Tag: Doc Thompson

The Mysterious Skull Cult of Göbekli Tepe: An 11,500 year old temple is just the beginning of the story

It was very interesting this week to see a press release from the German archaeologist Julia Gresky regarding an obvious skull cult at Göbekli Tepe dating back to around 11,500 years ago at the great stone temples discovered under a large mound in southern Turkey at the head waters of the Tigris Euphrates rivers.  Göbekli Tepe has been a mystery since it was first discovered in the mid 1990s as the 40 ton stone pillars built there with intricate carvings defy logic as measured against what we typically think of regarding human evolution from hunters and gathers, farmers, then city-state administrators. Rather, the temple is evidence that extremely advanced engineering, and astronomical understandings were present at the end of the last Ice Age and this is something that just wasn’t part of our understanding of human development up to this point. And now, with the announcement of this skull cult we have evidence of an elaborate understanding of a long gone religion that started in the cradle of civilization well before the Sumerians would rise to power further downstream many thousands of years later.  Göbekli Tepe is mysterious for a lot of reasons but one thing is absolutely known because of it—that we are just dipping our feet into the depths of history.  There is much more to discover and we must be open to those discoveries so that we can learn from that history and not follow the Vico cycle into what has obviously happened to mankind in the past—and keep making the same mistakes over and over each time the human mind makes some major advancement then collapse on itself out of sheer stupidity.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/06/29/temple-doom-grisly-skull-cult-discovery-at-ancient-site.html

Göbekli Tepe is a fine example of how the Vico cycle has transpired over many thousands of years to see a declining culture transpire over time instead of an ever-present increase in thought which most of our sciences assume.  The mistake is in taking for granted that once a scientific discovery is made—such as fire—that forever it will remain in the catalogue of human behavior.  Once we learn it—we keep it so to say.  But this isn’t the case.  Just as in our present age where our political aspects lean toward regression we find that current generations of people are actually less equipped to care for intellectual knowledge than previous ones and thus the Vico cycle moves through its various phases, theocracy, aristocracy, democracy and then ultimately anarchy only to begin again to start completely over.  In some cases the process takes thousands of years.  In others it only takes a few hundred—but the human mind seems to be a prisoner to this trend by their own inclination.  At Göbekli Tepe the once advanced founders had their work buried and less equipped monuments were built upon the originals and this went on for a long time until the site was just buried under a massive mound that many thought was just a giant hillside.  We are learning only now that we must never take for granted any hillside that we see anywhere in the world because under some of them are the origins to many of our myths and legends which are awaiting discovery.  There is so much that we don’t understand.

My personal feelings about these discovers are perhaps more objective than even those of the scientists who discover these great finds because I am able to have my feet in many different worlds and have a perspective driven by freedom that they don’t enjoy—such as the archaeologist Julia Gresky.  I live in a very affluent area of the world where all the gifts of culture are presented from fine food to literature and advanced tools easily accessible through my local hardware stores.  I have access on a daily basis the greatest tools created by the human mind and I live in an economy that allows me to participate in those creations freely.  But as I’ve traveled to different places around the world it is very obvious that not everyone is so gifted and many cultures are essentially still hunters and gatherers.  Human advancement does not occur and give rise to all people everywhere. Many are limited by religious beliefs which prevent them from properly interacting with advanced cultures—or they for one reason or another are not economically able to engage in trade with a more advanced society.  For instance in present day America it is unlikely that a typical Santa Monica resident from California will interact with a village in Ghana, Africa.  The only way they might meet each other is if the Ghana resident shows up one day in Southern California looking for a job and is willing to leave behind their homeland for opportunities. Because the Santa Monica resident just won’t be giving up everything in their life to live in a hut in Ghana—they’d have to give up most everything they know about the world to even participate in such a thing.  So the exchange of knowledge won’t happen—and that is in our present day of global communication and easy travel from one place to another.  I am often surprised how primitive people become right out of big cities in Europe, Asia and even around the Americas.  It’s not hard for me to see how Neolithic people may have developed separately around the world such as at Göbekli Tepe while hunters and gatherers in England were freely walking across the English Channel into France hunting animals as nomads.  They may have run into and even traded with people from Göbekli Tepe and other advanced cultures who had developed engineering abilities but it may have taken many thousands of years for that intellectual information to find its way into the static cultures of their less advanced societies.  That is easy for me to see where scientists like Julia Gresky spend much of their time season after season begging for funding then digging and digging on a very focused site like Göbekli Tepe to bring about more information like this recent skull cult evidence—which was assumed very early on but only recently was confirmed with all her hard work.  Our evidence collection is slow at best but the assumptions of cause and effect can easily be made by global comparisons for those fortunate enough to have that exposure.

I continue to think that we are just scratching the surface in regards to our history.  I think we’ll find even more advanced temples and cities the deeper we dig that are even older than Göbekli Tepe.  I would offer that many of them are under water since ocean levels were vastly different during this post Ice Age period and over time we’ll discover them so long as we can avoid the effects of the Vico cycle.  I would offer that the many wars in the region of Göbekli Tepe are created to avoid the discovers which await us in the many mounds of the region showing us that societies like the Sumerians were just distant descendents to cultures who founded Göbekli Tepe.  We won’t know until we do proper archaeological investigation and you can’t do that so long as there are wars over regional interpretations of religion between Christianity and Islam texts identifying boundaries established by kings of recent memory.  Obviously the history extends well beyond those recent developments and the Vico cycle insists on destroying the past so that the current can survive and that is the element which drives the cycle of madness—and so long as that continues—we’ll never get anywhere.  Bu the evidence does keep coming in for those willing to look at it and the discovery of the skull cult at Göbekli Tepe is quite compelling.  We need to let the evidence take us where it will—because we still have a lot to learn and by learning it—we may save mankind once and for all which I think is a noble pursuit.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg Have Lost Their Minds: The flawed Facebook data and advocacy of Universal Basic Income

I personally like Elon Musk so I’ll forgive him for his ridiculous support of this re-packaged communist proposal that lefties are so excited about, the idea of Universal Basic Income distribution.   Musk is doing good things with his billions of dollars so I can forgive dumb ideas based on his baseline left-leaning philosophies identifying that he has become slightly out-of-touch with reality due to his various projects which happen to be populated by Earth-first wackos.  Musk makes a great car and his SpaceX company is way out in front on driving the frontier of space in the direction that mankind needs to go.  But that stupid kid Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook I have no sympathy for.  He’s an idiot who made his money collecting vast amounts of data from the world population and selling it to intelligence agencies for their covert work.  He’s essentially a sell-out who came into a lot of money because he had no predilection for privacy invasion and he has been fed vast sums of money to keep doing what he’s doing—because the end game is just another modern version of communism disguised as something else for the tech age.

Universal Basic Income is a global idea being floated around that essentially gives everyone a no strings attached paycheck to live life. The big problem is—who pays?  Who pays for the entire world to have a paycheck without having to earn it?  Of course Zuckerberg will tell you that it is the “states” that will have to pay as we all must become one global government working toward the same goals.  Through his Facebook analysis he knows that a majority of the world is lazy and would rather not work a job toward productivity so he’s using this trend to launch this push toward Universal Basic Income.  After all, he’s a billionaire kid who clearly doesn’t understand the value of working at McDonald’s for the summer to buy a new car or earn a down payment on an apartment. Such a proposal as Universal Basic Income will never touch him and his vast wealth—so what does he care.   But he knows that a huge part of the population currently under 30 would rather stay home and play video games and talk on Facebook all day instead of being productive people toward goals of GDP.  Zuckerberg isn’t so smart—he’s not a great visionary.  He’s just a kid who won the lottery doing what other people wouldn’t because their conscious wouldn’t allow them to.  So what Zuckerberg and his other tech buddies are suggesting is an all out assault on our basic sovereignty and it should be challenged boldly.

