Limericks

Dear Friends,

Arguing in generality is using universals,
Kung Sung Lung reasoned into reversals,
But language is inept,
The mind adept,
So we’re reduced to convincing by commercials.

Criminals in Canada the government’s on your side,
Victims mustn’t defend themselves or even run and hide,
They’ve got your back,
So go ahead and attack,
As the nation of Canada commits cultural suicide.

Covid was a despots dream,
Usurping like a laser beam,
Listen to the experts,
Disregard the excerpts,
And the clot shot will make your arteries gleam.

Canadians don’t mind hardship when,
They’re called the nice guys in the fen,
Too smart to learn,
Open minded burn,
So they’ll vote for their oppression once again.

Anti-justice is a progressive ________,
Building consensus in a __________,
Universally __________,
A funeral _________,
And gaslight to keep them ________.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

Tapping energy we cannot detect,
Things from which we cannot protect,
Science ala carte,
Is not that smart,
It’s the acme of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

The Scott’s offered friendship and immigration,
The guests took that as an engraved invitation,
Men are too few,
What do you do,
When a little girl’s tougher than the entire nation.

Central bank failures are but a symptom,
Of an expert based central plan system,
Appeal to authority,
Crash the economy,
As the experts give us their sublime wisdom.

Censoring, disenfranchising, and living large,
Keep the halfwits on a party barge,
Behind a stout fence,
Makes perfect sense,
But precedent is set when the imbeciles are in charge.

Our elite are stupid and __________,
Creating disaster by finger and _________,
Building consensus,
By manipulating _____,
And making the nation weak and ________.

Sincerely
John Pepin

Posted in business, economy, International Power, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Dear Friends,

Solving climate change is now or never,
Our human rights we have to sever,
Heat ripples over the tar,
It’s too hot in the car,
But if an ice age comes it’s just the weather.

The elite of any nation are a law assailer,
In disaster and debacle they are a retailer,
Success is not their lot,
But here’s a thought,
Civil war is the ultimate proof of their failure.

European human rights are but few,
Being socialist through and through,
Beyond a doubt,
As it turns out,
The real Nazis won world war two.

Materialist atheism has its appeal,
Pretend logic masking how you feel,
It’s just a tool,
In order to rule,
They have to inspire religious zeal.

The elite want you to be ______,
Of boogymen who cast ________,
Act don’t _______,
Blindly _______,
And rue it as our culture does _______.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Laws

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the more laws, the greater the imbalance of power between the people and the elites. Even as fewer laws lower that imbalance. Once the imbalance crosses an invisible line, we call it “despotism” or “Tyranny.” The core truth is, they are both simply extreme imbalances of power. Therefore law is the path to despotism. This was one of the core arguments in Plato’s Republic, that “justice” (law) isn’t necessarily just. There never has been a totalitarian state that wasn’t filled with laws. Despotism is known for its absurd laws as tyrants are legendary abusers of people. All done under color of law. Edicts imposed, not for the despot’s good… but for ours. Laws pile up until they smother us… like old laundry.

The argument made is that freedom is dangerous. The less freedom the more safety. If we would only give up our human rights and humanity… we could live in a utopia of our master’s creation. Because, let’s face it, you and I are not to be trusted with freedom… but unaccountable people should have absolute freedom and control. This is an absurd argument on the face of it… that people without power can’t be trusted with freedom. But people can be trusted with unlimited power and freedom to abuse without accountability. The two positions are mutually exclusive. If freedom (power over oneself) is dangerous for a politically powerless person… how much more so for one with unlimited political power? This shows us that the argument for ever greater laws is spurious.

Socialists make the argument freedom is dangerous, so we need to give it up to an all wise and all powerful elite, to deal with us and our foolishness. They never recognize the spurious argument that it is. Because they are captured by the idea of cradle to grave childhood, paid for by someone else… a big brother maybe? Such people don’t understand that a child has no agency. Those Peter Pans who would live in a society where everyone is kept infantile and hemmed in by law, are jailing themselves too. Like a child, they think they should have unlimited freedom, but also like a child, they have no idea what it means. Because they are children. Only a child believes they need a parent to support, house, clothe and feed them. An adult does this for him or herself.

