By far my favorite commercial of 2014/2015 is the one below from GE about how ideas can sometimes be scary featuring a little alien looking ET creature being born and ridiculed until GE opened its doors to the innovative prospects of the fledgling creature. It’s a very honest commercial for such a huge corporate giant and it tells me that at least in practice GE hasn’t lost its way in understanding where it came from and what role it plays in America’s future. Growing up in Cincinnati it is impossible to not have GE a major part of my life and whenever I have to travel downtown and drive by the Evendale plant there is a little happy place that keys off in the back of my mind knowing to what a great extent GE has advanced technology and really lived up to the aspects of the commercial on innovation.
Being a corporate giant isn’t easy, and I am often distrustful of them to stay nimble in the field of innovation simply because there comes too much pageantry and fluff just to keep rules and regulations off their back to maintain the kind of forward thinking that made them great in the first place. Jeffrey Immelt after Barrack Obama was elected was put into a very difficult position. Here was a president openly hostile to corporations and business that would see GE as a massive target for socialist implementation. As a CEO it is first the job of such a person to guide their corporation through the potential threats that exist so that those gates of innovation can stay open for such fledging ideas shown in the commercial. So Immelt did what he thought was best, he made a partner out of Obama running the president’s Jobs Council for a few years. In so doing he was able to exploit the lack of financial understanding of the barely concealed socialist by enacting 54 of the 60 recommendations made by the Council—such as fast tracking key infrastructure projects and selling more leases for both oil and gas production. But in the end, only 4 of those recommendations were completed as is typical of government which loses focus quickly as life in the Belt Way quickly kills off ideas like an African hunter on the Serengeti. Under the auspices of government ideas quickly become extinct—and Jeffrey Immelt’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness was one of the first things that Obama hung on his trophy wall. Obama tried to use GE to stimulate his economy, and largely took Immelt’s advice without knowing anything else to do—but failed to nurture those ideas into fruition
For the last 20 years the GE90 engines from GE have been a game changer in commercial aviation. It is largely because of this engine that oversea travel has been on the increase just because now airlines can perform such a task with such a powerful engine without massive fuel consumption. That engine is exactly what the metaphorical commercial about GE innovation was all about. It was one of the great leaps of innovation from American culture that could have only come from such a large corporation that embraces such invention. And to make the GE90 work, it took a lot of the best minds at the time in the field of aerospace to pull it off.
There is a new generation of engines coming to serve for the next two decades, so the GE90 today is something of a Payton Manning in aviation. It’s still a great engine, but it has set the bar very high and newer, younger players are entering the market to break those previous records—but it took the pace setter first to show everyone what the innovation looked like. While some may look at the GE commercial in respect to Immelt’s work with President Obama and cry foul, I have a tremendous amount of respect for those open doors which allow scary little creatures like new ideas a place to go. I wish there were a thousand GEs in America—and I believe there is plenty of room for all of them—but unfortunately for most, they end up in the trophy case of some politician’s game wall—hunted, killed, and stuffed for memory.
I don’t watch much television so I didn’t see the GE commercial until I was watching the start of NASCAR last weekend. I love NASCAR because of the innovations—the new MAC tools, the tires, the corporate sponsors. I love seeing a pit crew in action trying to troubleshoot a problem in record time to get their driver back on the track as quickly as possible. There are a lot of ideas born on those tracks which end up in the cars we drive, so I love to just watch NASCAR for a glimpse into the future. It was in looking for innovations that I actually saw the GE commercial.
Recently I had one of the worst days of my life where everything that could go wrong did and there was just a mess of activity that had to be cleaned up from more of those idea killing vermin. So to brighten my day, my wife went to McDonald’s and picked up a couple of Big Mac meals so I could watch the news while enjoying that wonderful idea from McDonald’s ancient past—which I still think is one of the greatest inventions ever created. Big Macs would be an impossibility to the typical hunter and gatherer in New Guinea or Africa—yet out of the mind of Ray Kroc came a company called McDonald’s that made quality fast food easy and affordable on the go—the Big Mac was created. When I have a really bad day-one of those days where it’s difficult to breathe from one moment to the next, I typically get a Big Mac and just like that—I’m good to go. My worries and concerns evaporate. It’s not just the taste of the burger that drives my interest, it’s the story of McDonald’s itself that does. It reminds me of what innovation is supposed to look like. As rapidly as McDonald’s makes Big Macs it is astonishing that they always come out well, cooked perfectly, possessing just the right amount of lettuce, onions and sauce, and can be done so quickly. To this very day if I buy a Big Mac in Florida, it will be made nearly to the same specifications as one that I might buy in Wisconsin. They are little miracles—now taken for granted like the GE90 jet engine—but they have changed the way the world interacts with each other—and each one of those ideas is beautiful.
So I have a major soft spot for the GE commercial with the little alien idea being born to the voice over about ideas being scary. Ideas are the natural-born enemy of the way things are. They are ridiculed and mocked, and are often hunted by members of the political class for sport. When Immelt joined Obama’s Job’s Council, the move to me was to protect all the ideas brewing at GE from the hunters of the political class who want to destroy those wonderful creatures before they can bloom into beautiful creatures. That’s what a CEO should do, and if that sometimes means drawing fire away from those they are trying to protect—then so be it. Because as the commercial says, “under the proper care, [ideas] become something beautiful. They do.
The task of a massive corporation like GE is to create an environment where ideas can grow. Not everyone within that culture embodies such a spirit, of course, but in general, the philosophy of the company must seek to strive for such creation. If it does, then it will bring into the world ideas that would otherwise be destroyed by humanity always speculative, and short-sighted. It was a bold commercial from a company that really didn’t need to push the limits of perception—yet they did. They didn’t have to ruffle any feathers, yet they did—and for that I deeply appreciate the commercial. It is good to see that GE is not playing it so safe in the public relations market—and that they are remembering who and what they are—and how they got where they are today. Ideas are beautiful—even when they look scary to the un-enterprising and clandestine political hunters. It is good to be the natural-born enemy to the way things are. That is the spirit of innovation—and the direct benefit is humanity and its offspring.
Out of all the potential candidates for the upcoming presidential election in 2016, it is Scott Walker who most personifies my expectations for such a high administrative position. He is certainly the most qualified, and vetted of any potential candidate except for maybe President Obama himself. Walker has been through a remarkable amount of tribulation—and has come out on top each and every time. He has the even temperament to take on anything and still come out as someone who can build bridges with those he disagrees with. From my vantage point, he’s the perfect candidate including the fact that he did not graduate from college. Recently when progressives have witnessed the polling numbers of Walker and realized that he could have a legitimate chance at running for President of the United States, they have been clamoring for anything and everything negative about Walker that they could—which has been a very short list. Even when they looked for skeletons in his closet they found it surprisingly empty. All they could muster was an attack on his intelligence because he did not complete college—which again to me is one of his greatest strengths.