I’ve made my feelings about Facebook clear. I think it’s vile, and evil.  I want nothing to do with it because it’s essentially a data collection operation designed to study personal habits and associates for sale to intelligence agencies and commercial enterprises.  Facebook wants to know what you know, who you know, how you interact with those people—how important some of those people are compared to other people and essentially what your daily habits are.  Facebook knows that humans are essentially social creatures so it uses a lot of code to exploit that need for the gains of the state.  So I don’t participate.  Facebook is different from other online activity opportunities because it’s a one stop shop of data collection.  Twitter isn’t nearly as invasive, and most other web activity forces data collection to cooperate with each other to build a profile—which is much harder than most people would think.  Facebook puts it all into one place for sale and distribution to those who want to use that information for their own needs.  Facebook isn’t revolutionary it’s just a big spider web designed to capture intellectual property from its users for others to consume at their leisure.

To assume that these advocates for Universal Basic Income are smart because they are part of the tech sector is a folly. As Zuckerberg and Musk both said recently, they think artificial intelligence and robotics are going to replace the human workforce so that gives justification toward Universal Basic Income because as they say, people will still need money in that changing economy.  All this is, is a dressed up new fear created by nothing to back it, to force people into a kind of communist thinking—that we will all be replaced by robots that these tech people are building—so we should listen to them because they have “hidden knowledge” we don’t have.  So we should all be grateful to them for sharing that information—and listen to their proposal.

I don’t mean to come across arrogantly, but I seriously doubt there is anybody in Silicone Valley who can see over the horizon better than I can—into the distant future.  I’d argue that even the best futurists couldn’t outthink me on the matter.  They may be as good, but better would be a statement based on lunacy.  I don’t typically beat people over the head with it—but in cases like this, I can see clearly elements to this puzzle that Zuckerberg and Musk don’t.  In Musk’s case, I think he’s enchanted a bit too much with the power he’s helping to create—but there is a diminishing return on all that he hasn’t yet factored in.  With Zuckerberg, I just think he’s a modern communist hiding his intentions behind modern terms and technology—and he doesn’t care.  What is being ignored which is represented directly by the GDP of a nation is the effect money has on the human soul and the necessity of productivity to extract it for the benefit of spiritual growth.  Humans need to be productive and in capitalist countries that necessity is obvious—and the culture expands at a rate that is very healthy for further development.  Thus, what is missing from these so-called “genius” billionaires is the basic reality that money by itself is worthless without productivity to back it up.  If you just give someone a paycheck—the value of it might buy them groceries, cars and lodging, but it denies them the merit of productive enterprise—or the incentive to be more productive so they could participate in more of life’s fabulous treasures acquired through financial surplus.

I heard a nice challenge to Mark Zuckerberg—if he believes in his Universal Basic Income plan than why don’t he put $1 billion of his so-called $60 billion in total net worth into a little village in Africa and watch what happens.  Give those people a pay check so they can live a basic life and put no demands on it.  Let automated electric cars donated by Elon Musk drive them everywhere they need to go and introduce the best of automation to run their fast food restaurants and their basic needs for manufacturing and measure what happens.  Within a few years the total sum of all that money would be gone and the region would be sucking for more investment but GDP would not contribute to any surplus leaving more investment needed and the rate of invention would decrease because there would be no real incentive to do so except for the back yard mechanics naturally inclined to tinker with things to make them work.  They’d regress as a mini society even from the point where the billion dollars was initially given.  Within a few years there’d be no trace of that billion dollar investment and the village would go back to its status of hut dwellings and chieftain hierarchy.  But why?

Out of all the data Facebook collects it is missing one important element. Facebook can track your associations with other people, your mood at various times of day, your career choices, what you like to eat, the type of music and movies you enjoy—just about everything except for what’s most important in your life—how productive are you.  Productive people don’t tend to spend much time playing on Facebook—but lazy worthless people do—so the data that Mark Zuckerberg is looking at and selling is tainted—it cannot predict the next great revolution in thought, economic, and practice.  And before humans are ever replaced by robots and artificial intelligence, they’ll find a way to excel in other fields where imagination and human input is needed—because at the core of the human experience is the need to be productive.

Now, not everyone feels this way. There are many sick human beings out there who are psychiatrically broken and laziness is part of the symptom of living these shattered lives as a bi-product.  I would go as far to say that likely 90% of our society at all levels is psychiatrically broken to some degree—and those idiots are on Facebook giving a lot of people bad, distorted data based on a whole host of mental illness—such as needing too much correspondence with other human beings to cover deeply personal problems that lay hidden.  That’s not to say those people are not valuable or beyond hope—but as far as functioning in a democracy they are unreliable because they will always seek socialism and other forms of mass collectivism to hide their dysfunctions not only from themselves, but from society as a whole.

It is productivity that is the best way to draw out mental health issues and to become a proper human being and the human race will never surrender productivity to robots, artificial intelligence and other emerging systems of technology just so they can sit around all day and play Call of Duty.  It’s just not going to happen.  There may be a lot of people who will desire such things so they can hide in the shadows and get a free paycheck so they don’t have to deal with real life issues—but giving everyone a free pay check without attaching to it some expected productive output will only lead to a mass psychosis in human activity and we will discover too late—(a hundred years from now) that machines couldn’t do half of what we thought they could because the mysterious human soul is still needed for imagination—and imagination is the first step in all productive output.

I am so certain about these things that you can mark it on your calendar and remember that I told you first—because I just did. Mark Zuckerberg has performed a con by over-sampling human deficiencies while ignoring what matters most to human beings—which is why he and people like Elon Musk are so terrified of artificial intelligence and robots.  Most liberals don’t understand the things I’ve presented here and I would go as far to say that everyone one of them on the liberal side of thinking is operating in some rendition of mental illness.  Even though they are part of shaping tomorrow technologically, they are still liberals who don’t understand the nature of productivity properly—thus they have nothing to contribute on the really big philosophical issues of our time.  And believe me, Universal Basic Income is not a part of any human future that thrives.  It would only contribute to the Vico cycle and destroy our present course because missing from its introduction is the crucial ingredient of productive enterprise that is at the core of all human development.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The Ridiculous World of CNN’s Jim Acosta: Why we are lucky Eric Trump is so fast to defend his dad

A lot of people forget what the Trump family sacrificed to have Donald Trump president of the United Sates. They have great properties all over the world to manage and they have quite a fortune built the old-fashioned way—and they could have been happily neutral New York progressives for the rest of their lives and nobody would have blamed them. But when Trump decided to do something about the way the world was shaping up to be, and understood that he was in a unique position to do something—he had to pick sides and that isn’t generally good for the family business.  It used to be people thought Trump was an arrogant billionaire but he was on another place and so long as he stayed there, people would see the Trump products and think of exceptionally high quality. Now that he’s president essentially half the world hates him, while the other half obviously loves him—and as a businessman that’s not a great place to be.  I think with Trump he has the long view in mind so history will be very forgiving to the Trump name.  But in the meantime, it’s going to be tough on the family.  So it is very unique to have a guy like him in a powerful elected office and it is ever rarer that his kids are so supportive—such as Eric Trump over how the CNN reporter Jim Acosta has treated his father in the White House.

