a very hate filled philosophy. All socialist philosophies need an enemy and race all too often provides that enemy. Since socialism perpetually lowers the standard of living in any nation that takes it on, the elite need to divert attention from their failures, usually by pointing at some enemy and claiming it is the fault of those people, or the exigencies that must be endured to fight this or that bogyman. Misdirection is the key. Keep people angry at some scapegoat so they don’t realize who the real adversary is, the socialists themselves. To that end, we constantly hear in the new class progressive media, that workers should hate the rich, white people are all evil and racists, that our economy is failing because of “trickle down,” world peace could be at hand except for those Zionist Jews, etc… there is always some evildoer who is responsible for our problems, it is never the fault of our leaders. This has worked for generations to lower our expectations and standard of living and move us to socialism.

In the past, those who progressives pointed at as being evil were blacks, Jews, American Indians and Gypsies. They were the hated people. Woodrow Wilson, the uber progressive President that ushered in the US interventionist foreign policy debacle of the 20th century, watched Birth of a Nation, the Klu Klux Clan movie… in the White house! Margret Sanger so hated blacks she started Planned Parenthood so that Black women would commit voluntary genocide. Progressives always need a scapegoat and whatever race is out of favor today provides that scapegoat. When the scapegoat changes, those who were in that category are so relieved they are no longer hated, immediately jump on the bandwagon to hate others. Yesterday progressives hated blacks, today they hate whites, the only strand that is continuous is the hate.

The new class progressive leaders in academia decide who today’s villain is. They nurture the hate of the kids they are in charge of teaching with propaganda and innuendo. Those who fall into that hated group are even taught to hate themselves with empty absurdities like, “white privilege” and “Zionists.” the theme of hatred flows from socialism like water from a spring. Those at the very top of academia are so full of loathing for their fellow man it is hard to comprehend. Socialism itself is a philosophy that people are too stupid to run their own lives. Those who believe that people are such imbeciles they cannot make even the most basic decisions, cannot have real compassion for their fellow human beings, such a philosophy is rooted in loathing and hate.

The Nazis inculcated their hate in the colleges too, the traditional place the new class spreads it’s invective. Some hansom college professor would walk into a theater filled with pretty girls and hansom boys, upper class youth, and begin by espousing his utter humanity and concern for some group he was about to argue should be exterminated. (Just like today in our universities and colleges). He would show pictures of profoundly handicapped individuals, and ask those upper class youth, “Would you want to live this way?” The childish college kids, who’s only experience in life was drinking, carousing and sex, would be horrified and in unison say, “NO!” And the argument had been made and won the day without so much as a single human hearted voice disagreeing. The result was the Nazis murdered everyone in every mental facility in Germany… in the name of humanity. Then the real slaughter began.

Hate crimes are a perfect example of how this is done. The socialists seek to control even our thoughts, and so they make thought illegal for the politically unfavored group, while anything goes for the politically favored groups. Today if a black person avows his hatred for whites and commits violence against one, no hate crime has been committed, but if even through innuendo a white can be accused of committing a crime with the wrong ideas in his head, he gets charged with a hate crime. If a synagogue is vandalized by a Muslim, there has been no hate crime, but if a Christian does it all Christians are haters who must get extra punishment. The inconsistencies of the progressive world view are the bread and butter of socialism and hatred blinds the adherents to those inconsistencies.

Since socialism seeks to control every aspect of human existence, with as much coercive power as is possible, and most people yearn to be free, a means must be found to pry our freedoms from us. Hate is that means. The new class seeks to establish atheism as the state religion, against the dictates of our Constitution, and so Christianity is called backward and evil. They want to destroy the nuclear family, and so we have the gay mafia destroying anyone who disagrees with them, as a hater. The new class are attacking police officers today… as haters who violate the rights of blacks. When Al Sharpton chanted, “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? NOW,” the insinuation was obvious, but he wasn’t charged with inciting violence, hate speech or a hate crime. The hate he was espousing was to create unrest and violence. Upheaval that would give the new class elite an excuse to clamp down, moving us further from our Constitution to their Utopian world socialist government, by creating Dystopia.