The college myth was created by the progressive class to perpetuate the complete lie that college would allow kids to purchase their way into merit for income earning potential. It has only worked in regard to government workers who don’t have any real expectation of performance anyway. In the private sector college experience has not replaced the traditional ground up mentorship’s which used to be so common—where a hard enterprising worker learned everything there was to know about a business and worked their way up the ranks through tribulation and experience. Progressives in their desperate task of creating a society of collectivists decided that the best way to accomplish the task was through public education and colleges—which they have done. There is a good reason that most educators throughout the United States are known liberals. It is to teach students liberalism and to implant in their young minds the concept of selflessness. For instance, when my wife attended college she was told to read the Koran. When she asked the question about why the Bible wasn’t offered she was instantly told that she wasn’t there to ask questions but to do as she was told—which came as a surprise to both of us. The college had an agenda for their students and that was to spread the theocracy of Islam while charging students huge amounts of money for the indoctrination. The results can be easily seen around us to this day.
In college I was primarily interested in economics and philosophy—and my professors were wrong on both. In philosophy on the very first day the topic of conversation and first reading assignment was I Ching, which I thought was stupid. I explained the book to the class and professor as a ridiculous expression of oriental mystics that had very little to do with American economic power. Of course the professor attacked American domination through economics around the world and cited that the oriental people had it right as a best approach through a happy life toward our deaths. Even more shocking to me was the fact that out of a class room of 50 students I was the only one who had read I Ching so I was the only one who knew what I was talking about—except for the professor who was clearly a huge bleeding heart liberal. I Ching essentially preached the ideals of Confucianism which was really a back door approach to preparing the mind to accept communism as a state-run option—because the orient is essentially a collectivist based society and their philosophies reflect a lack of focus on individuality. I had read the book on my own the year before and already knew what I was going to get out of it, yet the philosophy professor was planning to spend four weeks on the book—which to me was just ridiculous.
There was a similar story which involved my economics studies. When I discovered that the professor in that class was essentially preaching the merits of Keynesian economics I completely rejected the class and was ready to withdrawal. Again, I had already read enough prior to the class to know what the professor was teaching and to stay in his class meant I would have to turn off my mind—not turn it on to a greater degree. Clearly, the experience my wife and I had in college was evidence that the college experience was not about teaching students to be productive people in society—it was to indoctrinate them with as much liberalism as they could cram into a four-year degree hoping that students would take with them that idiocy into the real world to implement progressive political strategies.
I lived on the campus of the University of Cincinnati for one full year and part of another without the desire to party at the fraternities, or to hang out at the bars and nightclubs. I went to a few of those events just to see what all the fuss was, and I didn’t like them. So I spent my time reading books in restaurants that were open all night and maintaining my emotional distance so I’d have clear observation. I was able to watch the college students—who were my age, with the gained insight of uncommitted logic and I drew my conclusions—which turned out to be extremely right. College for most people is a really bad idea. It’s good for learning something in the medical industry and other sciences, but for practical application into the manufacturing sector, or in sales, invention, and even engineering—college does a terrible job in producing intelligent, hard-working masterpieces. College is the dream of progressives to ruin the minds of the young with collectivist crap with the promise that success in life can be purchased. All you have to do is sit through the liberalized classes like a time share victim and hope that you come away from the experience with a free vacation from life.
College teaches people to think within a system—but often the answers to the hardest problems are outside of any organized structure. This is why major progressives like Howard Dean were threatened by Scott Walker as seen in the video above. This is also why Walker has been so successful in Wisconsin where other governors throughout the country have faltered. Walker is functioning from personal experience instead of direction from a system of collective thought. College graduates make nice little party leaders who will think for the good of the political orthodox, but if a problem falls outside of those parameters, they are often lost as to what to do—because collectively their party has not yet answered those types of questions. That happens to Barack Obama all the time. He is the epitome of a college graduate ill prepared for the world outside of liberal institutional thought. He cannot think on his feet.
College success is a myth created by progressives and largely the baby boomers bought into the lie completely surrendering logic to pure speculation. Boomers wanted to believe that they could purchase a better life for their children with a college ticket—but all their kids really received was a trip into the “Brave New World.” College often ruins minds and destroys opportunity—and most kids are better off not going. There is no replacement for good old-fashioned hard work—and that is the kind of person that Scott Walker is. A quick study, and one of my most popular articles seen on the sidebar to the right indicates that most successful people avoid the damage that college does to their minds. I saw little of nothing in my college days that was helpful to a human being who desires to think. What I saw happen to women in particular I thought was devastating to their integrity forever. What I gained most out of college was found at a local Burger King that I sat in and read my many books—which I could have done without going to college. It was the most positive aspect of my experience. I ate a lot of Whoppers.
The panic of a Walker candidacy from both Republicans and Democrats is in finally convincing America of the worthlessness of a college education. If Walker wins, it will be a major blow to the progressive myth—and that has all those who love their institutions deeply concerned. But that issue needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later, because America needs the innovation that comes from those who normally get frustrated with college and drop out all together as opposed to those looking to purchase their way through life by turning off their minds just so they can get a piece of paper. From my personal experience there are a lot of potential Bill Gates types out there along with his nemesis Steve Jobs—both who didn’t have a college education. College destroys minds, it doesn’t help them grow and develop new ideas—not at the normal pace of human need. College limits people far more than it helps them, and that is what a Scott Walker President would illustrate to the 21st Century masses. The college scam is already falling apart and people will discover it by default, but Scott Walker could accelerate the process, and might actually save some of what’s left of America. So if I get the opportunity, I will vote for Scott Walker.
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted the below video from 1961 by Ayn Rand herself about capitalism and communism. At the time there was a lot of debate about which was better for society. The political class and intelligentsia decided they liked communism whereas the American people still in love with their John Wayne westerns and old-fashioned ideas of westward expansion loved their capitalism. Democrats and labor unions in a partnership with each other decided that they would avoid the name of communism in much the same way that Fidel Castro did during the period that he was trying to convince Cuba to turn toward Marxism by denying that his proposed dictatorship was a party of communists. Of course we know by history that it was a complete lie, just as history will show that in America public schools, colleges, and the federal government itself has fully embraced communism all along—and sought to teach children those “communal” concepts from before even kindergarten. Visit any daycare facility and you will see communism being taught to 3 and 4 year olds in great abundance. In 1961 Ayn Rand was despondent as to how the great America could even conceive of making the mistakes she had just escaped from in her mother Russia. So she made the below recording to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association to contemplate why.
Speaking of management associations and the innovations available to America it is an aspect to my life that I know first hand. I came to know Ayn Rand and the ARI work because I share with them very similar ideals about how business should be conducted and why capitalism is such a vastly superior mechanism in any global marketplace. I never read Ayn Rand until just a few years ago, yet I lived my life nearly in parallel with her character Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. When I finally did read it I wondered how I had traveled through life for over 40 years without running across it—and once I did I understood completely the intentions of the novel.