I found the Tweet by Acosta particularly interesting and I loved Eric’s response to it. This is what new media can do, it can create real-time discussions that are much quicker and less filtered than liberal editors at traditional outlets like CNN would typically permit—and its driving them crazy—the MSM.  Because these new media applications have their strength in exchanged ideas it seriously puts poor philosophies at a disadvantage because they can’t hold up against competition driven by reality. When Jim Acosta says something that in the 90s might have been profound and emotionally driven our new world can scrutinize his position and comment on it often to their disadvantage.  That has put CNN in a bad place leaving them to attempt their liberal activism in the White House briefing room for which Sean Spicer had, had enough.  Due to the constant grandstanding by Acosta to look good for television the White House now makes reporters turn off their cameras while asking questions so that they can’t become “YouTube” stars at the expense of the current administration.

Typically, in the private sector where money is made and GDP is measured from—which is really all that matters—government is a burden to that number so the larger the government the less efficient a nation—nonsense like Jim Acosta showed a predilection to participate in was grossly ignorant. A “democracy” as all these leftist losers keep yakking about is not a good thing—a rule by the majority is just stupid because most of the majority is not very smart.  That is why we have a republic which allows for a partial majority rule process but the effort requires participants at least smart enough to vote and even then regionally. For instance, a crack dealer in San Francisco who likes anal sex with other guys should not be able to vote to send a member to congress who is supposed to also represent a book-worm from Ohio who works 90 hours a week, loves his family, has straight sex with his wife and is mostly friends with farmers from the country.  The two value systems just aren’t compatible—so we have a republic of representative government and we let them fight it out instead of us fighting among ourselves.  But the “public” doesn’t have a right to know everything by merit of ownership.  When Obama and Clinton were in the White House people like me were effectively shut out of the democratic process and the “People’s House” was not representing me—and they made that quite clear.  So now I happen to have someone who does represent me in the White House and the shoe is on the other foot—and people like Jim Acosta can be mad about it—but who cares.  Too bad.  Tough F**king luck dude.  I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not his little feelings are hurt or not.  Speaking for myself I want proper management of our government starting at the White House and I don’t want a bunch of noise like Acosta spews out there trying to screw it up.  In the private sector, we don’t allow that kind of grandstanding.  Typically, such a person would just be fired.  Obviously, Jim Acosta doesn’t understand the rules.  He thinks we’re a democracy—which we are not.  And he thinks that the White House owes him something—which again—it doesn’t.  All the White House owes anybody is that they do what was promised to the people who voted for their administration.  That’s it.

Part of what makes this White House so different, and so much better is that it is filled with people who actually have experience in the world—not a bunch of political hacks and that is why we are lucky the Trump family as a whole was willing to take all this on. Eric Trump doesn’t need to get involved in a scuffle with Jim Acosta. Yes, it might cause a decline in memberships to their various golf resorts—but they are willing to absorb that hit to do what’s right and that is so rare in the world.  People like Jim Acosta don’t understand those motivations.  Eric Trump confronted Acosta because it was the right thing to do and by the moment it is causing leftists to disintegrate.  The clash of philosophies is just too great.  Acosta all his life along with his contemporaries, thought they were safe behind the veil of contemporary progressivism and now all that protection has been stripped away like a scared young child hiding under the covers.  There is Jim Acosta ranting and raving like a spoiled brat kid citing rules that never existed articulating a fairness that only resonated in the wildest imagination of the very destitute.

So yes, we are lucky that we have these people in the White House and that they are changing things for the better just by bringing proper management to the swamp of Washington D.C. smoking out losers like Jim Acosta who always wanted America to be something it wasn’t—a democracy ran by fools, losers and drug addicts. In the Republic for which we are, we have representational government—not a rule by the mob and for a change there is someone qualified to manage our White House with private sector experience. That means no-nonsense management that pushes loud mouths like Jim Acosta to the back of the line so that clear voices can resonate with important information for those critical management decisions.  If the Trump family had not been willing to do this important work, we’d all be worse off right now.  So if there is anything to be thankful for it’s that they are in position to do great things and the cost to them in spite of what people think is very high.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Donald Trump Making Looney Toons out of Everyone Else: Being poor is a choice in America

At this point it’s obvious, the Democrats are like the Looney Toons characters of Yosemite Sam and Wile E. Coyote compared to Donald Trump who is to them a combination of Bugs Bunny and Road Runner all rolled up into one terrifyingly president of the United States. Nobody out-thinks the “Trump” I suppose is the way the situation should be phrased.  Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing some child’s game in the media and within the Beltway. Trump has totally turned upside down even the most terrifying Deep State insurgents and made them look stupid just five months into his presidency—and I’m so glad to see it.  I hoped this would happen, but Trump is even more successful than even my wildest imagination could articulate and I’m loving it.  Yet when Trump made a small remark about the kind of people he had in his administration who were handling the economy—for which the political left has been critical because Trump’s people are very wealthy—Trump said to an Iowa rally audience that he wanted rich people instead of poor people managing economic affairs and this was somehow controversial.  When I heard it I didn’t think anything about it until I saw the reaction of the media the next day, and I have to say I was shocked that they were so shocked.

In covering this episode of leftist babble Sean Hannity made a good point, he said on his Fox News show that out of all the jobs he had ever done in his life from busboy to radio station on air talent—he never worked for a poor person. As I thought about that it was obviously a correct statement.  I reflected on my own colorful past of work experience and it was true, I never did work for a poor person.  I can think of one guy who did struggle to pay for his monthly bills but that wasn’t because he didn’t have access to financial resources—it was because he was reckless with his money.  After all he had just spent $23,0000 dollars on a stripper in Newport, Kentucky—so that did soak up some of his expendable cash during that time period.  But nobody was ever poor who signed a pay check to me—and there’s a reason for that.  Job creators are those who have financial resources beyond what they can handle themselves to manage—they have access to productivity which places them in a category of understanding that is beyond the concepts of a poor person.

As the poor are described Biblically, as people with limited resources who were not part of the political structure of their times, I can understand the nobility of being free and clear spiritually to live life simply and close to God. But the term is no longer relevant today with the invention of the United States of America.  In America, you can be religious and wealthy and there is nothing wrong with it.  It’s not like you have to live in sin to appease the Roman Empire or the Pharisees to hold wealth.  America made it so that any person who wanted to work hard regardless of their social stature could become wealthy and that is essentially what is wrong with liberals today—they don’t understand that.  They still want to apply merit to the poor because like most churches, it holds people’s minds to socialism and communism.  Poor people to the socialist is a badge of honor.  To an American conservative who loves their guns and their Bible—they are just lazy pot smoking losers.

There is no reason to be poor in America. There is always a job that needs to be done in a productive society and if you want to hold three or four jobs to climb out of a financial hole, you can do that.  I know I have.  I also know that Sean Hannity has.  The main reason I enjoy listening to Sean Hannity is because he has a similar background experience as I do.  I have nothing in common with news commentators who get up and go to work around 9 am and are pretty much done for the day by 3 pm.  I get up at 5 am every day and I go to bet around 11:30 pm and I work pretty much all day on and off.  Even in my leisure I’m still working on something—and that’s how it’s been for me for four decades now.  Sean Hannity always worked hard, and so does Donald Trump—even now.  The primary reason he’s running circles around everyone is that he’s used to this pace, and the swamp in Washington isn’t—and they look like fools trying to compete with him—because they aren’t prepared.  People who are poor in America are that way because they made a choice to limit their income to only 40 hours a week—or less.  There are 168 hours in a week and people who are poor likely are only being productive a quarter of that time.  For those under that ratio—they are even worse off—and that is by their own inclination.