Hate is a powerful weapon especially in the hands of Machiavellian actors intent on a socialist utopia. So if you are told to hate someone for their skin color, religion or any other arbitrary attribute, you can rest assured you are being manipulated. If you are in the politically favored group today, don’t fall into the trap, because tomorrow you might fall into the politically unfavored group. Don’t believe in the scapegoat, tomorrow you might be that scapegoat, and it will be too late because you have empowered the elite to make you a scapegoat. Once power is given to the elite, it can only be taken back by force, and the state has a monopoly on violence. So don’t give them that power to begin with… think for yourself.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Confusion About the Market System…

Posted on January 26, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, very few people the world over actually understand what the market system really is, most have fallen into the trap set for them by new class Marxists, that the market is evil and government is good. As long as the new class elite can maintain the fiction they spew we are on a path to predestined serfdom. The global elite quake at the thought that the hoi polloi discovering the ruse. If enough of us did understand what real capitalism is, we wouldn’t stand for their bigger government solutions that never work, but only make the problems worse. That is why we are constantly bombarded by spurious arguments like, the gap between the rich and poor, the market needs regulation, capitalism only benefits the rich, the wealthy got that way by stealing, etc… always made by the uber rich to blind us to the truth that we haven’t lived under a market system anywhere on the planet for generations. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is the best way to keep us in a state where our slavery is all but guaranteed.

What the world struggles under today is called “welfare state capitalism.” It is to the market system as bone cancer is to astrology. Welfare state capitalism is a system where the government redistributes the profits of free market interactions, from those who worked and took risks for them, to those who didn’t. In doing so, the government gains terrific power to destroy businesses that are not politically favored, enrich those who are, hold people in generational poverty, wipe out class mobility, destroy the family unit and create a permanent upper class… all in the name of fairness.

In a real market system, people get rich by taking risks, providing service and value to their customers. Under a welfare state however people get rich by having political favor. When those with political favor fail, they are bailed out by the government, (you and I), but in a market system, failure is paid for by he or she who fails. Moreover, failure in a market system leads to new ideas and greater efficiency, while in the welfare state, failure leads to more of the same, since there are no consequences to the elite, only the people. That is why too big to fail banks were bailed out with enough money to pay off three quarters of all the home mortgages in the US, and QE3 was sufficient to create eighty five thousand millionaires a month! Meanwhile, you and I were stuck with falling house values, wages and financial repression. All because of the bubble created by government policies. Not a real market by any measure!

In a functional market system deflation is the norm. That is one of the ways you can be certain that we have not lived under a market system for generations. The cost of those things we need and desire gets cheaper and cheaper. This is because the market system drives down the cost of everything by increasing productivity. That increase in productivity also has the effect of raising real wages. A carpenter with a nail gun and precut studs can frame a wall in seconds, where a carpenter, even a much better trained one, using a hand saw, hammer, nails and rough cuts, takes an hour. That increase in productivity lowers the cost of the final product even as it raises the wage of the carpenter. Raising his or her standard of living and making the work easier and less taxing on the body.

In welfare state capitalism however deflation cannot be allowed. Government runs a perpetual deficit to maintain the illusion of a functional market and prosperity through bubbles, and so, if the elite were to allow the market to do it’s normal operation and deflate the cost of everything, that huge debt would quickly become unserviceable. Inflation is needed to evaporate the debt through currency devaluation. Without inflation lowering your wages and driving up the cost of everything, the government would collapse, as many have in the past, and the elite would be out of their cushy high paying jobs. A disaster that the elite cannot allow to happen. So they inflate bubbles, watch them pop, destroying the meager wealth hard working people have saved up by the sweat of their brow… and the government inflates the next bubble, to maintain the illusion of economic growth.

