Did retired school board member Joan Powell and newly elected Lakota school board president Julie Shaffer really think that attacking me for going on WLW all the time illuminating the many mistakes made in public education—that the pressure against them would go away if I were not quoted on the mainstream radio and newspaper anymore? Did they think that if television stations stayed away from me because I made “incendiary” comments about women and the kind of idiots who typically join PTA groups that they would gain strategic positioning? Did they really think they’d change the dialogue using traditional tricks which I was well aware of—and used to my advantage? Apparently—they were just that stupid and continue to be as they are apparently bewildered by the large number of conservative leaning school board members entering into the public education management of districts. Here is a quote from Joan in a recent Michael Clark article in The Cincinnati Enquirer.
Still, recently retired Lakota school board President Joan Powell – a 16-year board veteran and one of the most influential school officials in the region during her tenure – wonders whether the publicly stated goals of some new board members match their political agendas.
“Unfortunately some of these individuals are not just interested in reducing expenses and maintaining taxes at their current level. There are those that have a goal to destroy public education as it exists – government schools, they call them – and use anti-tax and pro-voucher issues to reduce funding to schools to help reach that goal,” she said.
“A lot of damage can be done during a four-year term. By then voters should know what they stand for and whether (board members) are working in the best interests of the school district and the voters.”
Damage for whom—tax payers or education empire builders? The damage Joan is talking about is for her view of education, which is corrupt and devastating for American enterprise. So that’s a good thing when people like her are on the out.
Here’s a news flash that they and a whole bunch of others in the mainstream media and government school gate keepers have neglected to consider—that a plan hatched many years ago by a small number of Southern Ohio education reformers is just now manifesting into reality—and what they are seeing is just the beginning. If they think for a second that everything is going back to how public education was in the 90s and 2000s, they are sadly—and pathetically mistaken. Labor union domination of public education is ending and they are fighting to preserve a way of life that is out-dated, and destructive to American education not just in name—but actual function.
I know of about 80 different elected officials who visit this site—Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom about 3 times a week. There are even more who read here that consider running for an office and use the encouragement they receive from these words to pursue those objectives. Whoever thought that I poured so much work into 1500 word daily articles to appease the fools who have the mind of an egg-shell, and the patience of a shooting star—that the kind of people who enjoy tabloid magazines and television were my target audience? Whoever was so naive to think that each and every step over the last four years was not a carefully considered chess match where even the controversial elements were calculated to the maximum effect with deep psychological impact highlighting issues at many levels? I’m pretty good at chess—at strategy—and managing people. Sometimes the most important work is not in front of the camera or behind the microphone but in arranging an army of such people to do those tasks instead of just one person. Initially, you have to lead by example so that they can see how things should be done—but once they learn—they can then take the effort and run with it independently. Wasn’t it clear that was what was going on?
Apparently not. When Joan said, “Unfortunately some of these individuals are not just interested in reducing expenses and maintaining taxes at their current level. There are those that have a goal to destroy public education as it exists – government schools, they call them – and use anti-tax and pro-voucher issues to reduce funding to schools to help reach that goal,” she was thinking about me. The more I worked with Lakota, the more I hated government schools—and that is a term that I have increasingly used. If I were to run for school board I could not sit next to Julie Shaffer to manage the district without major, major confrontations—MAJOR confrontations. If left to me, public education would be defunded and eradicated replaced by free market options where the government was not involved at all. But I am happy to let people who do not feel quite so strongly join school boards and fight the good fight in a more civil manner. I have more impact with more people not being an elected representative as opposed to locking horns with someone like Julie wasting my time on something that is already dying on the vine. In 15 years, what will any of her arguments matter? If other people wish to engage in that argument—that is good—but I am more effective elsewhere. The strategic position for this matter is not behind a name plate—but here.
The kind of people like Julie who organized the media blitz with the Enquirer to come after me personally should never be involved in educating children. CLICK TO REVIEW. They are not competent and are only given that ability with a government monopoly. I will certainly never forgive Julie for what she tried to do to me—or Joan. They used the collective entity of Lakota to satisfy their inner desire to be relevant socially—to mask personal mistakes—and to achieve that they needed to get me out of their way so management of schools could return to the unions at the cost of children’s minds—and they’d stoop to no low to achieve it. Did they think that I’d give up and just retreat? Did they think that more would not join the fight with me? Yes, that is precisely what they believed.
The Enquirer should have seen this coming. I explained it to Clark in great detail September of 2010. I layed all this out for him in my back yard while I was cutting targets with my bullwhips and he had his photographer snapping away pictures. I knew as I spoke that he was scheming to build me up so that he could take me down again the way he and others did with Arnie Engle in Fairfield. So I let him take the bait and run with it. My plans were different—when the moment came—more than just I would move into strategic position to affect change. So whatever schemes Clark had in mind would be useless in the long run—and I knew that. He didn’t understand it just as Joan, and Julie Shaffer didn’t get it. They actually thought by pandering to their latte sipping fat ass, guilt ridden, bitchy voting base that they could continue forever the scam of public education. Well, obviously they can’t.
Sure they won their last levy at Lakota by manipulation and wasting hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to move the needle just a few percentage points with a wear-down tactic taught in Columbus to school board members. But it’s a short-term victory as the ship they have fought to keep afloat is sinking. Many of the districts mentioned in the Enquirer article, such as West Clermont—where I know quite a few of those people there—and they are readers here and have been for years now—the proof that schools waste tax money on teacher unions, and scam ridden politics will be exposed destroying the myth that higher taxes make for a better community. And that is what people like Joan and Julie are worried about. Ten years from now they will be shown to be wrong in their assertions about education and neurotic in their approach—and it will be embarrassing for them.
I will make damn sure of it—that everyone remembers.
We’re just getting started folks…………this is far from a completed strategy. But we’re only about four years into it. Another four years will yield even more results not in their favor and bitching about it like this news is “new” won’t take away the blunt edge of reality.
What happens when you pay people who generally aren’t worth it over $100,000 a year–they operate a union against productivity which is what Boeing narrowly escaped over the weekend with a 51 to 49 vote among approximately 31,000 eligible members. Making that kind of money the machinist union at Boeing is the economy of Puget Sound and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is basically their own local government. Because of their belief in the evils of capitalism they nearly drove Boeing as a company to move their new 777X design build with its composite wing out of Washington to be manufactured in right-to-work states where the union could not wreck the development of the new state-of-the-art plane. Most of the members of the machinist union do not have the technical aptitude to build a new airplane from scratch let alone sell it to markets all over the world. Yet they are paid six figures because of the union infiltration into a successful American company and they buy their boats, their new trucks, and live their relatively opulent lives blissfully unaware of what makes a company work—or profitable. Their union preaches against the evils of profit—yet they demand more and more money with every contract. For this latest contract the members received a $10,000 signing bonus and money towards a 401K plan. Still, the margin of victory for Boeing was razor-thin. Many of the 49% of the union members who voted against the contract believe the company should continue to fund their pensions. They don’t want the 401K plan. They obviously don’t fathom that Boeing cannot continue to throw money at them in such a rate for indefinite periods of time—because they are disconnected from where the money comes from. For them, the planes arrive on the shop floor, they assemble them, and they leave. They have little to do with the design process, the sales and marketing, or the delivery. They simply show up, do some work, and leave with their six figure incomes.