To dig out of a financial hole I once worked 96 hours a week at a regular job then on weekends I had a paper route and I worked for a tree trimming business. Essentially, I worked seven days a week on a primary job, then in weekend slots I trimmed trees all over Cincinnati and my wife and I shared several paper routes and that was the time we spent together.  I was in my late 20s and 30s when I was doing all this.  And I still found time to spend with my kids.  We still went to see movies together.  We still went out to eat and took nice vacations.  We had Kings Island season passes and went often—we made it work.  I never felt like I wasn’t getting enough sleep.  I read at least a book a week still and I felt I lived a very good and productive life—and we weren’t poor—that’s for sure.  We didn’t have unlimited money to throw at things and had to manage it, but we had to do that with every hour of our work day.  When my kids need braces or musical instruments we bought them.  Whatever they needed, we took care of it and we never used any form of welfare or government assistance to get through life—even though we could have.  If we needed more money—I just took on another job.

In that context, I have no sympathy for the poor or those who complain about not having enough money. Being poor in America is a choice and there isn’t merit to it when you drag all your loved ones through a depressed lifestyle just because you are too lazy to work.  The Bible for such people is often used as a mask—they might say something stupid like, “well you can’t take ‘it’ with you,” meaning material possessions and other justifications to explain away their inherit lazy nature—but it’s only an excuse for laziness.  I don’t admire the mountain man or the monk who decides to quit life and retreat to their thoughts on top of a mountain and devote themselves to poverty and lack of possession.  But I do admire the person who works 18 hours per day and employees over a 100 people—because they are the keys to being a productive society.  Those are the type of people who should be in charge of the economy.  Not some driveling idiot who hates money, wealth, and production. And in that context, we should all thank God that Donald Trump is finally in charge so we can talk about these things properly instead of with a bunch of emotional flap designed to hide a lack of personal ambition.

It’s not against the law to be lazy, or poor. If that is what people want to do, then let them have it.  But, they don’t have a right to skunk up the works of a perfectly successful, and wonderful capitalist economy where the natural spillover of productivity makes even the poorest people in America far better off than some of the richest in the godforsaken third world countries of the world—where political connections and aristocracy still rule the who has from the wish they dids. In America, it’s a choice and that is what makes America such a beautiful and moral country.  The best of the best are the job creators—because they bring opportunity to those who enjoy working hard.  By their very nature, they are not poor.  Rich people give jobs because they have produced an excess in their lives—poor people do not.  So to Trump’s point it’s quite clear he understands the difference—and for that we should celebrate with the flare of a Bugs Bunny as the stupidity of Yosemite Sam blows up his carefully laid plans in his face yet again as America cruises one more day toward a prosperity that was attempted to be robbed from future generations—but in a nick of time—wasn’t.

.Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The Truth About Stonehenge: Comments about the absurdity of summer solstice rituals

Visiting Stonehenge for me recently was one of the most important things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t just a bucket list item that I wanted to see at least once in my life—it was crucial. I have read so many books starting at a very young age where Stonehenge was contemplated that I needed to see the place in person. But to get to it you have to make a trip to England—and to do that you have to see a lot of other things and London usually has some part to play in such an expedition—so enough time in a schedule is necessary to accommodate such a task. However, this year I was able to get there and it was everything I expected and more. More than anything I was extremely impressed by the position the Neolithic complex held on the high plains of western England and the relation that all the mounds in the surrounding countryside had with the ancient stone ritual center. I think Stonehenge is remarkable in many different ways and its history is quite vast—much deeper than what the type of people who showed up at the summer solstice events which happen every year where druid loving people watch the sun rise on the longest day of the year.

I watched the events that these types of people participate in and it actually makes me pretty mad. The druids were not in any way involved with building Stonehenge. Their Celtic heritage is just another rendition of the modern nature worshipping hippie—the earth first losers who plague our modern politics with wishy-washy sentiment rooted in a new religion—making Mother Earth the new Yahweh or Shiva. For them and their followers of the modern age—Stonehenge is an earth worshipping symbol that a bunch of second handers from the region of Germany adopted to have sex parties and conduct themselves foolishly while under the ground dating back over 10,000 years were the relics of civilizations’ origins waiting still to be discovered. The reasons for Stonehenge’s alignments to the sun and other celestial bodies go far beyond the natural worshipping druids.

Yet like the American Indian the true meaning of the people who built Stonehenge goes undetected because intellectual curiosity cannot get past the necessity for spiritual redemption. Even the people studying Stonehenge cannot help but be pulled into the earth worship distortion that people like these druid lovers bring to the site during real archaeological study. When I was there the obvious layers of observation was distinctly obvious. On the surface, you have all these conclusions that are wrapped up in the methods of druid mythology which has always been associated with the site—unjustifiably. The druids came along many centuries after the final stages of construction at Stonehenge in 2500 BC. But to look properly at Stonehenge you have to be willing to look at Old Sarum to the south and Avebury to the north—as well as many hundreds of earthworks over the 50 miles of regional coverage. There was a lot going on in that region of England dating from the end of the last Ice Age to the relative present of 4000 years ago. For many millenniums—much longer than our present age—the Stonehenge region was very important and it goes well beyond the need to worship the earth.

Dating back 10,000 years—at least, are the skeletons of many sacrificed animals. What we know of Stonehenge and its modern rocks were built on the sacrificial site of these animal bones. Even in recent years—the last stages of Stonehenge after final construction, human sacrifices where happening with frequency—many of them quite brutal. I’m inclined to think that the stone alignments with the various solstices had less to do with celestial worship and more to do with keeping track of their progress throughout the year—likely to mark the points in time where interactions with important events occurred—such as when it became known how to calculate complicated mathematical concepts among a bunch of supposed nomads hunting and gathering for their entire lives and doing nothing else. Somewhere along the line of this 10,000-year span something happened that made people do remarkable things in that rather unremarkable landscape.

Then there is the problem of understanding that the builders of Stonehenge were not a regional phenomenon, but a global one. I am quite convinced after visiting Stonehenge and seeing things with my own eyes that the same people who built that place were also in North America building the many similar structures still seen all over the Americas. We are likely looking at a society that was much more advanced than we give it credit for, and was likely part of the culture that existed all over the world prior to the time the Book of Genesis was written. Many calculate that the Great Deluge took place around 2348 BCE which is just a few hundred years after the final touches of Stonehenge so we are dealing with more than just mythology and Earth worshiping killers. We’re dealing with a particularly potent hidden history that is right in front of our faces—yet we hide the truth behind our recent religious inventions—and that is compelling.

Evidence of life—even giant stones like what we see at Stonehenge do not last very long. Once you apply 20 or 30,000 years of wear to anything it often becomes unrecognizable and that to me is the most compelling aspect of the Neolithic monuments surrounding the Stonehenge area. Without question to me the same culture that built Stonehenge ended up in some way in North America and likely China. Without question, there were global sea trade routes moving all around the world at a time when we think of the people of Stonehenge as being separate and rising independently. The evidence simply doesn’t support that if you look at everything instead of just the Stonehenge complex. And then there is the case of the American Indian—they are obviously from the China region and settled in North America as a separate transaction of migration and they were interacting with these Stonehenge people—whoever they were—well before the druids walked out of Germany. All this is very revolutionary and certainly changes what we know about our own history. That’s why I so badly wanted to visit the site in person as opposed to reading about it as I have so much. It is clear that even lifelong researchers into Stonehenge are trying to fit it into what we know about science, instead of letting history properly tell its story with us being a willing audience. We’ve tried too hard to shape the narrative to fit our comfort level.

The biggest question about Stonehenge is—why there, and likely that answer is due to events that occurred before the Ice Age even happened. The uneventful plain of land in western England did not suddenly just pop up all these really remarkable monuments—something inspired people to do these things at a great cost to themselves—and that is where we need answers—and we’re not going to get it by watching a bunch of hippies worship the sun. I think the reason the sun was so important to all these ancient people clearly marks their need to demonstrate to the political masses a way to tell time. The sacrificial elements that often come out of collapsing societies tend to be what we study but the initial cause is where the focus should be. Why, and why there?