Welfare state capitalism is a system where the elite decide who gets rich and who doesn’t. It undermines the market’s innate class mobility. The old saw, “shirts sleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations,” is rendered inert by the state’s interference, allowing the half witted grandchildren of the elite to remain wealthy, despite themselves. This is done by the state requiring everyone to get permission from the state for every economic activity. Those who are the children and grandchildren of the elite not only get permission, but the largess to engage in market activities, (as in Solyndra), while the children of the plebeians have to fight, pay bribes and struggle to get even the smallest of permissions. Crony capitalism is created this way.

Harry Truman said, “Anyone who gets rich in politics is a God damned crook!” Since the all powerful welfare state decides who will get what, the benefits will naturally flow to politicians, their cronies and family. Others who would compete are frozen out. Ways to measure this… are the number of small businesses in an economy, how many are started in a year and the rate of expansion of small businesses to medium and large. Moreover, people will spend absurd amounts of money to gain political office… so they are the ones to decide who gets what, insuring their business isn’t destroyed, and giving them the power to destroy their competitors. In a country where welfare state capitalism is at it’s apex, small businesses cannot compete with large ones because of political favor, and therefore, there will be few small businesses, and most of them will be engaging in illegal activities, ie, doing business without the proper licenses, paying employees under the table, selling non pasteurized milk, exceeding the weight limit of a road, idling a truck so a worker can get out of the cold, hauling without the proper permits, cutting hair without a license, etc…

The new class elite have to keep us in the dark about the market system. To that end we are inculcated in a doctrine that has no basis in reality… that crony capitalism is the market system, that we need the elite to regulate the economy to protect us from it, we are taught to hate those trying to get rich by providing value to us, and love those who get rich by political action. Our children are programmed in school to have a visceral reaction to the term “capitalism,” as a bad thing, and socialism is lionized as the solution to all the world’s problems. The bloody history of socialism is glossed over with absurdities like, “Marxism has never really been tried.” If most of us understood the fiction we have been inculcated with, is just that, fiction, we would demand real capitalism, and that cannot be allowed. The elite have too much at stake… their power, wealth and prestige.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Economic Cancer

Posted on January 22, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the economy has cancer, sectors that are supposed to facilitate business creation and operation are now the ones supported and the real economic actors, (firms that build things and provide services) are now facilitators. I am of course talking about the legal profession and the financial sector. Turning the economic incentives against the creation of businesses and capital expansion of their production. This has had the effect of decoupling wages from productivity, drying up capital available to expand production and start new firms, adding extraordinary costs to doing business and lowering profits for firms the create things. An economy reacts organically to inputs from the actions of it’s various sectors, as such, when incentives become perverted firms need to use more and more creative measures to stay competitive, and are forced to do creative accounting to appear more profitable than they really are. All these negative incentives in an economy result in lower economic outcomes for everyone… except those in the financial and legal services sectors.

The financial services sector of the economy is there to be a conduit from people’s savings to firms looking for capital to start or expand their businesses. The way economists traditionally see banks is that they take in the savings of individuals and firms, paying reasonable interest, amass that capital and make it available to businesses to start new ventures, or expand profitable ones. In this scenario both savers and firms win, a win win. However, today the financial services sector has become the be all end all of the elite. Politicians kowtow to the too big to fail banks, giving them special privileges denied to other sectors of the economy, they have out sized power over the policies of government, there is even a shadow pseudo government agency that explicitly protects them… the Federal Reserve. Instead of being a facilitator of business the financial services sector has become the focus of our economic policy. Wall street versus Main street if you will.

The legal services sector is there to allow self interested people to come to agreements that benefit both parties. It is imperative that when people do business they trust each other. That is impossible without verifiable contracts and standards holding all participants to their word. These important factors in facilitating business cannot be overstated. Sadly, the legal system has bent over backwards to undermine this very noble calling and pervert it to serving lawyers, at the expense of everyone else. Today, contracts are only as good as the lawyers who break them on some absurd technicality, the primary role of attorneys is to bankrupt businesses for huge profits, drive up the cost of doing business by a continual threat of frivolous lawsuits, and keep new possibly disruptive products from the marketplace to protect older less efficient ones who have political favor.