For me the most powerful part of the book was when Roark refused to be a member of the architectural board for the World’s Fair exhibit because of his strict personal revulsion toward collectivism. I too have been invited and had to decline many such associations and it has cost me likely millions in so doing. For thirty years I have been given many, many, many opportunities to do just as what was offered to Roark in The Fountainhead and I declined for the same reasons so to keep my own integrity intact. I had never heard of anybody doing the things I had been doing and taking the social positions I had until I read The Fountainhead, which was really the first time I had a measure that I was actually right in my instincts—and it was good to hear Ayn Rand from beyond the grave tell me she understood.
I had for years been struggling with the communism so present in American business—everything from Six Sigma concepts to Jack Welch management methods. I was sent to many classes over a great deal of time and on day one I lost interest because essentially what they were teaching was classic communism—not capitalism. It was no wonder that companies struggled with profits and innovation and I had no desire to learn such a stupid thing. I often refer to my years at Cincinnati Milacron as one of those pinnacle moments of understanding. I was sent to a Lean Manufacturing seminar as a hand-picked bright spot in their future only to discover that the company was dying on the first day of class. I lost interest in that company once I realized that they were has-beens and would soon go out of business more or less—which of course they did. My views at the time I couldn’t articulate against the current because everyone essentially thought I was nuts—since I was the lone voice against “consensus” and other focus group derivatives. I knew from experience that I wanted to maintain my individuality because it was within that element that true innovation in thought was brought forth.
I still run into the same opposition—actually every day. But I now have a track record to beat over people’s heads which quiets them. When I was in my 20s and 30s everyone just thought I’d grow out of such thoughts of independence—but instead I just got worse over time the more I saw that my methods worked as opposed to other studies. During the 90s I likely read every management book there was in Barnes and Nobel over a ten-year period, and most of them were so wrong, that they might as well be the equivalent to the latest “quick diet” fad because the methods were built around the same mysticism. Most corporations, and most businesses function like a communist dictatorship which quickly saps the strength of an organization of its most valuable resource—the individuals who actually work for the institution. It isn’t long that a company dies on the vine once a few decades of communist dictatorship ruins them for life. Cincinnati Milacron died in this fashion—as did General Motors. The later was only saved by government bail-outs.
Banking institutions, corporations, political structures—everywhere that there is a hierarchy of a few nameplate administrators who have power over others just by title, communism is found to be at the core philosophy of the leaders within the institution. Many of those tuning in to listen to Ayn Ran only cared about what she had to say about profit—not about the means of obtaining it. Most American businesses in 1961 were already infiltrated with communist ideals through their education institutions. They were already thinking in the wrong manner and were mapping out their own personal destructions even as the leaders built their careers and retirement pensions. Those same individuals might have been paid good money for their leadership—but what they often left in their wake was a declining business, not a flourishing one. I simply refused to play along—and over time it has benefited me and many others because when fresh ideals are needed, they are available because I have not destroyed the means of obtaining them.
As Ayn Rand said, it wasn’t communism that proved to be superior to capitalism. It was that in America capitalism committed suicide because businessmen and women discovered that to be good at capitalism they actually had to be good people to the very core of their being and could not have their egos uselessly massaged by corporate structure. The ability to dictate the lives of others because they held power over their employees’ financial purse strings proved too tempting and they fell in love with the power of communism—the ability to be the center of control of all things distributed to others according to their need. For men, the best way to test this morality is in placing a beautiful young secretary outside of their offices. If they contemplate using their power and influence to bed her—they are not moral enough men for capitalism. For women, if they use their power and position to decorate themselves with excessive sign stimuli and tales of oversea travel not out of necessity—but grandeur for the sake of it—as if to exemplify that they hold a higher title than others and therefore hold the fate of so many in their hands—then they are not moral enough for capitalism and will become seduced by the profiteer communism eventually. Once they do, you can hear the term, “team” uttered from their mouths more and more often as they are always on the search for “communal” exercises intended to achieve consensus. A typical episode of The Office is a good place to start to see this withering, pathetic diatribe of failure manifested through comic relief.
As I write this article my wife and I just bought iPhone 6 mobile devices—which to me is one of the most innovative items on planet earth presently. The company itself is nearly at a $1 trillion market cap valuation, and they’ve done it their way. They are very much as a company the way Howard Roarke conducted his business—vastly independent of other companies. They make the market come to them instead of forming themselves to the market. Many analysts college trained to think like nice little communists wonder why the market evaluation of Apple isn’t already over $1.26 trillion—after all it could be. But Apple does things their way for their own reasons and they are driving the market according to their creative input as a company driven by individuals. Steve Jobs after all was a very informal businessman who didn’t have a college degree, and was actually fired from the company he created. But in the end it was Jobs who made Apple what it is and paved the way for creative minds through an excessive commitment to a capitalism loving culture that made Apple such a successful company. Jobs was one of the first to introduce casual wear to the business place just to break down the top down communist culture of rigid dress codes and oppressive company reminders that the employees served the institution—not the other way around. What Jobs did at Apple he was able to perform because he wasn’t taught in college to hate it capitalism—but to use it to be a creative human being. He was essentially a modern real-life Howard Roarke.
Apple isn’t the only company out there who understands that communism has no place in American business. There are others, but they are definitely on the fringe. I am one of those proud fringe people and I know of several others because like-minded people tend to know each other. But what Ayn Rand said in her lecture to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association was completely accurate. It’s not that communism is superior, or had even won. Communism has seeped into our culture as a profiteer while those who were supposed to protect capitalism were too busy thinking about how powerful they are over their employees, or in banging their secretaries. Instead of conducting themselves in a moral way, they have instead turned toward Apple and tried to copy everything about the company hoping that they will strike gold in the same manner. But they can dress in jeans and follow other similar attributes of Apple, but if they don’t develop a creative—capitalist environment for their employees to prosper in—they will fail leaving the default mode of operation to the mindless communists who will sweep in to save the day with bail-outs, focus groups and the constant reminder that institutions are all about “consensus” building. But they were, and will always be wrong. Successful companies are built by individuals for the sake of creative enterprise and it is there that capitalism shines best and brightest—and for the most people’s benefit. It is what’s missing from our present culture and why everything taught counter to that basic ideal is a waste of time. American business knows how to get there, but they are not willing to act morally to achieve it—which is why Ayn Rand in 1961 was so baffled by the American approach to the long-standing debate. There just weren’t enough defenders of capitalism out there because too many executives were staring at the boobies of their secretaries—instead of on the next great idea and how to free the minds of mankind to unleash the power of capitalism and the ideals that spring forth from such a culture.
One of the great failures of the human condition is the personal desire to control other people through manipulation, social titles, and just sheer domination. Anyone who has worked in an environment where other people were constantly in interaction, they have witnessed this desire for control over others in all its dysfunction. Control is essentially the primary reason for the governments’ desire for gun control over its population. It is also the primary reason Obama through the FCC wants control of the internet through Net Neutrality. The control desired isn’t anything needed, but is only to satisfy the egos of bureaucrats and their lust to have the kind of control over others that they can’t get in their personal lives. If the root cause of the human desire for control is analyzed in most situations it will be found nearly 100% of the time that those who desire control over others most are those least secure about how to guide their own lives from moment to moment.