The mathematics involved alone extend well beyond the achievements of Greek study—it is time to accept that Greek and Roman empires were only ages and that all this had come before in times long forgotten. I think Stonehenge says to us that society wasn’t so primitive—at least aspects of it. People may have come from the surrounding countryside to become part of something bigger, and wiser at Stonehenge, and Avebury, but the people who built all these things were far less nomadic than we want to admit. They were rather advanced and that is something we need to deal with. They were a global society, not a regional one. It may take us 100 to 200 more years to find enough evidence to support some of the things I’ve said here, but the evidence is stacking up, and much of this is obvious. We just need more evidence before re-writing history books. But mark what I’m saying here, these druid rituals are just a bunch of left leaning hippies who are trying to use history to justify their religion of Mother Earth worship. They are as loony as the fools who sacrificed other human beings at Stonehenge trying to make it rain. They are not the builders of Stonehenge, or the causes for why it’s there to begin with. They are just more of a second-hand civilization riding the coattails of greatness and hoping that they can loot the credit for it over the lens of history. So far it has worked for them, but the evidence emerging is telling us the truth, and they are certainly blind to it.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Megyn Kelly’s Career Killing Interview with Alex Jones: Karen Handel and many other Republicans win easily

It was even worse than I thought, the Megyn Kelly interview with Alex Jones for her new NBC Sunday night show—which is not performing as expected. In a lot of ways, you could tell the results of the special elections held on June 20th 2017 based on the NBC broadcast by Megyn Kelly. It wasn’t even close in the 6th District Georgia race where Karen Handel easily beat the Democrat Hollywood money, and over in South Carolina Ralph Norman took his seat for the Republicans making it a 4-0 run in these special elections since Donald Trump took over at the White House. And if you listened carefully, the NBC execs behind Megyn Kelly’s new show were screaming in frustration at this strange new mysterious world where they had very little control over the mass population—and that people have instead put their efforts behind people like Alex Jones instead of traditional figures like Tom Brokaw and the new-comer Megyn Kelly. They are lost and simply don’t understand what’s going on.

Megyn Kelly’s Jones interview was technically a ratings disaster and resonated with the many Hollywood productions that are losing money this year because they don’t represent the masses in the fly over states. As the election results came in for the 6th District in Georgia I received the information that the two directors of the new Han Solo movie have left the production over “creative differences.” I liked those guys but they started filming in London on that picture in February, the same time that I was there and they were very enamored with all the anti-Trump rhetoric coming out of all the liberal precincts—and in London that gives the impression of a majority in the world. I thought then as I do now that they were too close to all that anti-Trump radicalism and surely those elements would end up in the Han Solo movie—which wouldn’t be good. Without question Disney has been watching all these events and while it’s too early to tell, I would bet money that those boys decided they couldn’t deal with changing up elements of the Han Solo film to reflect the political realities of the world as of now. It’s a much different place than it was last year when the script was written and if Disney wants a good picture in the spring of 2018, then they better get with the program. Everybody better—because all these witch hunts against Trump are going to amount to nothing—in the end he’s going to be one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had in the United States—Republicans are going to increase their House and Senate seats and like it or not, more people can relate to Alex Jones than they do Megyn Kelly.

Megyn’s mission was to make Alex Jones look stupid, and he knew that—so he scooped her and beat NBC to the punch by secretly recording her then releasing the tapes over the weekend ahead of the big Father’s Day show. And after listening to her promise Jones that she wasn’t doing a hit piece, then watching how NBC cut up the interview—it was clearly everything she promised it wouldn’t be and Jones came out looking even better. NBC hates that there is competition out there like Alex Jones. Megyn tried to take shots at the Infowars method of reporting—which was essentially a bunch of internet reports that come out of cyberspace and is talked about on Infowars in a very laissez-faire manner—as opposed to the way it’s done at NBC and the other networks where an editor—(usually someone who gives a lot of money to Democratic political causes) validates a story given by a reporter and shapes it to the network’s position—calling it truth. Alex Jones at Infowars wants everything fast and loose and thus can cover a lot more ground than some giant bureaucratic organization like NBC who uses sex to essentially sell their Democratic ideas then uses traditional anchors like Tom Brokaw to reflect back to a time when nobody questioned their news reporting to validate their authority.

The frustration and even exasperation of NBC for this new kind of news which Alex Jones represents with millions of fans gathered up from the internet doesn’t begin to come close to understanding what happened. Essentially, thirty years ago the primary networks of NBC, ABC, and CBS had a stronghold on the media and they controlled the narrative. Back then the conservatives had Reagan in the White House and most of their movie stars like Tom Selleck and Mel Gibson were openly conservative, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, and many other male actors were open members of the Republican Party so everyone lived in a kind of careful balance with everyone else. But the leftists plotted and schemed behind our backs and we ended up with the Clintons in the White House in the 90s. Our movie stars become noticeably less conservative. Television began to push an openly progressive agenda—such as when Ellen was kissed on network television by Laura Dern—and Madonna was showing us that reckless sex was something we should all be thinking about. In reaction to all these leftist incursions, talk radio rose to prominence and eventually as the internet increased in usability the conservative message went to cyberspace—since it was shoved out of Hollywood and New York media productions.

Alex Jones was one of those upstarts and now just twenty years later he has millions of daily viewers and his monthly hits on his website far exceed that of NBC. That has left all these media organizations exasperated with plots to stop the bleeding by shaming people into changing their behavior. But it hasn’t worked and instead more people have went the other way. They have tried every trick available to them, including fixing the polling numbers as they did in Georgia and with Trump—yet Republicans keep winning. That is because as a media group they arrogantly thought that if they controlled the mainstream outlets like Hollywood and New York broadcasting—that they’d control the message—but instead people have found other ways to get their message—with or without the traditional media. If the question were truly what comes first the chicken or the egg—clearly it was the egg—the roots of conservative values in America. You could still cut the head off the chicken—(the media) but the egg still came first. The media was there to reflect American culture—not to shape it. The media forgot their role and life moved on without them. They tried to take away the conservative influences and what they ended up with were declining ratings and people they had far less control of. With Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood—at least those guys lived a little hard and fast which the Democrats could understand. People like Alex Jones they can’t understand at all. Alex is like that crazy canoe tour operator in the mountains of Tennessee who is all country, all guns, and all red-blooded testosterone driven maleness—and because the media overplayed their hand—one of those guys ended up with an audience of millions putting out stories by the hour where NBC spends days reviewing stories suitable for the political spin approved by the Bilderberg meetings—just to make sure that Mr. Soros isn’t upset by the slant because those network chiefs want to sit by him at the next charity event and they want his advertising money—indirectly of course. By the time all that happens Alex Jones will have produced 10 headline stories and discussed them for hours on end. That is why NBC has been losing.