The liver is supposed to filter toxins from the blood. As long as it does it’s work the body is healthy, but when the liver becomes distended and cancerous, it ceases to filter toxins. Instead it adds to the toxin load in the body. In that case the liver has ceased being a facilitator of bodily health and instead has become a drag on the body’s ability to function. The financial services and legal service sectors have become like a cancerous liver and kidney. They don’t perform their function in our economy, like a cancerous liver and kidney cease to filter blood, they only serve themselves. In both cases, a cancerous liver/kidney and perverted financial/legal sector, the body eventually dies… and so does the economy. Until the cancer is removed, allowing them to return to their correct function, the body becomes more and more diseased, and the same is true with the economy.

The proof is in the out sized compensation of those in the legal and financial sectors. The wages of the lawyer far exceeds that of the entrepreneur. The bonuses of the “banksters” is exponentially more than the those who create wealth. From this small example we can see that the lion’s share of profits today, flows to those who are supposed to facilitate business, from those who actually do business. The huge percentage of the total economy of these two sectors, that are supposed to be facilitators, is proof they have outgrown their place and, like cancer, have become a threat to the very existence of our economy. Since everyone wants the most profit possible for their actions, it is clear that the extraordinary wages in the financial sector and legal profession, come at cost to the rest of the economy, imply that those sectors have more than their fair share of power, political and economic, because if they didn’t those profits would be instead kept by those who create things and provide other services.

The result is that our economy, the world over, has become dysfunctional. The financial services sector now only serves itself, at cost to the rest of the economy, it doesn’t fund small business start ups or CAPEX, because taking printed fiat money and investing that money in government bonds is more profitable, moreover, it earns the favor of the political elite. This drives up the cost, and pushes down the return, on those bonds. Lawyers get rich by finding ways to break contracts, drive up legal expenses, suing firms and individuals and otherwise undermining the economy. These two sectors have become cancer in the most alarming sense. Most people understand this, at least subconsciously, and hope it will solve itself, but cancer never spontaneously heals, it only grows. If we don’t cut the cancer out with legal and financial reforms, and prevent it’s recurrence… the cancer will eventually kill our economy.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Should GDP Include Government Spending?

Posted on January 19, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to bring sanity into economic figures and government decision making, government spending should not be considered part of gross domestic product. Gross Domestic Product, (GDP), is a measure of national income. The number is used in a variety of ways… to determine the wealth of a nation, the prosperity of it’s people, it is a way to compare the efficiency of various nation’s economies against each other, ETC… Basically, GDP is a benchmark of a country’s economy. GDP is figured by adding together all government, consumer and business spending, investment, and exports then subtracting imports, and you have the expenditure method of calculating GDP. Which is to say, it uses national spending as an indirect means to estimate national income. Why should you care how it is calculated? Because GDP is used for so many economic policy decisions that directly effect your personal financial well being.

Government’s addition to GDP is problematical, because government doesn’t really produce anything, it only consumes. As such, government doesn’t add to national income and does not support the economy… it is supported by it. You can’t say borrowed money should be added to a person’s income, but economists do, when it comes to government spending. Welfare spending is one example. If I take a dollar from you and give it to someone else, does that make two dollars of income? No, it still only one… counted twice. If any government spending is included, it should only be that portion taxed and spent that year, and even that would distort the real picture due to the debt that has piled up, the service on that debt, welfare spending and the negative incentives government largess creates.

If the economy outside government folds, government spending must stop as well, because it is in fact spending and not income, but if government went away the real economy would hum along fine. Oh, government alone can go on a while by printing money and buying bonds, (monetizing debt), essentially stealing the wealth of everyone who holds the currency, but even that extraordinary measure must end in hyper inflation and the repudiation of a fiat currency, as in Argentina, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe etc… If the currency is backed by gold or some other commodity however, government cannot print money to keep up spending, because it would have to create that backing commodity out of thin air, which is why economists and politicians hate gold backed currencies, it limits their ability to fudge the numbers.