Often control is disguised to be seen as a helpful measure. An insecure parent might desire to control the finances of their children so to keep them close—so not to leave them vulnerable to social judgment which might otherwise be noticed. A boss might desire to control an employee they know is superior to them by crafting mundane procedures to wear down the challenging individual in hopes that the tasks will hone down ambition so corporate superiors might not notice. And the government at all levels–from the local zoning board all the way up to President of the United States can’t resist controlling other people through rules and regulations. For the political employee it is difficult to resist when power is confiscated through government mechanisms and provided to the desk of a bureaucrat the means to sort through and re-distribute the fruits of productivity to those they deem worthy. For the zoning administrator the rich land owner who wants to build a new garage will have to pay more and grease many more wheels to get approval than the hot young blond who wants to build a deck to sun bath upon. When the rights of others must be filtered through some government bureaucrat abuse through control is a common occurrence.
It is because of this human frailty desiring control over others that economies struggle and do not reach their full potential. It is also why there is much resistance to laissez-fairecapitalism as opposed to socialism, communism, or some mixture of those ideas, especially by the political left. If the mind of those who call themselves democrats is analyzed correctly, it will be discovered that deep down inside they typically have serious personal control insecurities—which is why they are Democrats to begin with. Those who lean liberal tend to be insecure with themselves and desire to use re-distribution of resources through politics as a means to inflate their personal power over others. This was never more apparent than in the 1990s when then President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to hide their human frailties behind economic policies that pretended to support capitalism, only with a new spin on the type of socialism that control addicts desire most. They called it “The Third Way.”
In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”.[5] Blair referred to it as “social-ism” that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.[8]
In other words, the Third Way is identical to the corporate boss who is technically incompetent who steals the ideas of a superior minded employee so to impress their bosses when performance reviews are requested to drive up job security. Government has recognized that socialism and communism tend to rob people of initiative, so they give the illusion of capitalism so that the work excess produced can then be stolen and re-distributed to their political supporters to keep them in power. So essentially the Third Way is socialism without the title designed to hide the intentions toward control. It would be equivalent to the jealous husband who won’t let his wife drive a car under abusive circumstances—afraid she might find a better lover—by telling her that driving is dangerous and that he loves her so much that he doesn’t want her to get hurt. That is the essence of the Third Way economy patterns so prevalent today, introduced by progressives like Bill Clinton and heavily supported by open socialists like Barack Obama.
The point of this article is to illustrate what is really going on behind Net Neutrality. Under the current policy of Internet regulation and creativity, it is essentially a model of laissez-fairecapitalism. Products are bought and sold rapidly in great number because there is an incentive to make money—so a very diverse number of products are available to consumers at a wide range of prices driven by competition. Government regulation hardly exists on the Internet and this has allowed a market sector to flourish—much the way the economy in America did during the 1920s, and 1980s under presidents Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Communists and socialists however have had their presidents elected in most of the other periods and the result has been lackluster economic growth—except for the advent of the Internet. At the heart of the desire for Net Neutrality is the desire to control the economy and the people who make it up.
There is no problem with the Internet, there is no unfairness. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on the Internet because of its limitless creative options. It has regulated itself through competition the way laissez-fairecapitalism tends to anywhere it is utilized without controls imposed upon it by weak-willed personalities. Net Neutrality is all about control over others. That need for control is built on inner insecurities by lesser individuals who want to appear as equal or even superior to their betters. With Net Neutrality weak people who know they can’t compete in life need the protection of government so that they can feel equal to everyone else. Under open market capitalism, they can’t, so they must sabotage the successful so that they can feel equal. That is what is called “social justice.”
Net Neutrality is all about control and insecurity. It’s about a government that is useless trying to make itself relevant with “social justice” by stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy. It is just another version of the Third Way. It’s a scam—just like most things in government are. It’s an attack on laissez-fairecapitalism. It’s all about control from inferior minds over superior ones in the only way that such an arrangement can occur—through manipulation, emotion, and a promise of security from illusionary concerns. Net Neutrality is a false argument against freedom by a lying government for the sole purpose of convincing the strong to give up their rights to the weak so that social justice through the Third Way of compromise can occur—which is nothing more than a way to hide the inadequacies of failed personalities from the realities they’d otherwise make for themselves.
After a friend of mine read my latest Cliffhanger installment they informed me of the comparison to a character named Pigman—which at first I thought was an insult. These are interesting days for the intersection of comics and the “clash of civilizations” indeed. The real-life adventures of a former al-Qaeda militant has become a popular comic book in Indonesia – the most populous Muslim nation in the world – chronicling his transformation from enemy to ally in the fight against terrorism. DC Comics, the home of Batman, sent the classic superhero to Paris and replaced sidekick Robin with a French Algerian Muslim known as Nightrunner. “The 99,” is a comic book creation out of the Middle East featuring 99 superheroes, each representing a different aspect of Islamic culture. “The 99” has received the blessing of President Obama and is working with other DC comic heroes as well as becoming an animated TV series. So there is a lot of literary and creative propaganda out there representing many of the real life tensions percolating under the surface of superficial reality.
Then there’s Pigman, the jihadists’ nemesis and the protagonist of Bosch Fawstin’s latest graphic novel “The Infidel,” a story of Muslim twin brothers whose lives veer in polar opposite directions in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. “The Infidel” echoes Fawstin’s own journey from his Albanian Muslim beginnings, to apostate and Ayn Rand devotee—which is quite a swing in reality.
Fawstin is a cartoonist who scored an Eisner Award nomination – the comics industry equivalent of an Oscar nod – for his debut graphic novel, “Table For One.” He’s also a FrontPage contributing artist and the author/illustrator of ProPIGanda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a collection of images and essays that serve as a companion piece to “The Infidel.”
When I first looked up Pigman I thought it was a reference to the 1968 novel—and I couldn’t see how that would be applicable to my Cliffhanger character. This same friend for quite a while has been uttering that Cliffhanger should be a graphic novel, but my argument has been that I need the literary structure to tell my story. A picture is not always worth a thousand words if each of your words represents a thousand ideals. So a well written novel or literary story still has a power that I don’t think graphic novels and even movies can fully utilize. When the focus on an image is the premier concern—something usually gets lost in the translation as a compromise. In literature compromise isn’t needed, and readers are free to paint their own pictures in their minds. However, that’s not to say that is the case with Pigman.
In a time such as we live in now where any language against jihadist activity is considered radical and an invitation to personal destruction—I have to admire Bosch Fawstin for having the testicular fortitude to take the approach he has. He’s talented enough to work for any major comic house, but he has taken the independent path and built a character that is opposed to the political structure currently in place. In that respect he and I are in the same situation. He knows that any work he does for the industry will have to come from himself—because nobody is going to hire him due to his strong beliefs now that he’s shown them in the Pigman character.