It’s not Alex Jones’ fault that he has such high ratings and it’s not the human races’ fault because people don’t like the kind of news that NBC wants to produce. It’s not Donald Trump’s fault that he’s a ratings magnet—because people want to hear what he has to say and how he says it. It has always been NBC and the other mainstream networks who have decided that they wanted to work against the current of American lifestyles to change it into something they thought was more to their liking. And just like they thought they could spin the Georgia election into a close race, and that they could somehow shame Alex Jones into stopping what he’s been doing at Infowars—all it really comes down to is a bunch of losers complaining that the world does not like what they are offering and their feelings are hurt. Everything from the obstruction of justice investigations into Trump’s White House down to his Tweets, people like Megyn Kelly who have played the game to become a part of that losing world now have to face it that the reason Donald Trump listens to Alex Jones and now he’s the president—and Jones has so many millions of followers, is that there is a market need for these people—because they more accurately reflect the America that we are all living in. And that is a reality all these people on the other side have to face. They can trick themselves into believing falls polls, and emotional stories like Sandy Hook—but in reality, a majority of the American people like what they like. And they like Alex Jones, and they like Donald Trump. They don’t necessarily like Megyn Kelly which is obvious by the ratings. And more and more, they don’t like Democrats. They are losing everywhere and the longer Trump is president, the harder time Democrats will have to win anything. Trump is much more popular than the phony polls will indicate. These are the facts and so long as the MSM refuses to see those facts and look toward people like Alex Jones and declare them the problem—they’ll never learn the lessons they need to improve themselves.

I think that was the dagger that will kill Megyn Kelly’s career. After the interview, there were rumors she was in negotiations to return to Fox, but she’s burnt too many bridges there and she has upped her profile to such a level that she will have a hard time just being a correspondent. She had positioned herself to be the next Barbra Walters—but clearly, that is not her skill set. She might have pulled it off if not for this Alex Jones interview—she hoped that a little sex appeal and flirting would entice enough to do a hit piece on Jones—take him down and make all her NBC bosses happy—but instead she exposed herself embarrassingly on tape which was played by Jones who knew what was going on, and now that’s all anybody will remember about her. But the fault really isn’t hers, it was NBC who set the stage to begin with, and let her believe that these tactics would work in the modern competitive news market. We are living in the days of the Drudge Report—where the narrative is set dynamically leaving the crusty old news sources to crawl crippled along an unknown landscape. Even if they did manage to take Alex Jones out, there are plenty of people who would take his place—because the demand is there. And that is a reality that NBC better learn fast. Maybe Disney is finally learning it—but not fast enough. The entire old world of the media should have known better—but they didn’t.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

‘The Book of Henry’: More than a film review–but an articulation of the very nature of evil

I was stunned by the movie reviews for The Book of Henry—they were illustriously bad.  In fact, they were so bad that there was often hatred in the utterances of the reviews.  Some people just hated this movie.  Yet, I have been very excited about it and did go and see it on the opening weekend—and I thought it was an absolutely brilliant film.  It wasn’t just a little good—it was great and in any other time, it would win many awards.  So how could all the critics be so wrong—well, to get to that let’s study the reaction to just the trailer that Grace Randolph from Beyond the Trailer provided when she reviewed the preview back in March.  I’m not picking on Grace, I usually lover her opinions even when I don’t agree—but this reaction is one of those raw–primal hatreds that certainly influenced all the negative reviews and that is why this is such a brilliant film.  Watch closely.

I think it said a lot about Colin Trevorrow that he wanted to even make this movie between the blockbusters of Jurassic World and the ninth Star Wars film upcoming.  He could have made any movie he wanted yet he picked The Book of Henry, which features a boy genius, 11 years of age who knows that there is great evil in the world and he spends much of his time contemplating how to stop it.  Trevorrow brought in some great talent, wonderful editing, great composer, great actors, great cinematography—great film business people from top to bottom and gave a project like The Book of Henry a top notch indie film treatment.  It’s a movie with a lot of heart but it has a judgment and that is what has people so outrageously upset with the movie and seek to punish it with their own needs to deflect their own guilt for the theme for which the movie is about.

The little girl next door to where Henry lives with his single mom and his little brother is being sexually abused by her step father who happens to be the police commissioner. So let’s answer Grace’s question from above, because her reaction was pretty innocent but some of the people in the film review business, from Variety to Rolling Stone are no doubt like the Sarah Silverman character—whom I don’t like as a political activist.  But she played a wonderful normal person in this movie—a person that likely 90 percent of our population could identify with.  She’s a loser, a hard-core drinker who misses work too much and has an ugly tattoo on her breast which she shows off most of the movie—she is the best friend of Naomi Watts who plays Henry’s mom.  And what a poor creature she is—she represents another large segment of the population who have lost her way in life.  She’s not a bad person, but she’s afraid to make her mark on the world and she drinks and plays too many video games to hide from that inclination—and she is totally dependent on her oldest son Henry who is an impeccable genius.

Most of the reviewers have commented that Henry seems otherworldly and un-relatable. After all, there just aren’t 11-year-olds out there who are as mature and wise as Henry.  But movies are supposed to take us to places we can’t go in normal life and meet people worth the hard work that usually goes into making movies.  And lucky for me, I completely understand Henry.  I knew people like him and there are parts of him that I can directly understand.  There is a scene in the movie that I thought was particularly powerful, it’s where Henry, his brother and his mom are at the grocery and they see a guy beating his girlfriend as they are having an argument. Nobody does anything to help the woman, but Henry is inclined to get involved and his mom stops him telling him its none of their business.  “Don’t get involved.”   Later that night Henry and his mom are in bed talking (innocently because the mother still reads books to her boys even though they are probably too old) and Henry tries to explain how disappointed he was in his mother for not wanting to get involved in the argument between the couple at the grocery store.  Of course his mother uses the excuse that she didn’t want to become embroiled in a violent episode.  Then Henry explains to her that violence isn’t always the worst thing.  Curious, his mother asked the young man what is the worst thing in the world.  Henry pauses for a second and answers, “apathy.”

When Grace Randolph was so outraged that The Book of Henry relied so heavily on a child genius to tell a rather ordinary story about revenge, redemption and family assimilation she made the mistake to assume that these things are normally very obvious to people—and they are in the third person.  After all, we are used to watching other people in the god-like position of viewer, with television and movies where we often have more information about what’s going on than the characters on the screen do and the drama we experience is in hoping that people we care about learn what we do in time to save themselves.  But in real life where stories are not broken down into typical three act plays, introduction, articulation of the conflict, then wrapped up nicely and on que to climax—events do not hold to that structure and because we have trained our minds in such a fashion—we often do not see evil sitting right in front of us.  Evil comes at us in subtle ways through loved ones, our jobs, our politics—even the kid who wants to mow our grass, install our cable, or check out our food at Wal-Mart.  We as human beings trust our structures and our institutions.  But most of the things that happen in the world happens outside of those organized elements and in the case of The Book of Henry, we see a society stuck in its structures and trust in institutional figures—such as the police chief next door who complains that the leaves of his single parent mother neighbor keep blowing into his yard giving him psychological leverage over her to hide his real crime—that he is sexually molesting his step daughter and using the institutions of government to keep inquiries away from him.  It takes someone free of those institutions—someone bigger than what human kind has to offer at that moment to see the evil—and that is why it was necessary to have Henry in this film be a brilliant kid.  Without that genius, nobody would have the courage to step beyond the veil of adulthood with all its trickery and diversion tactics meant to deceive themselves into believing they were living good lives—to see the truth.  That the police commissioner was destroying this poor little girl for extremely selfish reasons he deserved a style of justice that has nearly been outlawed in America. The Book of Henry nails all this and more making it a remarkable work of art.  That it has pissed off so many reviewers say more about them than the movie—for they are like the institutionalists in the film who failed the little girl while only Henry thought to act and took action to start the process. There are a lot of little girls—and little boys in the world who need someone to see how much trouble they are in but unfortunately their plight is invisible to most of our adult population.