This brings us to a core point, that those who believe in unlimited law are children who want to be coddled by an all consuming mother. That’s what law is, a mother’s apron strings tying her little child to her forever. Who needs freedom when a smothering mother will take care of you. In fact she WANTS to. Yes, you may get the belt now and then, but that’s the price of permanent childhood. Children focus on the now. An example of this short term focus is the low family formation rate and sub-replacement birth rate in the Western world. Peter Pan doesn’t have kids. He throws tantrums. Like when ANTIFA has “fiery but peaceful” riots demanding more laws to be imposed upon us all. Because, who would know better how much they need to be smothered?

There has to be limits on human action, like murder, stealing, violence, and fraud. Law is the mechanism our ancestors found to do it. Unlimited law though is a means for the elite to kill, steal, commit violence, and defraud us, as Thrasymachus said. Law is a means to an end. That end can be a free, fair, and prosperous society, where people are treated as adults and act as such… or a society of children, hemmed in by laws that protect and enrich the elite at the expense of the people. The elite’s demand for more laws will never stop. It’s human nature. Our willingness to go along with our own oppression, however, is not human nature. Instead, wise people demand few laws, well policed, and equally enforced… instead of an imbalance of power created from reams of arcane and subjective laws.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Limericks

Dear friends,

Look closely and you will see,
Some things don’t get scrutiny,
Incidents are ample,
As in the example,
Of the Jan 6th pipe bomber in DC.

The elite have egos great,
Too sage to leave it to fate,
Plotting and conniving,
Their foes criticizing,
And plowing the car into the garden gate.

Looks like big government has failed us again,
A state ruled by administrator, expert and pen,
How could it be,
A reserve currency,
Because of the flawed nature of women and men.

Progressivism has failed once more,
Proving it again rotten to the core,
Human canners,
Central planners,
And their favorite pastime is war.

The elite are failures one and ______,
Upon the Earth they cast a _______,
Stupidly ______,
Our rights they ______,
And eventually they will cause a great _______.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Trusting The Untrustworthy

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in personal as well as international relations, it’s best not to sign agreements you know the other side won’t live up to. If you’re selling someone a car on credit, and they clearly have no means to pay, nor intention, giving them the keys to that car is stupid. It will result in paying some repo-man to pick up a junker so you might get pennies on the dollar. The same is true of international relations. When the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact to split up Poland, the Soviets planned on breaking the pact first… but were shocked when Operation Barbarossa kicked off. Untrustworthy people, factions, and nations are obvious. They exploit honesty, fidelity, and rule following as weakness. A weakness they do not have.

Just as the unreasonable can’t be reasoned with and a miser tends towards usury… the untrustworthy can’t be trusted. In personal relationships the untrustworthy have to move once they dirty up the playground, because everyone knows what they are. That’s why narcissists, psychopaths, and users of all stripes have to move regularly. Their untrustworthiness allows them to play a game once, then they have to find another mark. Once the patsies are used up in an area they move on. Because as individuals we’re smart enough to not play with them again. But our elite don’t seem to have that level of introspection and wisdom. Because they love trusting the untrustworthy. Judged by how often the elite gleefully sign pacts, agreements, and contracts with them.

If you get burned at a store you stop shopping there. If a borrower doesn’t pay back a loan their credit rating is lowered… but if a faction breaks faith, others are only too happy to sign another pact. I have to wonder if self interest plays a part. You take your own self interest seriously. So you don’t play with cons, you only do business with people who provide value. Elites on the other hand have a different incentive structure. The interests of the nation don’t necessarily align with theirs. Broken pacts, threats of war, and chaos serve to enhance the power of the elites. This comes at a cost to the nation but the elites’ interests lie elsewhere. Their fortunes are increased. It’s the people who pay the price. Self interest then is a strong incentive why elites trust the untrustworthy.

Signing a peace deal with a long time adversary, instead of crushing them, makes the elite appear as heroic humanitarians. But when the pact is fictitious it’s only giving breathing room for the aggressor to rearm. The elite know this full well, but pretend to the people they’re stabbing in the back, that they are such merciful people to sign a peace agreement… with someone who has a history of using them to rearm. The result always has been more war. War that serves the interest of the elite. The people are scared so cede more power and money to the elite to keep them safe. Then the elite exploit that fear to undermine elections, sustaining their power even in the face of public anger. So elites that sign deals with the untrustworthy get immediate accolades and later more power to fight the war they set up.