The crime that Fawstin has committed which orthodox media and politics have deemed so terrifying—is that he clearly has identified the jihadist activity from Muslim religion as a vile evil and he doesn’t stray away from the designation. In a world where everyone seems indecisive on Islamic radicalism—especially in a creative capacity, Fawstin has drawn a clear line in the sand for all his readers to observe. Islam based on his experience with the Koran is evil and he uses his character of Pigman to become the worst nightmare of the jihadists inflicting terror upon humanity. For that reason, I LOVE PIGMAN!
So I can see why my friend drew such a parallel between Pigman and Cliffhanger. Fawstin and I are doing similar things for similar reasons. It is up to creative people like us to see evil where it is hiding and root it out through our mechanisms so it is easy for others to see. That is clearly what Pigman is all about. For a change there is a superhero for those in the current freedom movement doing the kind of work that might not be appreciated for another half century. It might not be readily acceptable in our current mainstream culture, but 50 years from now I have a strong feeling that Fawstin will become a cult classic and will go a long way into shaping the kind of culture that young people will be looking for in the aftermath of our current tribulations.
Traditional comic heroes like Batman, Superman and many of the others have had artists handling them over the last couple of years steering them in a progressive direction. Superman a few years ago gave up his American citizenship to fight for the United Nations, and of course Batman had the little Muslim guy Nightrunner as a viable—more global sidekick in an effort to push the cape crusader into a wider market. The Green Lantern re-launched as a gay hero—attempting to take such radical ideas into the mainstream. So it is certainly worthy for a talented guy like Fawstin to make Pigman as a conservative argument against the progressive tide and to let history determine the victor. In the end, the trend will show that the progressive attempts will fail, because generally people don’t respect those types of approaches. Most people by default are more comfortable with conservative ideals when they can get them, because society in general when stripped away from political motivations is right of center in value. So it is likely that Pigman will have a longer shelf life than someone like The Green Lantern or even Superman if that United Nations crime fighter trend continues away from the traditional, truth, justice, and American way approach. Pigman is not about political correctness—which comics have traditionally stood against. When comics start pandering to the political establishment, they are suddenly, “uncool.” And they won’t last when there is competition like Pigman out there that more appropriately articulates the concerns of modern audiences.
After watching the severed heads, and brutal murders of late from the ISIS insurgents in the Middle East and how weak Obama’s political approach has been in reaction, I know I personally want to see someone punished for the evil inflicted. We aren’t getting that satisfaction in reality, but in our minds, at least we are not broken as a people. Bosch Fawstin is proof that the minds of Americans are not yet destroyed by the insurgent application of terror from continued social stress and political policy directly applied through mainstream culture. Comics live and breathe beyond the mainstream and the more orthodox they become—such as in the latest movie adaptations, the more need there is for characters like Bosch Fawstin’s Pigman. So I consider it a privilege to receive such a comparison. It’s a tough fight out there—and it is good to see another valiant character taking care of a market sector that is desperately in need of a strong opinion. And Bosh Fawstin is not short on opinion—which is the greatest gift a comic book artist can provide to the world.
Then to make matters worse to any investigator with an inquisitive eye toward reality, one comes to realize how much these union workers make as a salary—which proves how out of touch they really are. When the union leaders were upset that their employers just shut down the weekends because they are now so dreadfully behind schedule it is no longer worth the premium money to spend to move units—the audacity of the Longshore workers unions become very clear. What follows are a collection of articles that explains more deeply the situation:
Longshore workers, according to a contract that expired in July, can earn $25.71 to $35.68 — or annual salaries of $53,476 to $74,214— depending on seniority. Workers get more money for special skills and experience, plus overtime.
According to the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the employers, the average salary is $147,000, which combines the earnings for registered longshoremen, clerks, walking bosses and foremen who have worked 2,000 or more hours.
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Companies that handle billions of dollars of cargo at West Coast seaports said Friday they will hire far fewer workers this weekend, the latest escalation in a contract dispute with dockworkers that threatens to shut down a vital link in U.S.-Asia trade.
The association representing port terminal operators announced its members would not hire crane drivers to move containers on and off massive ocean-going ships. Instead, employers could order smaller crews to clear already-unloaded containers from congested dockside yards.
The slow-roll implementation of Obamacare threatens to close U.S. commercial ports on the West Coast. The 29 ports, which handle 70 percent of maritime imports from Asia, were closed over the weekend after months of contentious contract negotiations. The ports reopened Monday, but 20,000 longshoremen are still threatening to strike over a new Obamacare tax.
Obamacare imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits deemed too generous by the government. Health benefits exceeding $10,200 a year in value for individuals or $27,500 for families are defined as “Cadillac” plans and are subject to the tax. Health benefits for longshoremen exceed $40,000 per employee, meaning the union would be served an enormous tax bill when the penalty is imposed in 2018.
Well, how about that, Obamacare penalizes health care plans that are too luxurious so to ensure that everyone is the same no matter their personal effort or worth—and the Longshore workers don’t like it. The situation is so serious that it should require the involvement of the President of the United States to step in and keep American productivity flowing. But he hasn’t because Obama is aligned with such radicals as they think the same way. Yet even in this case even the union workers are to the political right of Obama—because it is Obamacare that is the largest sticking point in obtaining a new contact. The Longshore workers already make too much money to be worth the effort—now with Obamacare pressing down on the port employers they simply have reached their breaking point and are giving up.
For Obama, this is one of the biggest issues of his presidency. When President Bush was faced with the same type of work stoppage in 2002 after only a ten-day lockout by the same union he invoked the Taft-Hartley Act as reported by the World Socialist Web Site:
On Tuesday a federal judge in San Francisco granted the Bush administration’s request for a temporary injunction lifting a ten-day lockout and sending West Coast longshoremen back to work. The court order was a prelude to the declaration of an 80-day “cooling off” period under the provisions of the anti-union Taft-Hartley law.
The lockout had shut down 29 West Coast ports. The judge issued his order barely three hours after attorneys from the Justice Department presented a fact-finding report drawn up by a special Board of Inquiry. George W. Bush had announced the formation of the panel the day before, setting into motion the legal process leading to the declaration of a national emergency and the implementation of the Taft-Hartley Act
The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents the West Coast shipping companies, reopened the ports on Wednesday for the 6 p.m. shift.
Of course the socialists thought that Bush had overstepped his boundaries and forced the Longshore workers back to work because they represent the basic philosophy of all labor unions—that jobs exist for employees and that employers are meant to be servants to the whims of the “middleclass.” And now that socialist types have their president in the White House there is no relief for employers coming—instead there are only more socialist driven costs induced by Obamacare. So for employers—it’s a no win situation. Product is stacking up on shipping docks and not making it to their destination on time—and America looks inefficient because of it—which makes socialists happy.