To get an idea of how much money the machinist make at Boeing understand that there are 11 different pay grades depending on job categories. At Boeing the lowest level machinist are considered Grade 1 which stars at about $25,000 per year and tops out around $66,000 per year. The top-level union workers before the contract made more than $90,000 in base pay annually not counting shift differentials, overtime or incentive payments. After the contract those workers will top out over six figures in base salary. Clearly this was the difference in the vote. Many of the aging workforce at Boeing saw the writing on the wall. In the Puget Sound/Evertt area where the Boeing plants reside the median household income is about $47,000 a year. If Boeing packed up and left—which they clearly intended to do so to avoid more work stoppages in the future from their striking labor force, there is no place else capable of paying employees such large sums of money for performing jobs that are only worth half that value.
Boeing has been throwing money at the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for decades and like gambling addicts they have spent it as fast as it has come in and continued to reach their hand out for more, and more, and more until the company finally looked to move from the Evertt area. The decisions Boeing were faced with reminded me of my hometown where I once worked at Cincinnati Milicron—which is now a parking lot. A vast complex that resembled a small city is now completely gone down in Oakley just north of Cincinnati along I-71. All the skill that was employed there is gone. Just to the west of that location was the old Norwood General Motors plant which built the old Camero. It’s now gone—destroyed by the parasitic unions. Just to the north up in Hamilton, is the old Fisher Body plant for General Motors where my grandfather worked. Long after his death my grandmother continued to give me comic book money from the retirement benefits he received as well as thousands of other retired GM workers all over the country who were not productively working any longer. General Motors was trying to cover all those legacy costs with newer workers in a pyramid scheme concocted by the unions which did not add up. To this day the old Fisher Body building is still standing, but the company is gone. It’s primarily just warehouse space now. Over to the east in Middletown was a town—once a thriving place flourishing off the old Armco Steel Plant. The wage structure got out of control there and most of the orders for business went away. It is now AK Steel but employs far fewer people than it once did and is only a distant shadow of its former self. The result is that the economy of Middletown crashed and burned. Homes that should be $70,000 in value are $20,000, and the area is riddled with crime. As people lost their jobs they became addicted to welfare and the quality of life for the once prosperous town dried up like a gold mine in the Old West once the precious element ran out. That is the eventual future of Puget Sound. This latest contract only buys a little more time. It will cost Boeing a lot of money to move their operation to another state, so it was cheaper to throw $10,000 bonus checks at workers so they could pay off their new Ford F350s or plan to buy a new boat. Boeing has a hot new plane to build and sell, so they took the lesser of the two evils. But why should they be in such a situation and why would the Department of Labor side with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and not Boeing in forcing the job provider to bleed itself dry to appease a bunch of out-of-touch workers bred under a communist labor union system designed to destroy American business.
In the videos above the guys at PJ Media hosted by Bill Whittle explore this topic, and it is worth watching. The guest Dr. Burt Folsom told the story of the so-called Robber Barrons at the start of the progressive era, (just prior to the Twentieth Century) when many of the American labor unions were just getting started. Because of their hatred of capitalism the government went after the Robber Barrons, such as the rail road industry and went on anti-trust witch hunts and essentially through federal force took away the power of American business and handed it over to the workers of manufacturing. The manipulative power that the Robber Barrons formally had were now in possession of the solidarity effort of the labor unions—which turned out to be just as corrupt, and destructive. The biggest difference is that the labor unions didn’t create jobs, as the Robber Barrons did. With two evils being equal—that of human greed—the companies created by Robber Barrons through capitalism at least provided good jobs whereas the labor unions provided nothing but labor. Labor can be found elsewhere if it becomes too problematic, but Robber Barrons who create jobs—cannot. They are few and rare as gold whereas general labor who can push a button on a CNC controller and read micrometers into the thousands of an inch are quite common.
The vote at Boeing over the weekend which upset many of the labor union members is the grudging realization that without Boeing in Everett, Washington, there is nothing that will replace their loss and politicians, union leaders and all their F350 driving members with their $10,000 bonus checks are at the mercy of those who create the jobs. 100 years of progressivism has come smashing against a cold reality that should have been obvious from the start. Eventually the union demands will outpace Boeing’s ability, or willingness to pay off the workers with bonus checks and excessively high salary—and Boeing will move to a right-to-work state or possibly move their operation to another country where they can obtain stable labor without such outrageous expectations. But for now, with a narrow union vote, some of the members are beginning to see the writing on the wall and is appreciating Boeing not as a Robber Barron company that has been forced to become a heavily subsidized company of political entrepreneurialism, but for its roots as a Market Entrepreneur. It was the labor unions which pushed Boeing into a relationship with politics to protect itself from the thieving hands of an ungrateful workforce—and the rest has been downhill—except that Boeing still makes cool airplanes that sell very well—which is the only bright spot of an otherwise bleak future.
I would say that seeing The Desolation of Smaug is the most important commentary on modern politics that is available to anybody on planet earth presently. A student of politics, philosophy, and social organization could watch MSNBC, Fox News, Politically Incorrect on HBO and achieve a doctorate in psychology, history, and political science—read all the books by Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Charles Krauthammer—listen to talk radio for the next 10 years, and there would not be a more accurate summation of the state of our world than in this Hobbit film. The simple line of dialogue between two of the elf characters in the film upon deciding if they should fight on behalf of light or let the world fall to darkness was uttered by, “when did we let evil become stronger than us.” That is what almost every human being is facing on the very day that you are reading this—what are the consequences of living our lives away from the light? How does evil spread? And what do we do about it when we are confronted with it?
The Desolation of Smaug is not just a simple morality tale speaking in generalizations about an ideal existence wrapped in fantasy. It is a commentary—a mythology of the problems experienced in our modern times. The setting has been changed to provide context in a similar way that Star Wars removed time and history with the opening, A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away. The Hobbit is dealing with the very nature of evil, greed, and faulty living that is at the heart of every human being. It is literature on film, and is marvelous to behold.
Smaug as the centerpiece of this latest story is the embodiment of the kind of individual who has taken the world’s wealth by force and sits upon it guarding it religiously. He is the kind of bourgeois that added fuel to the fire of the communist movement where the common man wished to wrestle power back away from such dragons so that they could have their riches away from such greedy bastards. That is why Smaug is a European dragon that sits in this movie upon a pile of gold taken from the Dwarves and their mines. He loves it so much that he has buried himself within it so that he can worship it like a rodent burrows itself into the ground. Many real life wealthy people like Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Warren Buffet give so much money to philanthropy advancing progressive causes because they feel guilt over their wealth. They wish to prove to the world that they are not dragons like Smaug even though in their wealth building years they behaved just like Smaug—rolling their bodies into their confiscated wealth. In the case of Gates, he made his money the correct way with a superior product—but discovered that the world saw him as a Smaug, just as the Dwarves in The Hobbit saw Smaug as a villain who took their wealth. Gates wished to prove that he was not such a Smaug so he began to give mast amounts of money to the public education system in America feeding the teacher unions. In many ways Gates became like the treacherous politicians in Laketown—living in constant fear of Smaug—scheming around the beast to carve their own way to power and wealth. For Gates and his idealism, he became a major supporter of Common Core which seeks to centralize the education process for society. A good intention with a sinister reality which allows corrupt teacher unions to control the kind of curriculum being taught to children—which opens the door for despots to shape the minds of society for the worst. In the film, once the dragon was no longer a threat, the kingdoms of the world now without the fear of Smaug immediately launched themselves into a power play for control of Middle-earth. Smaug as cruel as he was made out to be when confronted by Bilbo in The Lonely Mountain was caught between his own genius and ability to inflict cruelty, and his ability to keep the vast evil that the occupants of Middle-earth possess in check. Only a proper and effective mythology could communicate such a complicated concept.