GDP is supposed to be an analog of a nation’s economic income and so adding in what should be subtracted distorts the picture. A nation’s real economic growth cannot be effectively measured when a drag is called a boost. In the most simple terms, if you are driving to a place, and want to know how long it will take to get there, normally you would discern the distance and your speed, divide the distance by your speed to get the time it will take to get there. We have all done similar calculations in our heads when the kids in the back seat say, “Are we there yet?” But what if we stop to eat? The calculation then would have to add in the time you spent at the restaurant, what if you subtracted the time you spent at the restaurant instead? Your calculation would be very different than reality wouldn’t it? Adding in government spending is like subtracting the time you spend eating instead of adding it, performing the opposite function than is called for, it gives a very distorted idea of what is really happening.

This provides a pernicious incentive for politicians to spend more to make GDP appear higher than it really is. Let’s say a nation is experiencing a recession and it is an election year. Government officials could borrow money and increase money printing to raise government spending, making the economy appear to be growing, even as it is really shrinking. Moreover, that raise in debt and corrosion of the currency to fund the spending, actually lowers real economic growth! That might help with an election campaign but it is certainly not a real calculation of that nation’s economy or income. Further, it skews the incentive for politicians from helping the real economy with actual reforms, to fudging the numbers with government spending, to make it look better. That is a recipe for eventual economic disaster.

Take GDP per person, a typical use of GDP to figure the income of each person on average. A nation with 10 people with a GDP of $10.00 a year would have GDP per person of $1.00 a year. What if in one year, a country’s government increased borrowing and spending an equal amount to the rest of the economy? Since that spending is included in the GDP figure it would make GDP appear to grow 100 percent in a single year! Would an average person’s income double though? Of course not, they would be poorer, because they would have to carry that debt… and if the scheme went on, that country would sooner rather than later go belly up, destroying all the prosperity of the people.

In the pseudo science of economics the wants and desires of those who do the measuring are included in their measurements. Unlike a physicist weighing the mass of a particle, the economist put’s his or her wishes into the measure, because they lack the perspective, testability and observability of the assumptions of real science. An electron has a testable verifiable charge that is consistent anywhere it is done, while no economic theory can be tested, they cannot be verified and are not universal. We all have egos and want to be more important than we are. None of us have a real perspective on ourselves, it goes back to Jung’s theories, that there is that we know about ourselves, that which everyone knows, that which others know but we don’t and that which no one knows. New class economists want government spending to be included in GDP, because they can effect government spending with their theories and assertions, therefore, adding government spending to GDP makes them more important. It serves their egos and the egos of those in political power. Sadly, it doesn’t serve us at all. That is why government spending should not be included in GDP… it calculates borrowing as income and calls a drag a boost, creating pernicious incentives and distorting the real picture of an economy.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Obama’s War on Ideas

Posted on January 15, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the newest war the US and Britain are fighting, the war on extremism, is a very dangerous slippery slope. The bottom of that slope is arbitrary rule. A slippery slope is when doing a thing, leads to another, then another, until eventually you have gone far beyond where you planned to go, like sliding down a slippery slope. A lie is a form of slippery slope. A white lie leads to another, then another, until they are no longer white lies they are bold faced lies… all to cover the initial lie. Once you step out onto that slope, the slide is unstoppable until the bottom is reached, then there is usually no way to get back up. The damage is done. Those who wield political power are many things, but stupid they are not, so the fact our leaders are moving us onto that slope is telling of their diabolical nature.

I would like to remind people that scientific progress, social evolution and political evolution depends on extreme ideas. When Columbus said the world is round he was an extremist, when Kepler said Earth revolves around the Sun and not visa versa he was extreme, when Einstein came up with his theory of relativity it was extreme, when Thomas Jefferson penned our Constitution it was extreme too. Every advance of humanity was called extreme at the time! To eliminate extreme ideas is to stop humanity in our tracks. New ideas are always extreme, to stop all new ideas is a recipe for stagnation and decay of a culture, it’s people and government.