The Longshore workers are disgraceful. They have a history of this radical behavior and have driven up their wages to a level that is simply not sustainable. And now because of Obamacare, they have overstayed their welcome and are due for an innovation to replace their sudden worthlessness. The rest of America should not have to wait for those idiots to do their jobs. Their selfishness is epic—but worse than that—it is Obamacare that has broken the back of logic. Yet nobody is talking about that on the nightly news. That is because the dispute is between various factions of liberals—the Longshore workers and Obama himself. The companies caught in the middle simply want to operate their businesses. And with the Obamacare imposition being so high—they decided they can’t. So employers shut down their weekend work and are ready to move on. For them—it was the correct decision. These port employers aren’t alone. Here is a list of other major companies who have decided that Obamacare is just too expensive. And this is just the beginning.
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction. I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done. I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience. For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values. One of their reasons for asking for more money was to make the school safer because of the recent school shootings—like the Sandy Hook incident. Conveniently a shooting spree threat was found a few days before the election in the girl’s bathroom of the high school inciting panic throughout the district. CLICK TO REVIEW. The tax was won in favor of the increase by approximately a 1% swing. Likely a radicalized teacher union member left the note, but nobody will ever be able to prove it even though there were cameras and witnesses—the investigation never turned up an arrest of any kind. After the election, the issue was just dropped and within a few weeks—everyone forgot about it. That would be an instance of a likely false flag operation by an organization that needed to swing votes in their favor for a collective cause.
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes. Below is a list of several that are now far enough into the past that they can be looked at honestly. Many modern false flags still have too much political weight to them, so any analysis is still decades off—and likely history will view our current time as being filled with them. False flags are natural by-products of collectivism and such philosophy is taught in our public schools so groups of people as Nietzsche said—are quick to lend their support. In the following list, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to their part in a false flag endeavor, either orally or in writing. Pay close attention and then consider if any such action is likely in the modern context.
Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .
A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.
Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers). (I don’t completely agree with the cause, but there was certainly foul play involved)
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
Very interesting isn’t it? Now—after watching Brian Williams fall from grace and knowing what you do now dear reader—how many false flags can you name in your neighborhood? I bet you can find enough to fill a lengthy list. Now, imagine how many there are at the state and federal level. Think about that the next time you vote—and before you fall for the contents of the next sappy news story.
I personally don’t see any difference between the minds of men and women. Women have done great things in history and are quite capable intellectually of anything that needs to be done at any level. I have raised two daughters to believe that they can do anything and that no obstacle is too great and that there is no such thing as social victimization. Yet there is a difference between men and women and that is their roles in sexuality. Sex is a function of human bodies, like eating, breathing, or physical activity of any kind. The mind often drives the body, but the vehicle that hosts the mind is different. So it becomes very confusing to society when politics and philosophy have focused incorrectly on the bodily function of the sexes so to gain leverage in the great games of life—whether it was men trying to keep women from voting, or women using sex to gain advantage in a marriage or other relationships. Such perilous activity is the key topic point to my new installment to the Cliffhanger series Latté Sipping Prostitutes.
Currently the intellectual capacity of our modern society isn’t very astute. We are a consumer based species heavily focused on sign stimuli which drives our commercial activity to the point where intelligence has been frowned upon. The Go Daddy commercials are good examples of this—they offer an easy product that virtually anybody can perform—but they use sex to sell their product placement and convince people to turn off their minds to the fact. Most aspects of commercial society function with this intellectual weakness-Go Daddy is just an example. The important aspect is that sex is used to place product importance into the minds of the consumer class. Well, the very same tactic is used in politics, and it is a serious situation that needs to be explored which again is why I wrote Latte Sipping Prostitutes.
Progressive institutions like public education and media outlets have further distorted the contradiction by speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they have in a recent Hollywood Reporter article regarding the new Fifty Shades of Grey film being released on Valentines Day 2015 weekend to capitalize on the romantic event. The book itself is simply a work of erotic fiction. It is pornography that has been sold as mainstream literature in outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and was featured on day time talk shows like Ellen as if it were a work of pornography finally aimed at females often referred to as “mommy porn.” Men feeling like they needed to show support of women–after all they have the annual Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition that comes out in February along with other milder forms of pornography intended specifically for them–just went along to get along. The book itself and the film that is following is seen as empowering women—so the mainstream bought into the effort and made E.L. James a multimillionaire. Yet the story itself is all about the fantasy of women being dominated by a strong “ultimate” man. In this case it is a young billionaire who is drastically handsome and has just enough of a broken psyche that the story’s protagonist can love back to health—which leads to the bondage subplot and the 1/5 of the upcoming film dealing strictly with nudity and sadomasochistic sex. This has left men very confused because for three decades now they were told that women didn’t want those kinds of men. They wanted big softies who cried and shared their feelings. That is not the kind of man who is the object of love in Fifty Shades of Grey and the subsequent novels. So to sum up the problem progressive society wishes literally to have their cake and eat it too—they instructed men to be less manly and controlling—to be more open and expressive—then promoted a movie that is supposed to empower women which is all about the lust of women for controlling—dominating men. Then to top it off, the articles leading up to the film’s release–the pre-sales articles bragged about the parts of the country showing the strongest sales numbers and guess what states they were—they were strong southern states still leaning politically and culturally toward traditional values. The not so subtle message from progressive organizations like The Hollywood Reporter shown below is that women in the south are repressed and desire liberation. Read for yourself.
The highly anticipated big-screen version of EL James’ best-selling erotic novel is selling more advance tickets than average in many Southern and Midwestern states, according to Fandango. In particular, presales for Fifty Shades are nearly four times better than average pre sales in Mississippi, the online ticket retailer added. Sales are, similarly, at least two times better than expected in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.
Fifty Shades, which hits theaters on Feb. 13, is already the fastest-selling R-rated title in Fandango history. The company analyzed the state-by-state advance sales patterns, comparing Fifty Shades presales against the average and finding surprisingly high numbers for the Universal/Focus Features title.
Fandango is also reporting that hundreds of opening-weekend screenings of Fifty Shades are already sold out in cities like Tupelo, Mississippi; Florence, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Diego; Houston; Las Vegas; L.A. and New York.
The sales pattern for Fifty Shades of Grey will be that the film will do between $80 million to $60 million on opening weekend but will drop quickly once the build-up audience sees the movie. It will be lucky to make $160 million domestically which will make money on a budget that is reasonably low—and will be considered a success. But it will not be on par culturally with something like American Sniper which speaks to the typical “Red State” voter. Progressive institutions are trying to build a case for their viewpoints of expanded feminism by attacking typical red states and purple states such as Kentucky.
Of a particular interest Florence, Kentucky was mentioned which is a southern suburb of Cincinnati. I know from personal experience a lot about that demographic which is typically very affluent. There are a lot of professional couples living in that region where the husband travels a lot in their job and the women are independently building their own lives under a shared roof under very progressive conditions. When you get a few miles away from this specific region of Kentucky the demographics move back toward Bible Belt traditional roles where women still are encouraged to wear skirts on Sundays and to stay home to raise their babies if it’s even a remote option with a marriage partner. Yet the Hollywood Reporter took the pre-sales numbers from the Rave in Florence as an indication of the Bible Belt south as having women crawling all over themselves to see Fifty Shades of Grey.
