Month: September 2023

Future Debates are Over: Trump is redefining the expectations of politics for the better

It’s an exciting trend, not a surprising one, but certainly telling, and that is debates no longer matter in presidential politics, and as a byproduct of that, money is much less of a factor.  One thing that was grossly obvious in the last Fox News debate was how much things have changed in just a very short period, and if you watched it, or at least some of it as I did, you can see a desperation from the cable news networks to assert a power that they used to have over the process, which they are desperate to hang on to.  Among those under 10% types, there was a consistency to bend allegiance to the media moguls who wanted to set the presidential agenda around consultants and Beltway priorities to keep a globalist narrative on track.  And Trump wisely stepped beyond those controls, leaving essentially the old-world Republicans to battle it out for the bottom in an utterly meaningless debate.  While the discussion was occurring, Trump, of course, did his now famous Tucker Carlson interview, which very quickly gathered up a quarter of a billion views, so the differences in future state politics and the past that have been primarily controlled by consulting firms and media tycoons couldn’t be more obvious.  It’s all about the horse race and the coverage leading up to it for all the parasites who have injected themselves into the process and, over time, taken complete control of the narrative.  But that’s changing now, as it should have long ago.  All presidential politics should be about managing the republic and nothing else.  However, just like in sports, we have turned a game into it, and many people have figured out how to make a living off the coverage of that game. Some have even toyed with the idea that they can run the country if only they force the candidates to stay within the debate framework established by the media. 

One of the big arguments that were made toward Trump joining the Fox News debate was that if the President started a trend of not participating in discussions, then Joe Biden would likely skip doing any arguments in 2024.  Well, I have news for everyone: Joe Biden will never do any more debates.  His handlers will not put him on a stage to talk outside a controlled format.  It’s just not going to happen.  There will be no presidential debates in 2024, which, of course, all the people who make their living covering the horse race of politics find devastating.  But that’s a good thing because all those tag-alongs were useless anyway.  The debates in elections were meant to show people who the candidates were.  But they have evolved into setting the presidential agenda.  Everyone knows who Trump is; he’s the most famous person on Earth.  Nobody is going to learn anything new about Trump after a debate.  The only people who would benefit would be the people hosting the discussion and trying to sell airtime while covering the horse race of politics.  That is essentially all Fox News is and has been for a long time.  They cover the horse race but don’t care much for what horse wins.  They make their money off the event’s coverage, not the actual results in the aftermath.  This kind of culture has led to all the wrong priorities, leading blank-minded candidates to dance to the strings of media owners who then take the business of the republic and form fit it into their business needs. 

During his last term, Trump showed how easy it is to fix many of these issues that consultants have been getting in the way of for a long time, which has hidden itself behind the debate culture of the past.  That’s another reason the media hates Trump; he has exposed this game.  He doesn’t need the money that donors can give, and he doesn’t need the media to make him into a star.  He’s his own person, which infuriates the consultant class.  They can’t make him who he is; he doesn’t need them, which is one of the scariest realities they could have for a lot of people who are parasites in the world–not to be needed, and Trump doesn’t.  It also points out the political change where money is used to buy influence.  Money doesn’t have so much power these days because the game used to be that the media would make a star out of a candidate, and that star would then use that success to raise money, so the money could then be used to buy airtime on the media that created the star, to begin with.  Trump has stepped over that entire process altogether.  It’s all been a shell game that has benefited the wrong people.  The voters have been used to generate the money, but they never get what they want out of politics, leaving everyone perpetually hungry for the next horse race, which Fox News starts covering three years before an election.  It’s been a big scam that does nothing to help solve problems; it only makes money for those who cause all the trouble in the first place, and people are no longer interested.  That may be terrifying to the people who make money off politics, but it’s a changing business, and they’ll have to adapt. 