Peter Jackson is such a great filmmaker. He knows instinctively much of what I write about here because his understanding of mythology allows him to think of things in the large view. He can make a film like the Hobbit movies with an ease that is unfathomable to most Hollywood directors—especially on the scale that this Desolation of Smaug is. Jackson gets it—and people sense that something important is going on in the movie which is why it has made over $500 million world-wide dollars in just two weeks at this point. When he completes the trilogy, of The Hobbit, along with the Lord of the Rings films, Jackson will have completed one of the greatest explorations into the nature of evil ever done by anybody anywhere. Of course Tolkien started the process with his great books, but Jackson has taken the baton and ran with it in a way that few people could ever hope to do, and he does it with a lack of pretension that is simply wonderful.
People who love fantasy stories like this generally are aware that the real world does not have much to offer them. Most of the time, they see too much, and can’t lie to themselves about the nature of reality. So they bury themselves in fantasy where they can relate to the characters that stand for justice, righteousness, and a fight against evil. Doing such things in the real world is considered unrealistic, naive, and foolhardy. So they turn to fantasy and lose themselves to the efforts of gaming, movies, books, and any other attribute a story can bring to a mind hungry for understanding. We all know a Smaug in our life—whether it is a rich uncle, an employer, or even a political power. Most of us think that such dragons must be killed and slayed so that the wealth of the world can return to us. But often—which is an ideal that the writer Ayn Rand was exploring around the same time that Tolkien was exploring Middle-earth—there is a need for such dragons as they prove to be more capable than the greed of the Dwarves, or residents of Laketown. The masses may not like the dragon, but often the dragon is more capable than the masses in dealing with the overwhelming pressure of greed—thus the line at the end of this film by Bilbo—“What have we done?” Bilbo means, we killed the dragon, but we seem to have slayed ourselves in the process.
The Desolation of Smaug is such an important film as it deals with a massive social commentary that is pertinent to our present time in such critical ways. Smaug is one of Ayn Rand’s characters who have failed at life. He is not an overman able to support the world without corruption who creates wealth with creative effort. Smaug took the created wealth of the dwarves with force, not creative effort—and spent the rest of his life guarding that gold because he was unable to create more of it. To Smaug, the wealth was finite, created by others and if he wanted to keep it, he had to hold it greedily with terror which of course everyone in Middle-earth resented. But without Smaug, the people of Middle-earth would be at war with one another constantly. Smaug focused their hate into a direction that only a fire-breathing massive dragon could carry. Bilbo because of his ability as a thief was able to spot a weakness in Smaug and let the people of Laketown know about it. Once that weakness was exploited, and Smaug was removed as a threat, the real work of Sauron, originally known as Malron the Admirable, could begin. Mariron was turned to evil by the Dark Lord Morgoth in the early days of the world, and ever after remained a foe of the Valar and the Free peoples of Middle Earth. We all know people like Sauron too. In fantasy fun is made of combating such figures with magic and battles with fantastic monsters, but the content of such people can be found on a local school board, or machine politics at any level and on both sides. The reason people flock to see these films is not an escape from reality, but to actually see reality as it is masked to us in the light of day.
The second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug is a movie that everyone should see; its great cinema, wonderful story telling, and a visual art of the highest order. Nobody makes films better than these films, except for possibly the upcoming Star Wars films which deal with the same basic content, only in a future/past kind of way. On a scale of 1-5 I give this Hobbit film a 100. It is that good—but only if viewers enjoy exploring the hidden aspects of a society that is not so far away in Middle-earth, but right in front of us all—only not seen because of our educations, and prejudices–a world that can only be revealed to us through mythology.
If liberalism were classified as a mental disorder, we might have stopped many mass shootings; at least that was the reasoning Ann Coulter espoused during a recent episode with Sean Hannity. That comment may sound inflammatory—but in all reality—there is more truth to it than rhetoric. The proof is in the recent school shooting at Araphoe High School outside of Denver, Colorado which occurred on Friday December the 13th 2013 and was a dead story more or less by Monday, December 16th. On Friday the news coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and everywhere else was wall to wall—as usual. But by Saturday morning, less than 12 hours after the shooting the coverage dried up. By Monday on the Special Report by Brett Baier there wasn’t a single mention of the shooting during the entire program—a news station thought highly to be a conservative leaning network. Oddly missing from the many news stations were the Hollywood elite with constant calls for gun control, the prayer vigils, the sorrow of the poor kids shot by the made gunman Karl Pierson foolishly, maliciously, and for no reason at all struck down. It seemed as if the media in general wanted to move on to another story and forget about this school shooting even as the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Massacre had just occurred prompting schools all over the country to begin staffing armed patrol officers to stop such things from happening—Araphoe being one of them. The reason…………..well, Pierson unlike the other mass shooters of recent memory who were rumored to be politically left, but not clearly—the Araphoe shooter was clearly, unequivocally—and boldly was a socialist. Socialism is the political philosophy that most of the media had accepted in small doses, a concept that is taught in public schools—not by name of course, but by practice, and is the current philosophy of the current President of The United States—again, not by name, but in practice.
Karl Pierson’s attack at Arapahoe High School lasted just 80 seconds. He rushed into the school Friday with a bandolier of ammunition strapped to his chest carrying a machete, three Molotov cocktails and the pump-action shotgun that authorities said he bought days before to avenge a grudge he had against his debate coach for kicking him off the team. Pierson was such a radical socialist—such a maniacal collectivist, that when even his teacher tried to reel him in, he thought like most left-winged tyrants do—that he had a right and obligation to force others into his way of thinking—by force if necessary.
The teen apparently harbored a grudge against his debate couch Murphy after being disciplined by him in September. The discipline came after Pierson made a verbal threat against Murphy to a group of students. Law enforcement was made aware of that threat, and the response to it remained under investigation.
Pierson’s Facebook page, before it was taken down, was a window into the mind of the accused shooter. He wrote a lot about economics and politics, calling himself a “Keynesian” and jesting that neoclassic economic theory would not fix the economy.
He also used his Facebook to routinely mock Republicans as seen below:
The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ’em Die, Climate Change: Let ’em Die, Gun Violence: Let ’em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ’em Die, More War: Let ’em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?
One classmate described him as harmless but said he could get verbally aggressive and very heated when debating and discussing politics with teachers and students. It is obvious that the left-winged radical was not harmless. Pierson cared enough about socialism and Keynesian economics to go home, buy a gun, and kill his teacher for not being allowed to continue debating on the team—to have a platform to spread his message of collective endeavor through socialism.
Here are several articles covering the story as it unfolded:
When progressive types run into any issue such as gun violence, their very first reaction is more regulation, more government intervention, less personal freedom, and stronger public school presence, yet these things keep happening in schools where many perceive such places to be safe—even though it is far more likely that their children would be involved in a school shooting than to be involved in an airplane accident. There is still a fear of flying where there is not a fear of public schools. Liberals often proclaim that these school shooters are mentally ill, and must be detected by the government schools and treated before they ever bring harm to anyone. Yet it is never considered what made the shooters ill to begin with—it is never considered that the illness came from institutional failure and no other contributing factor—and that more government intervention will indirectly lead to more mass shootings, and more people who think the way Karl Pierson did.