Obviously the motive of the reports were political and agenda driven. When the reality comes to pass and the film isn’t a blockbuster on par with films like American Sniper—everyone will forget about the build-up. But they will remember that women in the south felt repressed and that they desire fulfillment they aren’t getting from their traditional lifestyles meaning they need to support more Barack Obama wealth redistribution programs, Hillary Clinton for upcoming president, and Elizabeth Warren as a viable progressive voice in Washington. Men through their guilt will just throw up their arms and say nothing as their wives vote for Hillary and they vote for whoever the Republican is leaving the minority voting population as the pivot vote. See how it works? But all along the scam is clear—Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t empower women at all—it just exploits secretly the stereotype that was always there—that women in a sexual sense desire to be in possession of a man who conducts their life with sheer confidence and strength. It has nothing to do with a woman’s mind or ability to conduct a hard task like becoming a scientist traveling to Mars or a technical wizard in a laboratory—but with their desires for sexual roles that they are biologically inclined to. To fill those roles they want strong men—not weak crybabies. So it is in this way that feminism has confused the hell out of everyone with the strategic objective to advance progressivism.
It’s a complicated story and my narrative Latté Sipping Prostitutes means to specifically break down this issue in a way that provides context. An example is often helpful because society speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. And it takes a great understanding of human nature to see through the haze. That understanding will not come from the Hollywood Reporter. They are simply trying to make a point that will recruit more progressive voters in the future from states that typically vote the way their husbands do—because men tend to pay more attention to political aspects of society as women tend to focus more on social aspects. In most honest marriages men leave the social engagements to their wives while the men read about local and state politics in the paper and the two typically trust in each other the result. There is much more at work behind the Hollywood Reporter article that goes back to the training of progressives from their institutions of learning which taught them to think in such ways. But it’s hard to see, which is why it is good to have tools which enable the curious to see those tricks played so openly upon the political and social landscape using the sexes to hide the truth.
It has been a busy end of the 2014 year and there really hasn’t been time for all my hobbies. Really, I have too many interests, so my enjoyment of the Star Wars Miniatures game X-Wing has been on hold for a while. I did manage to watch the matches of Paul Heaver at the Worlds X-Wing tournament at Fantasy Flight Games and enjoyed watching his “Fat Han” build dominate the competition. Those matches can be seen below and are well worth viewing for their strategy. X-Wing has become even larger over the last year and there are no signs of it stopping. It’s a fabulous game as I’ve said before—and it keeps getting better. Even with all the innovation that has went into X-Wing from FFG it was great to see the Han Solo build win Worlds. I have used a similar build from the start of X-Wing but it was the addition of the Headhunters and the Artoo card that put the Fat Han build over the top—and Heaver exploited it brilliantly over the course of the 2014 season.
For anyone who has been wondering about the content of the new Star Wars films, hard-core fans know that the rumored abandonment of the Expanded Universe is purely a false flag attempt to throw people off the trail of the actual plot. In the gaming universe, FFG has shown that more than ever the Expanded Universe is shaping the future of Star Wars for the better and for me personally, there has been nothing more exciting than the Wave V addition of the Rebel faction YT-2400 Outrider which fits perfectly into a strategy I had been wanting to work on for the 2015 evolution of the meta game. The news coming out of X-Wing is so exciting that sometimes I wish I could afford to just play that game all the time. I would love to spend the rest of my life playing it all day every day and I’d never tire of it. For guys like Paul Heaver they are able to delve into every aspect of the game strategically which would be a lot of fun. I can maybe get a game of X-Wing in about two times per month. But some people who I know are able to play several times per day and 12 to 20 per week which is the best way to really get good at the game. Now with all the expansions coming into play, there is a lot to keep up with—but its fun trying. For 2015 the biggest news is a Star Destroyer huge ship coming to the Empire faction and the advent of the new Scum and Villainy faction. It is that new faction that had my interest in devising a new strategy in how to deal with them once they hit the market. For me, that will involve the new Outrider.
It took me until February of 2015 to finally get to play a game with the YT-2400 but I’m happy to report that it is the perfect complement to the traditional Fat Han build replacing the old Twin Falcon builds as a viable strategy. The Outrider fits in as a perfect complement to the Falcon with its 360 turret ability, and barrel roll. On the Falcon I typically use Expert Handling ability to get a barrel roll out of the Falcon so having two large ships that can barrel roll in and out of firing arcs is the key to making this a build that I think will work best in dealing with the new faction of Bounty Hunters.
What will set the Scum and Villainy faction apart from the previous Rebel and Empire factions is that the bounty hunters will utilize illegal armaments and dirty tricks. So it will turn the game meta on its head and make the game so much more dramatic—as if it needed it. The addition of the new Boba Fett Firespray under the Scum faction is going to be a really difficult ship to deal with along with IG-88 and other pirates. So firepower will be needed that can fire behind those dirty tricks. That’s where the YT-2400 comes in. The feature build is the use of a Heavy Laser Cannon from range 2-3 to pick off foes from a safe distance using the barrel roll to stay out of the line of fire.
The version of Fat Han that I’m using is a very fast Falcon that I’d call a “Lean Han” and the YT-2400 decked out with a HLC and the Outrider card which allows for that secondary weapon to become the primary. With the two speedy YT family ships on the board at the same time using Han’s re-roll ability to make sure he hits each round, it will be the most effective counter to the meta-game that is coming if you are a Rebel player—which of course I wouldn’t consider playing as anything else. The games I played with the pairing were very successful even against a TIE Swarm so the YT for me is a dream come true.
The guys who are playing double-digit games of X-Wing per week are really lucky. I would consider retiring from all my many tasks and becoming a professional player just because it’s so much fun to play. I think it far surpasses Chess as a game of strategy and is showing signs of maintaining great depth for the future. The game is huge now, but after the next Star Wars film comes out in less than a year it will really explode because of all the new ships and characters who will be made into ships in the game. The Scum and Villainy factions along with the Outrider are great examples of how FFG has used the Expanded Universe to build a great mythological gaming experience and for Star Wars to really work; the new films will need to tap into all this background going into games like X-Wing. Many of the cards offered with the ships come from characters only referenced in the novels and comics, so the direction of X-Wing indicates the direction of the Star Wars franchise from Disney over the next six years. A decade from now X-Wing may be a massive game full of loyal fans that will greatly eclipse what Magic the Gathering is today. It is really fun to watch this phenomenon mature into something special.