The Biden people ripped off the scab when they tried to put him in office with a campaign in his basement during Covid.  Trump and Biden had a debate that year, 2020, but they fell short of completing the traditional three that had preceded their terms.  Biden is a primarily handled media caricature kept in power by stolen elections, just as most communist countries stay in control.  Only in America people know better because we do have a free media culture.  And if traditional media doesn’t serve the people, then they will find alternatives, and they have.  And Trump’s campaign in 2024 will completely embrace that new media.  The old media isn’t doing anything useful anyway, so Trump doesn’t need them.  Biden has shown that he doesn’t need them either.  So, there won’t be any presidential debates in 2024.  Fox News hosting these debates is over; nobody cares.  And there will be no return to that type of shell game, rightfully, because money has essentially been taken out of politics.  Money can’t buy support the way it has been sold in the past.  People form opinions about political candidates much differently now, and consultants are finding themselves out of a job they never should have had in the first place.  The future of Trump is to move much faster than the Beltway consultants ever could, and the news will occur at a speed only fast-moving social media can cover.  Newsrooms with editors picking the top three stories of the day are a thing of the past.  The need to know, and quickly, is the wave of tomorrow, and people will form their opinions on their own, not to be shaped by the glitz of media machines and slick ad campaigns.  No, for a change, candidates will be judged by what they do, not what they say, and the future of politics is all about achievement, not manipulation, which is a needed change that we’ve needed for a long time. 

Rich Hoffman

I Don’t Like “Rich Men North of Richmond”: Crying about how unfair the world is won’t fix it

At first, I thought the Oliver Anthony song, “Rich Men North of Richmond,” was interesting.  I watched people rally to him in private concerts with great enthusiasm and was impressed that the song communicated to them in ways that good art does.  Great!  But the looters have climbed on over the last few weeks, especially at Fox News, where they thought they had found that populist connection with their audience again when they played it at their 2nd Place Debate for the under 10% presidential candidates.  And Oliver Anthony was featured on Disney-owned Good Morning America, the Joe Rogan Podcast, and many other outlets.  The world is in shock over this song, which I could call the kind of song that might have been featured on The Dukes of Hazzard years ago.  I liked it, but what was all this shock, and what did I think about it?  I like the young man, Oliver Anthony; it was wise for him to turn down several record labels and do his best to keep his music small and private—authentic.  That is, after all, what people like about it, and the moment he loses that, it’s all over.  Authentic is better than financially successful, I would say in most cases.  But as I heard the song a few times, I felt more like Oliver Anthony was just another slack-jawed hippie singing about how unfair the world is, as is typical in any bar on a Friday night as people ten beers into the evening throw darts and shoot pool drowning in cigarette smoke and cheap cologne laced with sweat, complaining about how corrupt Washington D.C. politicians are.  Complaining about how unfair life is does not solve the problem, and Anthony Oliver has made no claims to being a conservative.  He’s much more of a liberal, so, interestingly, many are accusing him of being an icon of the political right.  I would say, far from it. 

I’m a big tent Republican Party kind of guy, and if people who like Anthony Oliver’s music want to join the fun of a President Trump Republican Party, that’s fine with me.  I might look at their politics while we’re all in that big tent and shake my head.  Very few people are alive on earth as conservative as I am, so I am usually disappointed with people’s politics.  There is nothing new there.  But I am also one of the most tolerant of other people’s opinions.  The key to a future Republican Party is that many people are coming to it.  After the Trump mug shot, many from the “hood” are now converting from Democrats to Republicans, and I’ll happily hold the door open for them as they walk by with marijuana smoke streaming from their mouths, which I find objectionable.  But this is about winning, not so much converting everyone to my version of conservative politics.  There are union members who love Trump, and suddenly, we are all rooting for the same political figure, which is weird.  But it comes with a big tent.  If everyone wants to go camping and talk over the weekend, likely at the end of it, I will convert people over to my way of thinking, so I’m not worried about values.  But first, the right people must be elected to have the debate.  The Republic must survive as something we can all agree on.  So, I welcome all the drunks from the Friday night beer binge as they play Oliver Anthony turned up on their car stereos while driving around with the windows down. 

I’m not with Glenn on this. Don’t be weak in the first place. Life works much better.

The problem with Democrats, or people heading in that direction, is that they are typically victims in life, and victimization is dripping off that “Rich Men North of Richmond” song.  Republicans are can-doers, typically, Democrats are can’t be dones, so they seek the power of government to do what they can’t do for themselves.  So, from the outset, the two sides aren’t even functioning from the same planet, and if we want peace, everyone must at least want to achieve the same things.  And what’s going on with the Oliver Anthony song and the people drawn to it is that it correctly identifies why people feel like victims.  But I would say they don’t need to be victims because they have everything in their power not to be.  The American Constitution limits government power so people don’t have to be victims.  The Rich Men North of Richmond became that way because there were too many people at the bar on Friday drinking too much when they should have been paying attention to what was happening in the world.  The rich, powerful men in Washington became that way, not because they were the best or brightest.  But because, they were the most unethical and willing to take advantage of people who were too lazy to manage their own lives.  So, singing about it or drinking about it doesn’t solve a thing.  And the sad thing about that song is that so many people can identify with it.  They can relate because the music does speak to them.  But in a healthy society, it shouldn’t.  The song’s existence as a work of art is great because it gives us some measure of culture.  But the reality of that culture is pretty pathetic and passive.  It’s not the kind of stuff that inspires greatness. 