Does anybody think that Pierson learned to be a socialist from his home environment? Likely, he learned it from school. Most children learn about liberalism in public schools by their teachers and college professors. They vote for Democrats for the first 15 years of their adult lives, then once they maintain jobs for a while have kids of their own, purchase property and live responsibly—they grow out of liberalism and slowly become conservative. By the time they reach their 50s and 60s they become those stuffy Republicans they used to rant about. It’s a bit of a cycle of life that we needlessly endure because we allow the government to teach our kids with left-leaning methods that are destructive to their minds. For people like Pierson—who was probably a bit different from most children from the start—after his debate teachers told him to watch shows like MSNBC and CNN’s Pierce Morgan—and other “recommended” viewing, so that the kid could become a better debater—his young mind became tainted as he observed the socialism of his school, the socialism of his President, the socialism of the news—and he put his finger to the wind and decided that he would become a liberal because he saw that the masses endorsed those views—from his perspective at the public school. The teachers ripped on Republicans—so if he wanted good grades—he could do the same and get better grades—and maybe even become the next Michael Moore. After playing at this game for a while, he began to believe that Keynesian economics was the salvation of the world—instead of its destroyer, and that socialism was a benefit to equality—instead of the great slayer of it.
The silence from the news came in the wake of the shooting because most of the people covering the story realized that they had contributed just a small bit to the violence because of their endorsements of soft socialism hidden behind mixed economies so prevalent in The United States. Karl Pierson was a product of public education—and like most Frankenstein experiments—he became a monster that nobody wanted to acknowledge. The political theory, the economic theory, and social justice that Karl Pierson learned in his public school became a monster that went on to bring great harm to the other collective occupants of Araphoe High School. Pierson took what he learned further than the school intended and they tried to pull him out of it too late—they had let his mind go too far to the left—so much so that Pierson become dangerous. Instead of growing up to become the next Al Gore, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Barack Obama, they had created a Frankenstein monster that got loose and wanted to destroy its maker—his teacher.
Liberalism by default of the frequent actions by many mass killers should be designated a mental illness—so that future people like Karl Pierson can be avoided. But to admit that would require most people in the mainstream media, and political structure to admit that they are also suffering from the mental illness of liberalism—just not to the same degree Pierson was. The great fear is that it might not take much for them to become as crazy as Karl Pierson—because they too support concepts of Keynesian economics, they too support socialism, and believe that liberalism is a benefit to society—instead of a detriment. If anybody were really serious about stopping school shootings, they would not look to laws, guns, or more pansy teachings in public school, but would eliminate liberalism from the American consciousness. By eliminating liberal instruction, education would not feed the mental illness that tends to occur in mass collectivists who believe that socialism should be the spine of all national economies. In Karl Pierson’s case, he believed in liberalism so intently that he was willing to kill for it. There really isn’t any other way to stop such a person once they get loose from a teacher’s control, and that is what scares so many media outlets. Because they have helped put in motion large doses of the liberalism mental illness—and there will be more Karl Pierson types created by them for the destruction of mankind. When they show themselves, the responsibility for their actions will fall on the shoulders of those most silent—the national media.
To the second-hander, the typical government bureaucrat, the strike driven unionized school teacher, the political whores of K-Street, the Black Friday line slut, the pro-tax legislator, the latte sipping prostitutes with diamond rings the size of car tires and asses to match, they believe that all science is produced through the institutional process—from government being aligned with colleges to produce the science of our day. However, as proven in the fabulous book Forbidden Archeology, our modern age has found extensive evidence of a cover-up by these same institutions so to avoid the evidence that mankind has lived on earth for millions of years, instead of just thousands. The reason is that colleges have received large infusions of federal grant money to study “things” and when contrary evidence arises to their conclusions, that evidence is suppressed in order to preserve the legacy of the previous conclusions. That is why cover-ups occur in a mixed economy where government controls the education process, the economy, and the people in it with a blob like mentality of collective welfare. The belief is that if the evidence is suppressed and nobody sees the results, that reality can be suppressed in favor of the desired out-come—at least the desire of the second-handers. For instance, the typical levy addict tries to pass a school levy over and over again ignoring all the previous failures—such as at the Little Miami school district which tried 9 times to convince voters to approve a tax on themselves. After the 9th time, voters got tired and stopped voting and the increase won by a very small margin. The public school then felt that the “majority had spoken.” The evidence that the majority had spoken against the tax eight previous times was lost to the desire of the second-handers to obtain higher taxes—so the evidence was ignored—even covered up by the media. That is just a small sample of how major cover-ups occur—and why. And in our modern age there is no greater cover-up than the one against The Hutchinson Effect.
The Huchinson Effect is a science of behavior that was discovered through experiments continuing the work of Tesla who was directly up against Edison and financier J.P. Morgan during the age of electrical discovery. Morgan outspent Tesla and Westinghouse, and in the end, Edison’s inferior electrical discoveries were endorsed by the U.S. Government because of Morgan’s vast influence over them at the time—as they were second-handers at the back of the train of thought and had made their investments of infrastructure into Edison. So they suppressed Tesla to preserve their investments as a government into a new science. This was uncovered yet again when John Hutchinson ran across Tesla’s old experiments duplicating their effects which yielded decisive evidence of anti-gravity technology. What follows comes directly off John Hutchinson’s web-site which is linked at the conclusion of this brief explanation. The cover-up of The Hutchinson Effect is so vast that even edits to Wikipedia are removed and authors apparently banned. The discovery by John Hutchinson continuing Tesla’s work has major ramifications on the modern world which would totally change the way human beings do just about everything—and the investments into the current way of doing things, the way second-handers make their livings at the back of the train would be in jeopardy. Millions of unionized federal and electrical workers would have to change the way they do everything in their lives—and they don’t want that—so a cover-up of epic proportions has ensued. What the cover-up by many institutions has attempted to do is prevent the world from learning about The Hutchinson Effect—but it’s too late. Too many people already know about it, and I intend to make sure many more people learn of it. The Hutchinson Effect has many solutions which beg for a pure capitalism form of government to help usher it into our daily lives—as opposed to the statist top down management of the typical bureaucrat and their legions of second-handers intent to protect their livelihoods from the imposition of epic scientific change. Now, here is The Hutchinson Effect for your reading pleasure.
The Hutchison Effect — An Explanation
by Mark A. Solis
People often ask, “What exactly is the Hutchison Effect?” This brief essay is an attempt to answer that question to the satisfaction of the majority.
First of all, the Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena which were discovered accidentally by John Hutchison during attempts to study the longitudinal waves of Tesla back in 1979. In other words, the Hutchison Effect is not simply a singular effect. It is many.
The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils.
The effects produced include levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (exactly as portrayed in the movie, “The Philadelphia Experiment”), the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals.
The levitation of heavy objects by the Hutchison Effect is not—repeat not—the result of simple electrostatic or electromagnetic levitation. Claims that these forces alone can explain the phenomenon are patently ridiculous, and easily disproved by merely trying to use such methods to duplicate what the Hutchison Effect has achieved, which has been well documented both on film and videotape, and has been witnessed many times by numerous credentialed scientists and engineers. Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as that is all that is used by Hutchison’s apparatus to levitate a 60-pound cannon ball.
The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a powerful influence on Van der Waals forces. In a striking and baffling contradiction, dissimilar substances can simply “come together,” yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A block of wood can simply “sink into” a metal bar, yet neither the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart. Also, there is no evidence of displacement, such as would occur if, for example, one were to sink a stone into a bowl of water.
The anomalous heating of metal without any evidence of burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood) is a clear indication that possibly the nature of heat may not be completely understood. This has far-reaching implications for thermodynamics, which hinges entirely on the presumption of such knowledge. It should be noted that the entirety of thermodynamics is represented by the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is insignificant in a context of 0 Hz to infinite Hz. The anomalous heating exhibited by the Hutchison Effect shows plainly that we have much to learn, especially where thermodynamics and electromagnetism meet.
The spontaneous fracturing of metals, as occurs with the Hutchison Effect, is unique for two reasons: (1) there is no evidence of an “external force” causing the fracturing, and (2) the method by which the metal separates involves a sliding motion in a sideways direction, horizontally. The metal simply comes apart.