As Clausewitz said, war is politics by violence, since the government has declared war then by definition, they mean to use violence for political ends. State violence is like a Pandora’s box. Once it is opened it cannot be unopened. Once someone is dead they cannot be brought back, (except by Jesus Christ as Lazarus). Therefore, before a government uses violence, it had better make sure the violence is justified. Violence is far more horrible than people realize, especially State violence, (war). So when a state resorts to violence, the enemy must be identified, the threat must be real, the goals set and the exit strategy decided. Else a war gets quickly out of hand and becomes an unending quagmire. The question now is, who will they use violence on?

As long as a faction isn’t violent who is to say it is extreme? Extreme is in the eye of the beholder. Many think the Mennonites are extreme, but not at all violent, so does that put them in our government’s sights? What about a saint? No one is more extreme than a saint. In the war on extremism both the US and Briton made sure to inform us that violence is not the defining factor… Extreme ideas are. The founding fathers were definitely extremists, and today, agreeing with them is one of our government’s definitions of extreme. A belief in individual liberties puts you on the extreme list. An anti abortion stance is another position that puts a person on the governments hit list. In fact, anything not in the new class progressive philosophy, is extreme, as defined by our government! Well, except for violent Islamic terrorism, but then again they did tell us it isn’t about violence, it is about ideas. Basically, anyone who disagrees with the government line, is an extremist.

It is the fear of Islamic terrorism that is the foot in the door for government to declare war on anyone who doesn’t agree with their new class philosophy. Yet the US government refuses to name Islamic terrorists as the target, in fact, they are careful not to. The lists put out by the US government and the British government on whom is extreme should make any liberty loving individual’s blood run cold. Throughout the ages, whenever a government wanted to usurp power, an enemy of the state has been the means, and Islamic terrorism provides just that means, and so must be protected, nurtured and husbanded. Now that we have allowed Obama to arbitrarilly decide who should be executed, out of fear of Islamic terrorists, there is no real limit to his power. Yesterday, Obama arbitrarily ordered Anwar Al Awlaki killed, for inciting Islamic terrorism, tomorrow, it will be Joe Smith, for reading the Constitution aloud in the public square.

So what does it mean to have a war on extremism? Simply stated, it means government will do violence to anyone who they disagree with or disagrees with them. Islamic terrorism provides the propaganda, but the real war is against the citizens of the US and Britain. Those governments bend over backwards to kowtow to violent factions within the Islamic community and never miss an opportunity to poke Christians in the eye. Remember Obama’s jailing of a film maker because his film offended Muslims? Last week Obama refused to attend the rally supporting Charlie Hebdo, and do you wonder why the US CIA is sending so much money and arms to Islamic terrorists around the world? Why were Christians forced at gun point to fund Piss Christ and a picture of the Virgin Mary in dung? Feces is the sign of Baal. So, if our governments are fighting a war on extremism, why do they engage in all those counter productive things? Because their war is not on Islamic terrorists it is against their own citizens!

Why would government wage a diabolical war against it’s own citizens? To disconnect us from our founding principles and documents. Obama himself said Our Constitution is too limiting he would like to change it, to empower government, not limit it. His war on extremism is just the bill to do that. Obama, and other world leaders are willing to let a few thousand children be killed horribly, they are willing to accept violence on our streets, rape as a weapon of war doesn’t bother them, they will tolerate the slaughter and even the extermination of Christianity, as well as genocide, human suffering to them is a means to an end, in short, those who will wage war on extremism, (do violence to those citizens that disagree with the elite), have no conscience and no morality, power is their only love. Oh, they will shed alligator tears over the suffering they cause, but that is only propaganda too.