I’ve expressed my comments about this song to several people who have instantly taken offense to my opinions, something about me not having compassion for the “down and out,” whatever that means.  For people who have known me for a long time, they know what I’ve been through in life.  It was never an easy road, and I have lost everything many times over.  But there has never been one day where I have not woken up to make that day better than the day before.  I know pain, deep pain.  It’s much worse pain than Oliver Anthony is singing about—life-crushing pain.  But I’ve never felt the way about it as he does, to cry about how unfair it is.  I’ve always been a turn-lemons-to-lemonade person, a positive thinker who can turn even the fires of hell into drinkable ice water.  I’d love more songs like that.  If there were, then we could say those are the ballads of the Republican Party.  But this “Rich Man North of Richmond” is just more people complaining about how unfair the world is without having the courage to do anything about it themselves.  And that’s what makes a great nation.  Not a bunch of crybabies.  But people who can deal with the pain and make something good happen.  I can’t identify with what Oliver Anthony is singing about because I’ve never felt that way.  Not because it’s been an easy life but because I’m not wired that way.  And rather than yield to those emotions, I would say not to cry, don’t drink your problems away on a Friday night listening to that song.  Instead of being sad, read a book, do something constructive, and continually work to improve yourself and the world around you.  And I think the result will be impressive and something you can feel good about.  Complaining does not help.  And Oliver Anthony’s song is all about complaining when everyone should be getting to work to make the world a better place, starting with themselves. 

Rich Hoffman

The Communism of LinkedIn: It’s a dating app for job seekers who desire the destruction of corporate America

I was never a big fan of LinkedIn, even before they banned my account over my book The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, which they thought was disparaging to their excellent relationship with China.  So, to answer the question I get at least 50 times a week, no, I am not on LinkedIn.  I was, for a while, out of some obligation I thought was part of the modern world.  But I had little value for it, so at the first dispute, we parted ways happily, which has provided me with just enough emotional distance to have an objective opinion about it.  LinkedIn has a very menacing presence in all actuality and is laced with communism in ways that an entire generation has not considered, and I find it despicable.  I view people with a job with a good company yet still maintain a LinkedIn profile as adulterous married people who always look at their dating apps with an eye on something better.  It is impossible to be in a committed relationship with a spouse while always looking out to see if there is someone better.  A job, like a good marriage, requires a commitment, and dating apps are a clear sign that one or both spouses are not committed to the relationship.  That is essentially what LinkedIn does; it is a dating app for job seekers.  And if someone has a good job and a good employer, well, they should be committed to that relationship, and they shouldn’t always be looking for a better job.  Some people out there, just like people who get divorced a lot, are always looking for the next best thing, and by jumping from job to job, they might find opportunities that they otherwise wouldn’t have had.  But that is my position on LinkedIn. It’s a dating app that shows a lack of commitment to an employer and that people who are on it all the time are one-foot-in, one-foot-out types of people who are not very valuable to an organization. 

Yet, there is something far worse with LinkedIn that indicates its Chinese roots, which it is well known for supporting.  The hidden message of LinkedIn is that people don’t matter and that leadership is embodied in the collective, not the individual.  LinkedIn goes against the gunfighter metaphor that I use often, the comparison of the lone gunfighter who steps into a saloon out of a heavy rain and orders whiskey at the bar with their back turned to the room.  The gunfighter knows that nobody will make a move because the room is full of parasites who want to use anybody they can meet to further their life in some way.  So the gunfighter doesn’t worry about some assassin that might try to shoot them in the back.  Such thoughts are Hollywood fantasy.  In real life, people are much more malicious and lazy.  They’ll use them before trying to kill someone for all they are worth.  Therefore, people of worth are precious in the world because most people fall well short.  Instead, most people reside in the crowd, happy to follow others, which is why the gunfighter knows they can order a whisky at the bar and enjoy it without concern for potential assassins.  Nothing in the world is more valuable than leadership, and leadership is not formed through networks and relationships.  It’s in understanding the motivations of other human beings and what they are willing to do to obtain value, then directing them toward some state of usefulness.  LinkedIn is an audience of people in the saloon looking at the gunfighter, measuring to see if something can be gained from a relationship.  When discussing networking, we are talking about building relationships in this fashion. 