Now, we can’t say that all elites are malevolent, cunning, and conniving… some are just plain stupid. Bonhoeffer said stupidity is more dangerous than evil. Because the evil at least are trying to get ahead by their evil. While the stupid harm themselves as much as everyone else with their stupidity. This makes intention irrelevant. The CCP violated the last trade pact Trump signed with them, instantly, yet he wants to sign another. Since when have the Muslims ever recognized a peace accord as anything but a means to rearm? The globalist progressive faction in the west considers itself above the law and our adherence to Constitutional norms… a weakness. Yet we are told to trust the media, bureaucracy, and courts beholding to that faction? Wouldn’t it be wiser to stop trusting the untrustworthy altogether?

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

Limericks

Dear Friends,

I wonder where all my money went,
I cant afford food or to pay my rent,
Prices have doubled,
But don’t be troubled,
The BLS claims it’s only twenty percent.

There once was an interesting man,
And he had an interesting plan,
He ran with shears,
His mother’s fears,
And now he’s called one eyed Stan.

The elite don’t know what to call it,
Statistics made for us and back-lit,
But we’re not hearing,
In fact we’re cheering,
Because what counts is what’s in your wallet.

Cracker barrel what a great brand,
Of home style chicken I’m a fan,
But times change,
Politics rearrange,
In ire it’s united us woman and man.

The foolish run with ________,
Scurrying around like ________,
Believe my _____,
Oops my _____,
With ideas as good a ________.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in economy, media, philosophy | Leave a comment

Conspiracy Theorist

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, calling someone a “Conspiracy Theorist,” is the fallacy of dismissal by slander. This is a form of ad hominem attack. People use such fallacies when they can’t refute an argument and don’t want to have to deal with an exposed lie, so they socially attack the questioner. A “conspiracy theorist” then is both slander, a person not to be taken seriously, and a means to dismiss an argument you would rather not engage with. This is often done when a conspiracy is threatened with exposure. Such tactics allow a conspiracy to go on indefinitely. Poking Machiavelli in the eye. In that, if a conspiracy can be authoritatively denied it can go on to its conclusion. As in the case of the CIA coverup in the JFK assassination. If they weren’t involved, why keep their involvement secret for six decades?

Dismissal by slander is Kafkaesque in that defending yourself proves you are a conspiracy theorist. The slanderer can sit back and ridicule every point you bring up to “prove” the negative… that you’re not a conspiracy theorist. The debate has changed from the conspiracy to your credibility. Even if you win and retain credibility you lose the argument about the conspiracy. It’s pure catch 22 in scope, effect, and intent. The only way to counter it is not to take the bait. Don’t put your finger in the Chinese finger trap. Instead maintain pressure about the conspiracy while ignoring personal attacks to derail the conversation. If they keep at it, simply call them out. Ask why they don’t want to debate, why only make slanderous attacks? Put the onus on them.

Dismissal by slander is a social attack in that the person slanders, the “conspiracy theorist” is now someone who is crazy and has to be treated as such. The idea is social ostracism as a weapon of censorship. No one wants to be socially attacked. Since we are social beings our status in the hierarchy is critical to our ids and superegos. This gives social attacks more weight in our minds than they actually have. Our social standing is threatened and so we react and put our fingers deeply into the trap. This is another reason dismissal by slander is so effective. People almost can’t help themselves but to take the bait. The logic is simple, attack someone’s social standing and they take their knife from your throat and stab themselves with it instead.

Dismissal by slander shuts down critical thinking. No need to engage with a “conspiracy theorist,” that would be a waste of time. So the argument is never examined. Instead the focus turns on the person with the audacity to shine a light on a conspiracy that would rather remain in the dark. At least until it serves its purpose. Imagine if Brutus and his cohort were exposed on their way to the Senate to kill Caesar? Then they claimed the informant was merely a conspiracy theorist, and were believed? The assassination would have gone on without a hitch. Even as the whistle blower would have been killed for spreading lies. Such ad hominem attacks are ideal when critical thinking is the enemy. The only time critical thinking is the enemy is when someone is lying.