I played a game over the weekend at 4 AM and found myself so consumed with the strategy of X-Wing that I felt like I was on vacation from the mundane world of normalcy. It’s no wonder the game is gaining so much in popularity. What’s better is that every month more and more players come to the game as newcomers and with them will come a host of bizarre strategies and attempts at innovation. Right now, Paul Heaver is the top player in the world—for two years in a row. The trick in becoming so good is in figuring out what the new meta game will be, and developing a strategy in how to deal with it. “Fat Han” was last year’s strategy. This year it will have to be something else. For me, it will be a twin Falcon/Outrider build with a Lean Han advancing with great maneuverability through and around obstacles. From my perspective speed and firepower are the only ways to really deal with the Scum and Villainy faction. But we’ll see. Part of the fun with the game is in figuring out those kinds of things—and seeing how they play out in real life against a real player. As usual, FFG is at it again, and stronger than ever. They really are an amazing company. Their products bring me great joy, and I know by the game’s popularity that I’m not alone. It is certainly one of the bright spots in the modern world. Myth made into a community of neat people who give me hope on humanity. I love X-Wing Miniatures.
As much as women think they have made great gains in the world of voting and the workplace, women are still used and abused terribly under the flag of collectivism. They are expected to act in unison—as a collective group and often behave in such a fashion making them a serious barrier to logic when hard decisions have to be made. It is probably one of the hardest things to write about in regard to correcting aspects of politics and philosophy plunging our society into the current quandaries that we find ourselves in—but if proper correction of modern problems are to have any hope—this problem must be identified and dealt with so that civilization can fix them. That is why the next chapter of my Cliffhanger story The Curse of Fort Seven Mile deals exclusively with this problem. Here is the description of the chapter from the book as it appears on Amazon.com.
A school board president, a chamber of commerce CEO, a teacher’s union president and a wealthy socialite plan the demise of Fort Seven Mile’s new mayor after a brutal attack by Cliffhanger upon the police force. A sinister plan is hatched during their weekly latté gatherings where the four women routinely plan the manner of politics around their community along with their fantasies of sadomasochism, gossip, and social treachery.
Their grabs for power escalate as they organize a union protest at the Mayor’s home in a hope to diminish public approval of the beautiful Misty Finnegan and draw out the bandit Cliffhanger with a trap only the crafty mind of Patty Latrine could fathom. What they discover is a secret nobody could even comprehend leading to events that will change life as they know it forever.
Long time readers here will recognize the title as a joke that has evolved over several years. Specifically, I have used such a term often to describe the type of people who illogically vote for continuous tax increases not from individual thought processes, but from the pressure of their peers. Once it became obvious to me that women were being used by other women to promote obvious trends in politics that were disastrous to our society it was clear that the tendency needed to be called out so that it could be recognized and corrected. Men have been slow to join me in pointing out such a tragedy because they have been pinned into a corner with a check-mate in regards to social conduct. If they support such viewpoints as I have proposed, then they are cast about as Neanderthals and sex is cut from their lives with surgical precision.
This has always been by design, progressive groups knew that this would be the biological component to their movement and they sought to exploit it behind the flag of feminism. Like in the story described above, every community has some variation of the characters mentioned. Sometimes there are men included, but the basis of most society presently conducts their schemes against the voting population in much the way that the ladies in Latté Sipping Prostitutes do. And usually the groupings are broke down along similar political lines. The evidence can be seen at various Chamber of Commerce events and charity fund-raising efforts. Always the intentions from a distance are good—but the subtle underbelly of the strategy is often sinister—and deeply complicated. To hide that complicated web of motivations men have been urged to go along to get along and turn off their brains. It is likely one of the biggest modern problems that is facing our culture which nobody talks about. But they should.
Even though I have written about this problem extensively and provided vast amounts of scientific data to support the conclusions and discussed it over hours of talk radio—the best format to explore the problem is within fiction. It is within the context of a story that the various psychological layers of the forces at work can be properly explored in all their connecting fashions. The primary antagonist in this particular story Latté Sipping Prostitutes is Patty Latrine—the wealthy socialite. Every community has some version of her and she is found among all the various groups herding women along like sheep toward a destiny not always to their liking.
The main protagonist in Latté Sipping Prostitutes even though she doesn’t have a line of dialogue but is only seen and talked about is the new Mayor of Fort Seven Mile, Misty Finnegan. As a woman she is truly a liberated free-thinker who is independent to such an extent that she lives beyond the control of Patty Latrine which makes the socialite feel very insecure—an emotion that she’s not used to experiencing. What has the women of her group so up in arms over the new mayor is that Misty is home schooling her children which means she doesn’t blindly support the public education system that Patty uses to advance her social strategies. To make matters worse Misty is a beautiful woman and the socialites under Patty’s leadership find the mayor to be a threat to their own power of seduction—that ability to perk out a lip or flirt with men in a way to get what they want when they want it. (Most human communication is non-verbal and women are great at it). Misty Finnegan’s presence as a powerful political figure of a truly strong and independent woman creates major problems for Patty Latrine and her minions of latte sipping despots who will do almost anything to stay in Patty’s good graces.
So what do the Patty Latrines of the world have that other women want—and why would women as a collective group even be prone to her strategies? Well, that is part of the problem and I’ve seen it firsthand—which I write about extensively in this latest Cliffhanger installment. Women like to have places to wear the jewelry and cloths they pick up here and there either from men, or from a shopping spree and people like Patty give them someplace to wear them. It’s just another form of control. If men committed sins in the past by not allowing their wives to drive a car, or getting them continuously pregnant to keep them from running off with another man, women like Patty Latrine use social status to do the same, by controlling the flow of politics at a communal level. If you don’t do and say as Patty does, an invite to her next charity dinner won’t come and nobody wants to be cast out of such events when everyone will be there!
It used to be the good ol’ boys network that was the vile centerpiece of corruption and discontent in every community, but that is no longer the case. Now it is women and they are every bit as bad as the men were. But they have the social mask of goodness to hide that evil behind built by progressive strategy over time to suppress judgment against their actions. What both groups did was wrong acting as a collective unit. Individually, if spoken to, they would say one thing, but within the peer groups of their Central Committees and social networks is a “team” approach which often requires them to act against their best judgment. That is where the trouble starts and the evil driven by a lack of personal authenticity creeps into the picture to bring with it corruption—because once a human being makes such a decision, they are willing to compromise on everything and they lose their integrity.
My work of course in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is intended to be thought-provoking. For that reason I am particularly proud of Latté Sipping Prostitutes because it is such difficult subject matter to properly articulate. I don’t see many creative types in literature or film attempting to grapple with this problem—so it is advancing unhindered throughout our social structure without analysis, but, not in this new installment of Cliffhanger. After completing the story I knew that I had pulled together some difficult elements and readers would benefit from the result. That result might be controversial but it’s honest and leads to an exciting and unique chapter to the Cliffhanger story arc. A chapter that’s a lot of fun, but is brutally honest in a way that I’m known for; Latté Sipping Prostitutes is one of those stories that has a lot going on but is all too revealing. It might ruffle some feathers but to my intention, that is the difference between good literature and slack-jawed news articles.
The Overmanwarrior 