Yet China, as a collectivist, communist society, does not strive to empower its individuals into greatness.  They look for compliance as their primary objective, so they have much trouble building their economy.  Without the outside influence of globalists from the World Economic Forum mentality, China would still be a poor country.  All their wealth has been stolen; it wasn’t generated through individual achievement, as in Western capitalist countries.  In many ways, the designers of Linkedin are well aware of this.  The hidden message of LinkedIn is that individuals do not matter, nor do other companies.  By filtering down individual achievement, the people on LinkedIn are not looking for the next Jack Welsh or President Trump in the world, who ran a very successful show on television about the values of business in The Apprentice.  They want a society of bootlickers who are not committed to corporate leadership and are ultimately easy to control from the centralized state.  By always being willing to jump from one job to another, nobody has deep roots of commitment to their employers, making them weak toward centralized control.  The LinkedIn audience is looking for compliant, noncommitted people to populate the workplaces of the world, and the effect is noticeable.  Professionally, there are a lot of non-committed people out there who show fragile leadership toward their organizations.  And that is by design.  LinkedIn tells the professional world that people don’t matter; they can all be traded like baseball cards and easily replaced.  So, puff yourself up to potential employers looking for just such a poison and destroy the concept of capitalism by destroying the notion of authentic leadership among the corporate community. 

You have to watch these tech firms and understand their overall philosophy for getting into business, to begin with.  Facebook was a dating app that tapped into the human need to be wanted and then exploited that desire with a sense of community or communism.  That same approach was introduced to Western cultures by attacking the concept of marriage with easy divorce.  If you were unhappy with your spouse, get a new one.  Don’t fight out the problems; go somewhere else, which has destroyed the concept of the American family or even a European family.  And in so doing, that gives the state more power over the individuals involved.  Rather than the family or the corporate culture having the strength and ability to resist such temptations.  The way to attack the concept of family was to make divorce more socially acceptable and too tempting whenever things got tough in a marriage.  LinkedIn has sought to do the same in corporate structure, making it easy for talent to leave at the first sign of trouble and keeping CEOs always turning toward the state for approval rather than providing leadership through the frequent storms of life.  In many ways, we see the essential conflict of our times: Do you follow the leadership of Yahweh, or do you seek the many gods of Canaan and sacrifice your firstborn children to appease them?  LinkedIn says to appease the gods, make whatever sacrifices you need to make, and surrender leadership to the state.  I say, be the gunfighter, follow after the individual Yahweh and the rebellion against collectivism that he represented, which formulated the foundations of all Western culture.  Be the leader, not a follower.  And don’t seek the arms of always some new opportunity. Instead, continuously make the best of what you have and fight for a better day.  And stay away from the communist desires of LinkedIn. 

Rich Hoffman

Decoupling from China: Global communism was always only a drug-induced teenage fantasy

It wasn’t that long ago that I told the story about my LinkedIn account, which I no longer have because of an interview about decoupling from China once I released my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business.  LinkedIn is a bunch of communist China-supporting advocates on the wrong side of history, so I don’t miss them at all, and that’s a topic all its own.  However, the fear of China taking over America is on many people’s minds, and I have assured people that such a possibility is unrealistic.  Even as much as the set-up goes back for many decades by domestic enemies in America who propped up China to become that device for a one-world government run by communism.  Now that people realize that was always the strategy, there is a lot of talk about decoupling the American economy from China.  And now that the cat is out of the bag, there are a lot of lost globalists out there who have no idea what to do next because their entire lives have been planned around this China model taking over the world and collapsing the American market.  People like Larry Fink and Ray Dalio have been moving a lot of money in that direction, and Wall Street has been betting on it for decades, significantly impacting people’s private 401K plans.  But I cover in my book how easy it is for America to defeat any enemy, or any individual can defeat global thugs like gunfighters defeated lots of nasty bad guys in a dusty street for personal preservation and the perpetuation of law and order for a thriving civilization to flourish.  As we speak, the China model is dying, propped up by phony economic numbers and corporations terrified the public will figure out what a lousy bet China has been for them.  So far, the media culture has prevented that knowledge from getting out, but reality is spectacularly showing itself. 