Some temporary changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals are somewhat reminiscent of the “spoon bending” of Uri Geller, except that there is no one near the metal samples when the changes take place. One video shows a spoon flapping up and down like a limp rag in a stiff breeze. In the case of permanent changes, a metal bar will be hard at one end, like steel, and soft at the other end, like powdered lead. Again, this is evidence of strong influence on Van der Waals forces.
The radio wave interferences involved in producing these effects are produced from as many as four and five different radio sources, all operating at low power. However, the zone in which the interferences take place is stressed by hundreds of kilovolts.
It is surmised by some researchers that what Hutchison has done is tap into the Zero Point Energy. This energy gets its name from the fact that it is evidenced by oscillations at zero degrees Kelvin, where supposedly all activity in an atom ceases. The energy is associated with the spontaneous emission and annihilation of electrons and positrons coming from what is called “the quantum vacuum.” The density of the energy contained in the quantum vacuum is estimated by some at ten to the thirteenth Joules per cubic centimeter, which is reportedly sufficient to boil off the Earth’s oceans in a matter of moments.
Given access to such energies, it is small wonder that the Hutchison Effect produces such bizarre phenomena. At the present time, the phenomena are difficult to reproduce with any regularity. The focus for the future, then, is first to increase the frequency of occurence of the effects, then to achieve some degree of precision in their control.
The work is continuing at this time. Before long, we shall see what progress can be made.
Discoveries do not come out of large institutions under collective enterprise. Most major discoveries of scientific origin including the Internet, the Atomic Bomb, missions into space, or even aviation were driven from the mind of solitary individuals. Second-handers helped these bright minds get the information to the public—but such inventions were not created by institutions in partnership with government to bring about new technology. The Wright Brothers when they invented flight in Dayton, Ohio did not do so at the University of Dayton, they did it from their bicycle shop under rather crude conditions. The aviation industry in all its incantations really hasn’t changed beyond the basic concepts of weight, lift, yaw, and drag invented by The Wright Brothers in a dirty shop that had nothing to do with airplanes.
The difference between Tesla’s electrical experiments which were far superior to Edison’s was that J.P. Morgan was behind Edison, and sought to crush the competition to protect his investment into Edison, which still continues to this very day. Second-handers hope to suppress The Hutchinson Effect long enough for John Hutchinson to die off and all these current generations of people who know of his work so that a college can loot the information 50 or 60 years from now once history has forgotten who brought the technology into reality. Then the second-handers of science will attempt to pass the discoveries off on their own hoping nobody knows that it was Tesla, then John Hutchinson who perfected the science way back in 1979!
Under free-market capitalism, John Hutchinson would be a millionaire honored as one of the greatest minds in human history—on par with Leonardo de Vinci, Albert Einstein, or Isaac Newton. Instead, he is the subject of ridicule and controversy as the governments of the world try to pick his brain from a distance as he lives in a common home through eccentric means of relative obscurity. Every human being in the world could have floating cars. Large weights that would typically need forklifts and overhead cranes would be eliminated as anti-gravity could just float large objects around during construction and transportation. Unique materials that have totally different physical properties could be bound together to produce unusual composites unknown to any other generation of human being—and the information is right in front of us—it is the second-handers which seek to prevent it to protect their own legacy of lies and manipulation over a long period of time. To the second-handler, the protection of their institutions is more important than floating vehicles or any other by-product of The Hutchinson Effect which would be a natural result of such a radical discovery. The discovery has already been made—the technology is already there. It just lacks acceptance by the second-handers who are trained by their institutions to not trust anything done in a barn, or by an individual, or produced under the banner of profit-making capitalism. The secret of what they really fear is that they know that nothing institutions actually produce amount to anything if individuals like Hutchinson are not the wind that blows the sails of discovery, and that illusion is the reason for the cover-ups at every level of our “civilized” society.
If you doubt dear reader what I have just said consider what has just happened in our current time under the Obama administration. While writing this article at 3 AM in the morning, I went to the restroom and turned on a light—the light came on after a brief pause as it’s one of those new “environmentally friendly” bulbs—and it takes a moment for them to heat up to full brightness. Just four short years ago at the same time in the morning doing the same thing, I would turn on the light, and it would come on to full brightness without any hesitation. It is government policy built on voodoo science which is driving this ignorance called global warming, and “clean energy.” Going down the road of government evolution by two hundred under years under such a mentality it is conceivable that the light bulb may even be un-invented in favor of candles—to preserve “Mother Earth.” The light bulb is devolving in the year 2013—it is less than it was in 2009 as the evidence presented itself to me at 3 AM in the morning to the slow warm up of the bulb to light my way in the darkness. Yet the hypocrisy of the government and the second-handers who run it is obvious when The Hutchinson Effect is understood. What could be more “eco-friendly” than anti-gravity. Think of how fast trains could move without friction, or automobiles, or freight—or anything! Think of how elevators could function at a fraction of the physical energy it takes to moves an up and down a skyscraper, or a hotel—and those are all direct implications of The Hutchinson Effect. Then look at what the government has done to the simple light bulb and the pattern is obvious. The Huchinson Effect gives mankind more freedom, and the governments of the world want less—and that’s ultimately what it all comes down to. The second-handers want to believe that it is they who run the world, that it is they who invent everything, that it is they who make all the important decisions. But in actuality, all they really do is steal from people like John Huchinson, and Tesla, and the Wright Brothers to build their institutional legacies off the backs of geniuses who were ahead of the curve long before the second-handers even knew they were even moving toward one.
It took me over a week to watch Killing Kennedy, the film done by the National Geographic Channel and produced by Ridley Scott based on the best-selling novel by Bill O’Reilly. But I’m glad I finally got around to it on my DVR because I learned a few things. I am usually turned off by the whole Kennedy assassination issue because I think it took American focus off our self-reliance at a critical point in our history and I don’t like the collective sorrow that came out of the event. Also after Oliver Stone’s film from the early 90’s, there are a lot of questions surrounding Kennedy. Kennedy was a good president but he made a lot of mistakes, just like in his real life where he was too fast and loose with women, too connected to organized crime, opened the door for public sector unions to organize in government, but he did well during the Cuban Missile Crises, and setting the stage for the Space Race. So Kennedy is a mixed bag, and certainly wasn’t the worst President America ever had—but I don’t feel energized by him enough to study too deeply. When I think of Kennedy, I think of the struggle against communism and the 60s in general, and I hate both of those things, so I typically avoid references to the period except when they scream out for attention. O’Reilly’s book, and now the movie have successfully done exactly that—brought that attention to my eyes with screaming fury.
After watching Killing Kennedy it became obvious to me that many of the conspiracy theories floating around about the assassination come from the left—from sources like Oliver Stone. I did not know that Lee Harvey Oswald was such a staunch Marxist, even going to Russia to live and work for a while. Oswald had a Russian wife that he brought back to Dallas, and the source of his anger at Kennedy was in his hope that Cuba would succeed as a communist country. I have spoken often about this period in American history and how persistent communism was by many people—particularly the universities, and seeing Oswald behave the way he did toward communism was something I did not know, but fit perfectly into what I already knew about the period. The political left obviously does not want Oswald to be at fault for the Kennedy killing because they share with him a sympathy for communism, so they are looking for every other excuse they conger up away from the reality that Oswald was a communist nut case.