To wage war against one’s own people is a description of truly evil person. In their war on us and our liberties Islamic terrorists are the new class progressive elite’s allies. Moreover, crushing ideas that the elite call extreme, is a certain way to stop humanity’s social, cultural and political evolution. War is politics by violence and by declaring war our government has avowed to use violence on anyone they deem extreme. Since they refuse to call Islamic terrorists extreme, but do call Tea party members, anyone who speaks of individual liberty, constitutionalists, returning US soldiers, gun owners, pro lifers, etc… extreme, it is clear the citizens of the US and Briton are the target of their war. Talk about slippery slope! Now that you know your government is planning on doing violence to you and your loved ones… what will you do about it? Oh, never mind, dancing with the stars is on… go back to sleep.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Pacifism in the Face of Evil

Posted on January 12, 2015 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, pacifism in the face of violent evil, guarantees evil wins. The pacifist may believe in his or her heart that they have the moral high ground, and would rather die than fight, but once they have enabled evil to win, they could very well be forced to fight against those very people the pacifist agrees with! This makes pacifism an important way to increase violence and empower evil. The violent usurper convinces his victims that pacifism is Godly even as he plans on slaughtering the pacifist herself. Civilization is not based on placidly allowing evil people to do whatever they want, that is barbarism, civilization is allowing those who mean us no harm full latitude, and stepping on those who seek to install themselves as despots, like bugs. Today in our world, we see those who seek to violently overthrow our civilization and replace it with a barbaric iron age philosophy… are placated, given welfare, protected and their violence is apologized for and even justified. That is a sure way to progress the world to a form of world wide barbarism like our planet has never seen before.

In Western civilization pacifism is a vice that seems to have no downside. The pacifist can convince him or herself that they are enlightened and on a higher plane than the hoi polloi. Just as the vegan can be a vegan in the west, to do so any other place, at any other time, is impossible. It is the market system of Western civilization that makes it possible. The vegan has at her fingertips anything grown anywhere on the planet regardless of season. The pacifist can sleep warm, well fed and safe in his house, because there are people willing to do violence to keep her safe. The moment Western civilization is overthrown however, pacifism becomes absurd, as does vegetarianism and a whole host of other Utopian ideas.

The first thing any self defense course will teach you, is that when someone says they are going to kill you, take them seriously! There is almost a quarter of the human population that openly avows they will take over the world and cut the heads off anyone who doesn’t convert to their ideology. They openly call for the overthrow of western civilization and to replace it with their fascist philosophy. They are telling us to our faces they are going to kill us, and enslave us and our children, yet our leaders tell us not to take it seriously. Every time they murder people, we are told not to judge, and that we should accompany one of our future oppressors home, to protect them from the non violent people they plan on killing, raping and enslaving. The first thing we need to do, if we are still sane, is take them seriously!

To fight a war on a tactic is a certain way to loose. Had the Second World War been about stomping out Blitzkrieg, the thousand year Reich would still be in existence. To win a war you have to identify the adversary and kill them before they kill you. That is war, politics by violent means. If one side is willing to use violence but the other refuses, the first will enslave the second, since slaves have no say the master could force them into the army if the he wants. Many have been pressed into military service against their will, and fought against their own families, because they were pacifists in the face of evil. What good is it to be a pacifist, if one merely empowers the very forces of violence he is against, by doing so?

Once you are in the hands of those who have no compunction about torture, killing, slavery and rape, you either die at their hands, possibly horribly, or you fight for them. Some pacifists would rather die, until the time comes to die, then life becomes a better option, even life serving the evil you refused to fight before. The Janissaries were Christian children forced to convert and fight for their oppressors. Once they became inured, those former Christians fought to enslave, kill and rape other Christians. The history of the Janissaries is one of violence and perversion on a grand scale. Once they have won, you and your children will be their slaves, to do with as they choose.

It can be said that it is only the pacifist who chooses their own master. They willingly become the slaves of those who are willing to use violence to seize power, since they were unwilling to use violence to keep those evil men from that power, and in doing so they choose who their torturer will be, because through their inaction, they help their slaver get power over them. Moreover, by their inaction they choose the most violent and evil faction available. In a real war, the pacifist is an enemy of the good, even though they believe in their hearts they are above the fray… and they are, until those protecting them have been vanquished, then those evil men who seek power over others will exercise that power over the pacifist. Then the pacifist will be forced to fight for their master or be beheaded. That is why I say, pacifism in the face of evil, is evil itself.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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