It all goes back to that dumb John Lenin song, “Imagine,” and the high school days of many of the characters causing so much communist trouble today.  It’s not hard to reflect on the young antics of Larry Fink way before BlackRock was created for him by the Federal Reserve looking to dump a bunch of phony money in the market to start a chain reaction toward a collapse and to prop up the China model of global communism.  These current billionaires, like Ray Dalio, smoke dope in the backseat of a car and listen to classic rock and roll songs in favor of communism and how dead America was, such as America Pie.  “They drove their Chevy to the levy, but the levy was dry.”  Once they got out of college, many drunken binges later, they were ready to cheerlead America’s destruction while at the same time calling it “smart investments.”  But their minds were never right and always filled with ill intent from their ideological teenage days where their lifelong philosophies of destruction and American hating sentiment solidified as they learned to take off the bra of the next pimple-faced girl in their back seats masked by marijuana smoke.  I could even go back even further as to how those songs, teenage customs of rebellion, and what those young people learned in school were given to them directly by the KGB as their parents watched old westerns on television at home and couldn’t see the bad guys riding into town.  They were looking for people on a black horse in a black hat.  Not a bunch of communists hidden behind popular culture dressed like the Beatles. 

None of this happened quickly, but it is coming apart very fast.  Now that the globalists are in prime time and have been caught on COVID-19 and many other horrendous enterprises, the world economy has been turning away from tyranny for several years, and that decoupling effort is well underway.  And I would offer that trust in China as a global partner is never coming back.  All the corporations that have invested in this merger with globalism are left at the altar as the timid Chinese are losing power by the day.  Their entire strategy depended on secrecy and intimidation, and that has not been the American public’s reaction, suddenly all too aware of the threat.  President Trump certainly wasn’t the cause; he was the effect of this awareness.  And after his previous term, the mask of China has been ripped off, and all those previous business efforts are failing.  Doing business with China has a stigma that was never there previously, and they will never be able to repair that impression now that people have it.  China and the global communists who have infiltrated American politics never had a plan B.  And as scary as it is to hear that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil are all moving away from a dollar-controlled currency, the sentiment in America, where most of the world’s productivity is centered, is to pull back and internalize, not to partner with hostile communist countries leaving them very vulnerable as a result.  That is why decoupling from China is something most Americans now want to do, meaning all those investments toward China becoming the next dominating centralized government are disintegrating in front of their faces.  So many American billionaires have spent money in that direction, yet the scam is coming apart rapidly.

It won’t happen overnight, but the trend will be anti-China for many future decades until the communist government there, and in other places, is defeated.  Not just cosmetically but economically.  China has difficulty concealing that information from the world, and their state-controlled media has helped them.  But the writing is literally on the wall, so all these corporate alliances where globalism controlled by China was utilized are already considered busted investments.   And if you lose a lot of money because of it, don’t say you weren’t warned.  I warned everyone for several decades now, and just because the Chinese-loving LinkedIn people have essentially employed a strategy of “keep away,” the reality was eventually going to catch up to them.  The teenage fantasies that many of these modern-day losers have been trying to fulfill were never originally ideas built on the hopes and dreams of human ambition but on the backs of the compromised, drunken fools and overly sexed counter-culture druggies who bought the KGB message hook line and sinker only to find themselves dinner of the globalist communist effort.  And they have been slow cooking for several decades now, thinking they were the ones doing the cooking.  But actually, they were the ones being cooked, and now it’s time to eat.  And Americans, those who haven’t become domestic enemies in support of global communism, are the ones at the table with hungry stomachs.   And corporate America, which has fallen for this scam, is on the wrong side of history.  None of what happens next is what anybody thought would happen.  Of course, I’ve been saying it, and those who listened will prosper greatly.  But most didn’t, and the tough times will be their own.  They were warned but didn’t listen because they thought all that rebellious music and drug use they did as teenagers was the wave of the future, instead of the communist propaganda that it was all along. 

Rich Hoffman