There were still many unanswered questions that will probably never be properly answered, as to why the FBI was so involved in Oswald’s life, and why Jack Ruby—a strip club owner was so passionate about the Kennedy killing to assassinate Oswald but O’Reilly like he does so often only looked at the evidence the way a journalist does, and those facts put on the shoulders of Lee Harvey Oswald a fanatic for Marxism who wanted the communists to succeed in Cuba and elsewhere in the world. Oswald saw Kennedy as a threat to that reality because of his stance against Cuba.
Many of these elements are present in our American life today. The political Left and Right back then had to deal with many Americans like Oswald who wanted to give communism a chance—so they bent a bit and moved to the left in both parties to take away the temptation of marching in the streets the way communists gained ground in places like Russia and China. I think this is why Kennedy gave public sector unions a chance through executive order to thrive—aside from the appeasement of the organized crime elements in his life. Kennedy’s vice-president LBJ, started the Great Society programs to take the edge off the communist threat rolling through American politics at the time. The results of this assault are seen today in the statist position of government against the people of the nation. Communism is clearly present in the modern education system, in the social programs of the 60s and all elements of progressivism. But Kennedy and LBJ thought they were fighting communism by yielding a bit to it, but what they really did was bend enough to allow elements of communism into American society to prevent more people like Lee Harvey Oswald from rising to prominence and trying to kill American politicians. Their appeasement took the edge off the hard-line communists, Marxists, and socialists—which were a much bigger problem in America than people think.
Bill O’Reilly is entirely too moderate for me, but I do watch him almost every night because he is as fair and balanced of a reporter as there is. He does let the facts speak, and it is his brand of journalism that I find attractive, and why he is one of the most successful best-selling authors in American history. I trust Bill O’Reilly, but I think he is too mild in his views. He is however a product of the 60’s, just like I am a product of the 80’s and tend to see things the way Ronald Reagan did—at least the act that came out of The White House. But the facts are the facts, and so long as facts drive the arguments, political ideology—or conviction is irrelevant—and O’Reilly can always be trusted to present the facts that are known, and reveal what they add up to.
I am glad to have seen Killing Kennedy—it was a good production that told a story of a dark period in American history and should be seen by everyone. It should be shown in schools, it should be shown by parents to their children, and grandparents to their entire clans during Thanksgiving—because it’s an important film that captures a very volatile period which we all share still. The effects of the politics of that period still resonate like ghosts haunting the house that the American Republic built—and the specters are ideologues of communism who are just as vicious and manipulative as Lee Harvey Oswald, just not as short-tempered and insecure to act on their hopes of violence. These ghosts act through legislation to achieve the same spread of Marxism to every corner of the globe—a strategy that was well beyond Oswald—a reality that only conspiracy theory can attempt to out-shine, because the Kennedy assassination was about a lot of things—but in the end it was about defending communism from an America that was the enemy of Marxist ideology—and supporters showed then as they do now, that they will do anything and harm anyone to advance their cause.
It looks like I’ll get to see the next Star WarsEpisode 7 with my family at the new Liberty Center movie theater as the release date is now December 18th 2015. This is exciting news for me as my family loves Star Wars. Philosophically, Star Wars if very healthy stuff full of optimism for human potential. George Lucas has done something quite marvelous with it, he has combined the raw selfish energy of Han Solo—who is unquestionably Randian, and merged his usefulness with all the comparative religions of the world embodied in The Force. I have said many things about Star Wars and the impact it has on our society upon these pages because I see it as a cultural phenomena that has the potential to produce a seismic shift in human consciousness, and I’m going to say things here that I think will give people a lot of hope. I’ve been holding off until after the election to address some of these exciting developments, but I know you dear reader need a shot in the arm—so I intend to give it to you.
As I’ve discussed on several occasions I would say the most formal schooling I had which I didn’t consider a waste of time was the ten years I spent studying comparative religion and world mythology. The most important person in my life and primary motivator of my ideals has been and will always be Joseph Campbell. My parents did a good job of giving me value, but my intellectual development came from Campbell. What he did in the middle of the progressive era was quite astonishing. He was a conservative who had a following of radical hippies in search of meaning, and Campbell was able to transcend all those ideologies with an intellectual pursuit that has shaped our modern world. One of those nutty hippies was George Lucas—who wasn’t like the rest of the drug induced film makers studying under Francis Ford Coppola in San Francisco. He was a race car driver who had nearly died in a car wreck and had his life flash before his eyes with an intellectual hunger that was moving at a million miles an hour. It was in this period that Lucas discovered Campbell’s epically important book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, the most important book in my personal library. I spent ten years reading Campbell and was for a time a member of The Joseph Campbell Foundation while George Lucas sat on as a board of director. Campbell had died in 1987 but ten years later we had a big meeting in Washington D.C. which for me was a personal odyssey similar to The Wizard of Oz. Upon arriving at “OZ” I discovered that everyone was far from epic in their intellectual standards and had become mere cult-like followers of Campbell, which left me feeling as if I pulled back the curtain of an entire intellectual industry and discovered a decrepit old man attempting to appear greater than he really was.
I always took my kids to these kinds of things, which pissed off everyone as Campbell’s wife Jean had never had a child. There were no kids at the big meeting of the minds and they resented me for bringing them. But as a father, I always delivered to my kids the opportunity to live their own life of adventure without restriction of intellectual limits, and I wanted them to meet the kind of people who molded public sentiment. After the meeting, my family broke off to do our own thing and we didn’t socialize further with the Campbell followers. It was Halloween in Washington D.C. and my plan was to take my kids Trick or Treating. We went to a neighborhood in Chevy Chase, but my kids refused to go up to a single door because they didn’t trust the neighborhood and felt out of their element. So we went back to our hotel and I improvised. Using lessons learned from Joseph Campbell I decided to give my children a mythic experience, since that was what Trick or Treating was supposed to entail. While the Joseph Campbell Foundation members were down the hall trying to resurrect his dead spirit with chants and hand-holding, my kids went trick or treating at our hotel door. They were only 6 and 7 years old at the time and my wife was worried that we were ruining one of their precious Halloweens of their youth by being on the road. So I dressed up as a different character that opened the door each time my kids visited. I’d give them candy then they’d run down the hall of the hotel giving me time to change into a different costume, then they’d come back. I used everything I could find inside that hotel room to try to appear as a different person, or (creature) each time they arrived at the door proclaiming, “trick or treat!”
To this day, as recently as this latest Halloween where they are now girls in their twenties, they still talk about that Halloween in Washington as being their favorite—and it was a one man show put on by me exclusively. My wife did help a couple of times as I struggled to find new costumes with what was inside our room. The reason my children loved that Halloween so much was because I gave them a mythic experience, something that was representative of reality but spoke of higher ideals beyond temporal existence—which is what most everyone in one form or another yearns for. Some people look for it in sex, love, career, drunkenness, financial power, or in eating—but everyone is looking for meaning to each breath they take.
Star Wars is the best embodiment in the modern world of human meaning. It is mythology that goes well beyond a simple blockbuster film intended to make money for the Disney Company. It has an importance that is unfathomable to contemporary thinking, and is a gift from George Lucas that only he could have come up with after surviving his devastating car wreck. He lived a life of extremes; he was a race car driver, and an avid reader who wanted to be an anthropologist. Those two radically opposite ideals are what make Star Wars so important to the human race. The reason is that Star Wars is about values, and conveying those values through a story, which is the heart of all mythologies. Star Wars because it was set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is able to transcend religious temperament here on earth and explore the meaning of value with conflict removed. Such an example would be of whose version of religion is correct Muslims or Christians. Star Wars explores the same values without violating people’s religious beliefs which is all too often the greatest hindrance to understanding. So it is far more than just another movie, it has the power through its story to transform culture—and I predict that these new films will do just that.