The Book of Henry is a rare film that like all great art shows us what is difficult to see and in this case the plot device is genius to show it to an audience stuck in life much like the Naomi Watts character—not a bad person, but a person stuck in hundreds of bad decisions holding her down in life.  Her son Henry is pure and free of such things and it is through him that she comes to see the world for what it really is—and is compelled to act accordingly.  Even with some of the truly tragic story lines in this film it is an uplifting tale of optimism and genuine love of life. It is a truly remarkable work and something everyone should see at least once.  The reviews don’t like the film because it’s a bad movie—but because it makes them look at things they are partially guilty of creating—so that should not be a reason to avoid the picture.  Rather, The Book of Henry should be watched with open hearts and open minds and an honest assessment to what role the viewer might play on the side of villainy so that they can correct the situation for the good of everyone. The Book of Henry nails it and is certainly one of the great films of history and should still be remembered many years from now.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Oskar Eustis and his Poor Understanding of History: The director of New York’s Julius Ceaser gets everything wrong

Oskar Eustis as the “artistic director” of the controversial Julius Ceaser play at the Shakespeare in the Park in New York City doesn’t even understand what kind of country America is, let alone have a proper commentary on translating the 400 year old play to contemporary subject matter.  He’s the guy who thought it smart to dress up Julius Ceaser as a modern-day Donald Trump and have the character murdered on stage by a “diverse” senate filled with women, people of color and many others stabbed to death by a mob.  We are a republic Oskar, not a stupid, mind numb democracy.  This play has nothing to do with America—in fact our mode of government was an invention to step away from this kind of mob driven drivel.  Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser play is about revenge, murder and political conspiracy—and all that plot driven nonsense—but its relevancy to Donald Trump for which you made him the lead character in this modern rendition—with Trump Tower leering on the skyline in full view of the audience is an attempt to taint the waters of the ignorant into poking their unsophisticated asses into open insurrection—and it isn’t forgivable.

I feel like I say this all the time about way too many subjects but I know something about William Shakespeare. My favorite of his plays is Titus Andronicus which is a character I understand completely.  I love the way it reads and to date Julie Taymor has done the best job of taking the play to film with Anthony Hopkins doing a phenomenal job as Titus.  Many creative people have applied their hand to Shakespeare and for good reason, the material is rich and it forces actors to really dig deep in understanding theater from a long ago time in a language that is almost completely foreign to us now.  So it was an insult to me to hear how this latest New York modern rendition of Julius Ceaser was abusing its artistic power and trying to explain it away once Bank of America pulled out as a sponsor for wistfully putting Donald Trump into the contemporary role of “protagonist” brutally murdered by a bunch of conniving senators. You don’t have to look too far to understand that the play’s director in this case is rooting for the Chuck Schumers of the world to plot the same kind of assassination in modern politics and that his grasp on this modern history is as shallow as a dry lake bed in Nevada.

When Oskar Eustis said in his remarks on his play that “democracy depends on the conflict of different points of view, nobody owns the truth, we all own the culture,” he displayed a predilection toward insanity that I found quite alarming.  People clapped because they figured he was an art guy who knows more than they do about these matters, but honestly the lack of understanding displayed by Eustis of this material is shocking.  It is because democracy is unreliable that we even have a republic in America—and the analysis that William Shakespeare was constantly obsessed with about the Roman republic failures in his plays are explorations in mob violence for the sake of theater and the compelling subject matter it evokes.  The Donald Trump presidency is actually an evolution beyond this kind of animalistic chaos.  Trump is not power-hungry in the way that Julius Ceaser was and he is not a person who would ever be in a position to allow a mob of conniving senators access to him in a way they could commit murder.  Trump is much more strategic, and a lot smarter than people think he is.  I would warn people not to assume that they can “outthink” the Trump—which is one of the appealing aspects of his presidency for which people like me voted for him.  I don’t want a Shakespearian White House for a change.  I want an evolution beyond it—and I have found it in Trump.

https://publictheater.org/Tickets/Calendar/PlayDetailsCollection/SITP/Julius-Caesar/

We are not all equal in a democratic America.  Some of us work a lot harder than others and thus we need the representation of a republic to prevent the mob from running the show—because the lazy, the drug obsessed, and the sexually manipulative need to be kept at a distance from the legislative process as much as possible—and the hardest working among us should be the ones running things.  We can only determine value through merit so as far as owning the truth—it doesn’t all belong to us equally.  And regarding the political left, democracy has already defeated the progressive offerings philosophically and they don’t like it and have turned toward these violent threats to stay relevant in the world.  Oskar Eustis can play word gymnastics all he wants in an attempt to take the edge off what he did—which was an open plea for the modern senate to assassinate Donald Trump.  Eustis knew that most people wouldn’t understand the words spoken in the play and that most people haven’t worked hard to gain the meanings of Shakespeare’s language.  But dress up Ceaser in Donald Trump looking suits and make his wife sound just like Melania Trump and even the dumbest people in the audience will understand and that will be what they remember.  And at the pot parties before and after the big show—which always go on with creative people the stoned losers hope that out there in the audience is a James Hodgkinson who might be a committed enough leftist with nothing to lose in life who might sacrifice themselves for the cause of “democracy” otherwise known as “mob rule.”  Don’t kid yourself in thinking that this kind of talk is not happening.  Listen to what leftists say in public—what they say when the cameras are not on is much worse.

I found it particularly insulting that Oskar Eustis on the front page of their website actually said “Act Three, Scene One of Shakespeare’s JULIUS CAESAR takes place on the Ides of March, 44 B.C. By the time that scene is over, democracy will have vanished from the face of the earth for almost two millennia, until some English colonists on the eastern seaboard of North America start throwing tea into Boston Harbor.”  This open appeal toward the conservative movement to connect his play with the efforts of the American Revolution were disgusting—and again it’s not democracy that we’re analyzing, it’s a republic—a representative republic that requires the participation of the engaged and wise and allows the fools and addicts to beg for money on the sidewalk as “unequal” participants in history. There is quite a difference between the players on the field of a sporting event and those who just sit in the stands and watch.  Those who participate in our republic are on the field whether they vote, or become part of the mechanisms of government.  The mob is in the stands cheering or booing depending on how things go—but they are not equal participants.  People who smoke dope and study 400-year old plays about violence and the darkest of human emotions are not equal to the law student who spends 18 hours a day preparing their mind for a big case and will eventually become a senator perhaps after a successful career over many years.  They are not equal people.

Additionally I would offer that Donald Trump is a superior offering to anything that William Shakespeare ever conceived in his plays.  Understanding Donald Trump’s White House is beyond the grasp of people like Oskar Eustis and his thin understanding of history.  We are looking at an evolutionary design for which history will record and will be thankful for over the coming millennia.  To put Trump into the shoes of Julius Caesar is to try to take a full-grown adult and put baby shoes on them—Trump is far more evolved than anything Rome ever created as an emperor. The very stupid of our society may not understand how or why yet because history is being written with each moment that we breathe—but Trump is an idea that will change history for the better.  All Eustis could see as a director of a play was a way to try to hold those animalistic concepts of human nature to a White House that is moving well beyond the reach of the political left and their failed ideas.  All they have is the threat of violence to attempt to stay relevant in this tragedy of modern politics.  They are not equal in this American republic because their liberal concepts for our reality have been rejected in the theater of debate and all they have left is to attempt to redefine the definitions of fairness and the recollections of history to suit their current crises—and to hope that by calling our American system a democracy that enough dumb people will believe them in an effort to get out the vote and ignite their base for the 2018 midterms between the haze of marijuana smoke and a drug induced orgy of dirty, smelly, tattooed covered liberals laced with body piercings and a lack of deodorant forgotten due to their spending the day bitching about Donald Trump instead of getting a job and jumping on the many opportunities this administration has created for them to be more successful.  They like most liberals would rather complain, and plot murder so that they could keep their welfare checks and government jobs intact hoping beyond hope that Karl Marx will find his way into the philosophy of American politics before all the old hippies die off.  But in America its Adam Smith who set the stage and it’s not Julius Ceaser who runs our Republic—its Donald Trump, and he is a creation beyond the reach of classic literature.  That book is being written before our eyes for the first time in history—and it’s much more exciting than anything the human race has ever created before.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Democrats Are Responsible for Hodgkinson Assassination Attempt: How, when, why and where liberals use violence to advance their cause