Dismissal by slander is done by people who are telling a lie or maintaining a narrative that’s counter to the truth. Usually conspirators to a conspiracy or those with minds firmly closed. The advantage to the closed minded is that it saves them having to think for themselves. Some people would rather have others do their thinking… freeing them up for other tasks. Nevertheless, dismissal by slander is highly effective at shutting down critical thinking, is a catch 22 trap, and is a social attack. Therefore it’s the definition of a spurious argument. The best way to avoid the trap is not to take the bait. Continue cutting at the conspiracy with the knife of logic. Refuse to turn it on yourself. If pressed, turn it on the foe and ask why they don’t want to debate… but instead dismiss by slander?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

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

Limericks

Dear Friends,


A man like a computer is a brainiac,
There’s no knowledge he doesn’t lack,
Elsewhere he has fears,
But the realm of ideas,
And in truth he is foolish and a maniac.

And in truth he is foolish and a maniac,
God gazed upon Adam and said,
What can I do to ease his head,
First was a wife,
Filled with strife,
So God gave him a dog instead.

If we lie to them it’s a major felony,
Their lies build consensus not perjury,
It’s not a double standard,
It’s just law he answered,
But it smells fishy wouldn’t you agree.

You need a degree or so they said,
Blue collar jobs are gone and dead,
So get a degree,
Then you’ll see,
They gave the job to a foreigner instead.

There’s a con called _______ ___ _______,
Selling what doesn’t exist is the _______,
Faster than _______ ______,
Please don’t ask ________,
And the patsy will end up in a ______.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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

A Faction’s Core Principles

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, factions should be judged by their core principles. If the core idea of a faction is unlimited government all their initiatives will be towards that goal. If the core idea of another faction is limited government all their initiatives will be toward that goal. Moreover, elitist theory says that the elite’s goals align in plundering the people, so their initiatives will seek to do it. Some factions may have religion as their core idea and so all their initiatives will seek global hegemony. There are as many factions as there are core ideas. All of them vying for the votes of people who don’t agree with their core principles… so they manipulate, lie, and connive to get them. That’s why we as wise citizens have to interrogate their core principles and judge their initiatives by them.

Every faction and person in them have a core principle or idea that drives them. That core idea motivates them to action. Some factions believe in limited government, like the US founding fathers. Others believe in unlimited government, like the progressives and globalists. Then there are those who believe the world should be run by their religion. That core principle is what they are all striving for. Though some are more motivating than others. Those that promise unlimited wealth, power, and prestige have an innate draw to the ambitious element of society. Simple fixes to solve all the world’s problems appeal to the simple minded. Each faction trying to establish themselves as the hegemonic faction. Those factions that are willing to go the furthest have a distinct advantage.

Factions that have the stamina to commit atrocity often win. Usually the most zealous adherents are captured by an idea. With pre-programmed talking points they needn’t burn a calorie in debate. This is one of the reasons faction is such a strong tool. People become enamored with an idea and worship that idea, and try to impose it on mankind… for our own good. The Nazis didn’t think they were the bad guys, nor did Lenin, or Tamerlane… their atrocities were justified in their minds. Because it was the path to their core principle. The difference between Hitler and Hindenburg was that Hitler was willing to act and Hindenburg wasn’t. Lenin was willing to defraud an election to get the name majority, he was willing to do Cheka’s work, and even exterminate the Kulaks… to get it done.

Factions then that believe in limited government, limited imbalances of power, and as unlimited individual freedom as possible… are at a strong disadvantage. Because such factions and people that fill them are by definition unwilling to use force. Because force itself is what they seek to eliminate. Even as their foes seek to gain force so they can use it. Let’s face it, people who seek unlimited power believe might makes right. So you see how this creates a dichotomy of power even when the faction that seeks to limit power has it. Because they are unwilling to use it to hold their political foes to their own despotic laws… even as those who seek power are willing to murder their foes. Those factions that seek unlimited power will use atrocity against those unwilling even to hold them to the law.

That’s why it’s so critical we judge all factions through the lens of their core principles. A faction that seeks unlimited power over you, will lie to you, cheat you, and even kill you. Because unlimited power means unlimited power. They follow Thrasymachus believing might makes right, as long as they have the might. Even as those factions that seek to limit the power of government are vilified and attacked under color of law. A faction that seeks unlimited power will not limit itself by a constitution, it will exploit limitations to hobble their foes, as did Pericles. Wise people see through the charade and vote for the faction that seeks limited government, but we are easily manipulated. Edward Bernays showed us that. So when casting a vote, ask yourself, what does this faction represent… despotism or freedom?

Sincerely,
John Pepin

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