When the first Star Wars film came out in 1977 America was in the middle of the Carter administration, Nixon had just been impeached, and gas prices were too high causing long lines at the pumps. Iran was moving aggressively against America on multiple fronts and the USSR was trying to inject communism into America through every open sore. A New Hope followed quickly by 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back changed Hollywood and by their own merit kick started the 1980’s and the Reagan presidency. The way those movies captured the imagination of the world was a form that only mythology could generate. Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek which explores ideals in an interesting way. Star Wars is purely about mythology and the power of it to convey complicated messages. For the same reasons that my daughters loved that particular Trick or Treat event in Washington D.C. as little girls, Star Wars for many people no matter how jaded, is their “mythic experience,” and they can’t get enough of it. Star Wars is about values.
When George Lucas wrote the character of Han Solo played by Harrison Ford, he thought of all the motor heads he knew from his racing days. Lucas unquestionably had read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and Han Solo was his answer to a Randian archetype. He meant for Han Solo to be won over by altruism conveyed through Luke Skywalker during the course of the movies and learn how to think of others first—it is the classic sacrifice and the bliss stuff so crucial to Joseph Campbell’s writings. That was before Lawrence Kasden got a hold of Lucas’ script and made Han Solo one of the most compelling characters in the history of film—unintentionally becoming the ultimate hero of the entire saga. In fact, what is missing from Return of the Jedi and the prequal films is a Han Solo type of character. Lucas attempted to humble Solo a bit by the third film, and it came out a bit flat. Even though Lucas intended to make an altruistic film out of Star Wars, the values of the characters took on a life of their own and became their own mythic experience. Lucas being enough of a lover of capitalism wisely let the story take on the form that THE FORCE intended and let things develop along their market value. Harrison Ford went on to become an international sensation while Mark Hamill even though he was the star of the films, got lost in the shadows.
The new films are being written again by Kasden, and the implications of this are quite extraordinary. Kasden is a very, talented story-teller who clearly understands mythology in ways that are different from George Lucas and very complimentary. Harrison Ford, Hamill, Fisher and many of the original cast will be back for the new films, and Ford appears to have a multi picture deal with Disney, so the Millennium Falcon will survive well into the future of the Star Wars franchise it would seem. The Falcon is the most important space ship ever created, even more so than the Space Shuttle. It is a modern-day pirate ship and symbol of freedom and rebellion in the Star Wars universe, and is one of the most recognizable objects on planet earth. If I had to take a bet, I would say more people know more about the Falcon than who their local congressman is. They probably know more about the Millennium Falcon than most of their own family members. Disney wisely is beginning to flex their mythological muscle already announcing that they are building a full-scale replica of the Millennium Falcon at their Anaheim Park in California prompting this guy below to declare:
Well, I reflect his sentiment. I’m right there with him and the hundreds if not thousands of others who share his opinion. I have not been shy about my love for the Millennium Falcon. My current favorite place in the whole world physical and virtual is aboard the ship I have on the game The Old Republic which is very similar to the Millennium Falcon. I understand why people are so excited about a full-scale Millennium Falcon at Disneyland, it is for them a mythic experience. I will love taking my grandchildren aboard a Millennium Falcon looking up at it from the foot of the loading ramp. That will be magnificent.
After eight years of Obama no matter what their political affiliation, people are tired. People don’t like communism and socialism, and for nearly 16 years, the United States government has forced heavy doses of socialism upon America growing government in ways that modern mythology has failed to capture. Television shows reflect too often statism, music is too political, and our court system is loaded with greedy lawyers trying to make mountains out of mole hills taking advantage of ACLU cases. Millions of online gamers have retreated from the real world to the virtual one to escape the tyranny of statism—because no place else is dealing with the mythic experience they require to comprehend the forces at play in their lives—except Star Wars.
When the next wave of Star Wars hits in 2014 with the Disney XD television show titled Rebels, it will have all the familiar signs of the past, the positive social impact, the economic stimulation, the cultural desire for goodness and fighting evil on behalf of justice. But this time a Disney financial machine in need of a new wave of revenue will use its considerable power for good because for the first time in decades the market need for goodness will line up with the needed greed of corporate interests and will benefit society in countless ways. It won’t be just a movie that comes out, but a mythological experience that will engulf most levels of human existence, and will be one of the greatest vehicles of capitalism displayed in a number of years.
Hollywood as a whole is in trouble. Labor agreements with the various entertainment unions will paralyze the industry in the coming years—within four years to be specific. Several studios will go out of business like the many steel and auto manufacturers of the past—collapsed by the labor unions and their collective bargaining agreements. Money men won’t risk their money if they have to share too much wealth and will move on to other forms of revenue streams—likely oversea investments. The reason Star Wars moved to December 18th, aside from gaining an extra 6 months to do post production work, was to avoid soaking up the money that can be made off the next Avengers film, and other big movies like Jurassic Park 4, and the Superman VS.Batman. Once Warner Brothers and Disney have played out the superhero films, and the stars demand larger fees under union rules, there won’t be many other large projects that can carry the type of box office numbers these big action films produce. The union wages being so high forces great box office turnout, and people aren’t going to line up to see the newest Oprah film, or romantic comedy getting box office numbers that justify the investment. This is going to crush Hollywood, because the revenue stream won’t keep going. Disney however has Star Wars, and they can hedge their labor costs with theme park revenue. Without those theme parks, Disney would be victim to the same kind forces that the other studios are going to face—parasitic labor union practices. Because of the vacuum of power that the Hollywood left will have in this period, they will be forced to compete with Star Wars, which is a force for good—or they will be financially crushed. The string of progressive films that have been projected upon the silver screen for two decades now will abate, because capitalism will force their hand to abandon their liberal ideals the same way that Lucas had to re-think Han Solo as a character—because the market drove the character’s importance.
Behind all this is a rather solid formula that Joseph Campbell outlined in his life’s work on comparative mythology. That work directly shapes the kind of stories that are told in the various Star Wars formats, whether it be film, television, books, gaming, or comics—the need for the stories are what matter most, and the reason for the need. Once those things are understood, they can be explored in the story telling process. That is precisely what is going to happen when the first Star Wars film hits in 2015. A market need is going to be fulfilled in a big way, and that need was created by anxiety driven through lack of mythological coordination. Statist governments have attempted to suppress that mythological need and reshape it in their own image—and they have foolishly attempted to force it down society’s throat without listening to the market needs. In the Star Wars equivalent, if government had been in George Lucas’ shoes, they would have forced the Luke Skywalker angle and suppressed the Han Solo one—and what they would have ended up with would be something along the lines of the prequels—entertaining, nice to look at, but lacking the kind of meaning that makes grown men want to walk through a full-scale Millennium Falcon as their life goal. It says a lot that a fictional space ship that is over 30 years old has more mythological meaning than any other creation proposed over that same span of time. The Falcon represents rebellion, defiance, speed, and freedom—that is why people love it. And as long as those symbols exist in our society, statist government will not succeed. So when Star Wars hits the new theater at Liberty Center, and a wave of excitement emits in a way that few people have seen in their lifetimes, more than a movie will be presented. A mythology will be offered, and that is more powerful than all the weapons of the world—because weapons are built to destroy the will of an enemy with fear. Mythology is designed to build a mind up to withstand the fears they are presented with, and in a perpetual game of tug and war between those two forces one that is generally regulated to only religions and some mild forms of entertainment, the other is supported by large governments with the endless ability to steal the money of their tax payers to support their grip on power. Star Wars does what only mythology without the congestion of focus on the afterlife can achieve, and that is to bring the mind to what it truly craves which is freedom, innovation, and rebellion against those who seek to suppress it.
The thugs are going to get their stolen money from the community because 13488 people were stupid, and passed the Lakota school levy, on the fourth attempt. Voter turn-out was the key. Too many people stayed home while the pro people voted. There were over 18,000 NO voters in the last election, and they obviously thought their vote wouldn’t matter, and stayed home. As a result, they will now have to pay higher taxes because of their lack of participation.
LAKOTA SCHOOLS ISSUE 7
Total
Number of Precincts
70
Precincts Reporting
70
100.0%
Times Counted
26804/64844
41.3%
Total Votes
26735
FOR THE TAX LEVY
13488
50.45%
AGAINST THE TAX LEVY
13247
49.55%
Now it is time to begin campaigning against their 2017 levy attempt, because it’s coming.
Everything they do at Lakota, every dollar wasted, every scandal they are involved in will be reported—because if I have to blow more money on these idiots with higher taxes, I’m going to get my money’s worth.
Bill O’Reilly history will remember as one of the most influential people of the 21st Century. His news show on Fox is an unmitigated success attracting millions of viewers every night Monday through Friday, but that is not the most beneficial aspect of O’Reilly. O’Reilly will go down in history as one of the most prolific authors of all time as his Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, andnow Killing Jesus will sell more books than any handful of top 20 New York Times authors. His lasting memory will be in his literary legacy, not his television show. O’Reilly is a “down the middle” kind of guy, and represents well the kind of mind that assisted in voting favorably many of the modern troubles plaguing our nation, such as debt management, welfare support, and public education statism. That is why it was so remarkable that O’Reilly in the wake of the many debates on Obamacare finally asked the very important question on his show, “does the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
The answer of course is that it doesn’t, no mob of collective rule has the right over individual citizens. The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few, and that premise destroys the basic premise of democracy—which causes considerable problems. This is why O’Reilly finally asked the unsaid question on his show.
Any needs that the many may have over the few which is articulated with such questions are driven straight out of communist text. It was philosophers like Jeremy Bentham who helped inspire Karl Marx to write The Communist Manifesto which would bring to the world the idea of communism directly attacking capitalism as an economic concept. Jeremy Bentham (/ˈbɛnθəm/; 15 February 1748 OS – 6 June 1832) was a British philosopher, jurist, and social reformer. He is regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism.
Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea”, piled up mountains of books.
”
Marx’s accusation is twofold. In the first place, he says that the theory of utility is true by definition and thus does not really add anything meaningful. For Marx, a productive inquiry had to investigate what sorts of things are good for people—that is, what our nature, alienated under capitalism, really is. Second, he says that Bentham fails to take account of the changing character of people, and hence the changing character of what is good for them. This criticism is especially important for Marx, because he believed that all important statements were contingent upon particular historical conditions.
Marx argues that human nature is dynamic, so the concept of a single utility for all humans is one-dimensional and not useful. When he decries Bentham’s application of the ‘yard measure’ of now to ‘the past, present and future’, he decries the implication that society, and people, have always been, and will always be, as they are now; that is, he criticizes essentialism. As he sees it, this implication is conservatively used to reinforce institutions he regarded as reactionary. Just because in this moment religion has some positive consequences, says Marx, doesn’t mean that viewed historically it isn’t a regressive institution that should be abolished.
Bentham was creating the foundations of utopian socialism at a time when America was fighting for its independence from the same imperial forces that created the left leaning philosopher. Today, because of Star Trek using the character of Spock to utter the sensibilities of Bentham the entire world has come to believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which is a communist foundation concept. While Marx was critical of the looseness of Bentham’s definitions, he used the direction to shape his own philosophy of Marxism.
It is to support this foundation of collectivism that public education institutions have been targeted as factories of making students ignorant instead of brilliant, because the goal is to train the masses to be unchallenging servants to the political rulers of the current age. By “dumbing down” the masses through the education process, modern statists do not have to concern themselves with being smarter than their potential rivals for power, and seek to keep the masses at their back with stupidity—which is the ultimate failure of Bentham’s philosophic premise. The needs of the many simply become a mob of ignorant souls under any political system—and nothing good comes of it in the long run. Man-kind simply regresses.
So the answer to Bill’s question is that, YES, it is morally wrong to enforce the needs of the many at the expense of the few—because often it is the few, the exceptional, and the driven that create everything that the many enjoy. When the few are penalized, tortured, and ran into the ground—sacrificed like offerings to the Mayan gods of the Yucatan Peninsula, then society will crumble completely and the needs of the many will grow as there will be nobody to provide substance to them—since they pillaged all value from society with their unchecked demands.
Matt Clark had me on his WAAM radio show in Ann Arbor, Michigan to discuss the inflated wages fast-food workers have been demanding as unions are attempting to infect the food service industry with communist oriented mediocrity. During our conversation we covered some of my personal stories and feelings about how value has been robbed from all fields of endeavor due to the subtle influence of communism through labor unions, and how that has lowered the performance level of productivity in America. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW MY THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER IN GREATER DETAIL. As our discussion evolved we discussed public school teachers and how they are like the ridiculous fast-food worker in thinking they are worth a lot more money than they really are just because of their collective-bargaining agreements. Watch and listen to the interview for yourself:
What has been robbed from the fast food industry, the teaching profession, and every endeavor where unions’ public and private have taken root is the value of value. Value has been stolen from the American worker through these collective bargaining agreements, the belief that just because the ignorant masses believe something, that they can assert a value to it. Obviously, they can not. When people like Matt and I show outrage at the behavior, it is because we see that it is value for an endeavor that has been lost in the process of teaching, building cars, or simply making hamburgers as mediocre workers inspired to achieve a “living wage” through collective enterprise no longer reach for the stars, dream of becoming more than they are, or constantly invent new and better ways of doing things because they are complacent.
American industry was the best in the world because it offered the prospect of profit, even at the lowest level job—as effort and value drove the market. Through the typical progressive, through the unions, the government workers, and all forms of collectivism from the private union steward to the college fraternity, it is the concept of “fitting in” to a group that is destroying American ingenuity, and thus, destroying the American worker. All participants in such processes understand the concept of collectivism and they sense there is something wrong with it, yet they continue to keep their mouths shut because they know they must do so to reap the benefits of group affiliation. Groups do not like individuals who speak out, because there is comfort in silence, and under the communist like methods of the labor unions, there is pay through collective bargaining.
That mentality is attempting to migrate into the fast-food industry out of sheer desperation. Like a cancerous leech, labor unions have destroyed American manufacturing, all government unions, and a good portion of the food distribution network. They need fresh blood to keep their influence migrating off the used carcasses of their members, so they are targeting restaurants. The cost is a loss of value from the industry that is there to some degree in individual pockets where exceptional workers can still make a difference in some fast food stores, and rise to the top to eventually run some of those establishments. But the threat of a labor union moving in to build a nation of more complacent workers happy to make $15 an hour for doing a job that is only valued under $10 is a threat not only to cheap and easy food, but the value of capitalism that is implanted in every free-standing restaurant in America.
Once workers become unionized they are forever tainted by the effects of collectivism, and are more or less ruined for life. The union employee is a typical individual that has been cannibalized for the greater good, and yielded all their hopes and dreams to the value of the worst of their group affiliation. Unions are anti-America, anti-capitalism, and anti-productive. They are no good for anybody. But worse than anything they are looters of value as they not only rob individuals of their merit, but steal value from every task they are affiliated with. And for that reason, they are agents of destruction upon a wasteland that was once known as the most productive country on the planet—now consumed with the parasite named “collective-bargaining.”