No, it’s not up to “us” to make the lunatic liberals who are communist activists feel better when they go too far as to actually attempt to assassinate public officials, to stick up our hands and say we are equally at fault for the rhetoric of our nation. We are at war with them—they started it—and it is completely up to them to correct the situation.  We put up with Barack Obama and his cadre of terrorist friends—(like Bill Ayers) for many years.  We didn’t like him, we spoke against him and we worked to get him out of office.  But we certainly didn’t try to kill him or even play dirty.  Republicans if they are anything tend to be overly honest and good, “turn the other cheek, Christians” even to a fault.  So “we” are not equally responsible for what the Bernie Sanders presidential volunteer did at an Alexandria, Virginia baseball field when he shot up a bunch of congressional Republicans practicing for a charity game.  The fault is clearly with the leftist supporters of Hillary Clinton who like Snoop Dog and Madonna have simulated executions of President Trump for months in their “art” and disguised their message of assassination command behind the veil of “free speech.”  They knew what they were doing—they hoped one of their followers would “sacrifice” themselves the way that ol’ James Hodgkinson did—with violence under the banner of terrorism to stop the Republican advance since the 2016 elections.  The only difference between Democrats and ISIS is that the Middle Eastern terrorist organization at least admits what they are up to.  The Democrats hide their true intentions which is often exposed when they are under pressure—such as they are now.  They don’t want to get along.  They want to destroy traditional value in America and they’ll stop at nothing—even murder to do it. Both Democrats and ISIS depend on terrorism of some form to advance their causes through fear.  So, in that respect, their motives cannot be separated.

When Ted Nugent declared he would not participate in hateful rhetoric anymore the day after the shooting by James Hodgkinson he gave the left what they wanted—what the political right always gives the left—a branch of peace and a seat at the table complete with a hug and reassurance. But these people deserve none of it. The Huffington Post and many other progressive outlets took the Nugent story and ran with it so that other progressives would know that their terrorism had scored a hit and softened the resolve of the Trump base.  That is how these very evil and vile people play the game—they do bad things, throw themselves on the sword to gain the sympathy of others and out of compassion they pull you in to their crimes corrupting forever those who offer out a kind hand of solidarity—then they cut your throat while you sleep.  No, that’s not how this game is going to go down.

I in no way would call myself a radical “fringe” Republican. I love old westerns, the old television show Little House on the Prairie, and old Disney shows like Zorro and Davy Crockett. Both of my grandparents were farmers and my mother was a housewife.  I went to church almost every Sunday during my youth—up until the wife of the pastor of my church wanted a divorce from him.  When he (the pastor) failed to hold his marriage together I left the church because if that could happen to him—something was wrong and I resolved not to listen to people who didn’t have all the answers in life. I’ve always worked hard, treated people fairly—I don’t like to drink, I have never smoked, and I despise drugs, loose sex, and reckless living—for which tattoos are a part of.  I have watched over my years specifically, the world move dramatically to the political left, but I have not moved at all.  So what is considered the radical fringe right is now where I am standing.  But that is only so as defined by the radical lunatic communist leftists who have moved that perception through popular culture so far away from what used to be normal that it looks that way as defined now—in these crazy, turbulent times.

I’m hardly some underwear wearing basement blogger who can’t function in the outside world. I’ve turned down radio jobs, television offers and political advisor positions to do what I do for a living which as of now is international business.  I like challenges and am active in the world—very much so. I’m what many would consider extremely successful in all aspects of my life.  I was in Chef Ramsey’s restaurant in Chelsea, London a few months ago enjoying a very nice lunch—3 Michelin Star ecstasy—but of course during the three-hour meal I had to use the restroom.  Ramsey’s Chelsea restaurant is small—even though it is quite exquisite—it’s a little place.  So it only had one restroom—and it was a typical unisex European kind of thing.  When I walked in a very beautiful woman was standing in front of the mirror so I was concerned that I walked into the women’s restroom and for that she gave me a little giggle. I stepped out and immediately tried to go into the kitchen deducing that obviously the men’s room was in there.  The staff politely told me that the room with the beautiful woman in it was in fact the place I was supposed to be, so I proceeded cautiously.  Once in there the woman shook my hand and let me know that she was OK with everything, and not to worry.  She simply said, “Americano, yes.”  Not having anything else proper to say I replied with a smile, “That obvious, huh?”  For which she nodded and returned to her mirror where she was adjusting her makeup.  I could tell hundreds of similar stories about European travel but my overall impression was that they were pretty “fu**ed up.”  There wasn’t anything about their culture that I thought America should learn from except for maybe more of a love for books and fewer restrictions on the sciences—such as archaeological endeavors which work pretty well in Europe due to all the history recorded there.  Europe is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.  Yet these new American leftists want to turn America into Europe essentially, and I’m not OK with that.  Believe me, I’ve been around the world enough to know what I like and want.  My views aren’t just because I live in a “midwestern bubble of conservatism.”  I’ve even done work in Hollywood and have known my share of stars and producers.  I’ve heard their perspective and I’m not buying into it.  They haven’t changed my mind about things—let’s just say that.  Most of the time the people I have interacted with have wrecked lives based on their stupid left-winged philosophy and it’s never been tempting to me at all.

These leftists moved into America and shipped in ideas that run counter to the traditions of this country shortly before World War II and have been taking over our institutions with a military like zeal for nearly 100 years now—and conservatives like me have been very gracious along the way—thinking that we could have an honest philosophical debate and let bygones be bygones. When Obama was elected and Democrats crammed Obamacare down our throats shortly before Christmas in 2010—and Nancy Pelosi said we had to “pass the bill to read what was in the bill” many of us took that as a final straw.  We were no longer going to put up with the communist insurrection that was hiding itself behind the Democratic Party—so we took steps to fight back and six years later we had Trump in the White House to “Make American Great Again” meaning—a restoration of the traditions and attitudes that made America great prior to World War II.  That didn’t mean we wanted to slap women around and put them “back in the kitchen fetching beers for their men lazily sitting on a couch watching football” but to open doors for ladies at restaurants, at least respect our neighbors, and promote the idea in our children of working hard and smart so that they could live a productive life.

The political leftists always intended to take over our country, they weren’t trying to live within its framework—which is why they support illegal immigration so aggressively—because they want people from other places to help them change America into something else. They thought they could shame the rest of us into putting up with it along the way—which ultimately led to the shooting by James Hodgkinson.  It’s not Republicans who go around shooting presidents and congressman—it’s always been liberals because the essence of their political philosophy is group assimilation through intimidation and raw force. It starts in the liberal public education system with kids making fun of other kids who aren’t members of their peer group for a strange haircut or a medical condition then it ends in congress or the senate using phony intelligence information from our covert institutions to attempt to drive an honestly elected president out of office by a media that thinks it’s in charge of something as an unelected layer of government.  It’s a contaminated infestation of foreign ideas that do not work and America rejected it when given the option.  So the political left seeks to remove any options such as they are doing now, and when shaming people doesn’t work—they turn to violence.

I remember when it was a huge controversy that the Devil in the television show, The Bible looked like Obama, just a few years ago.  That is about the worst that conservatives ever did to Obama.  Sure they questioned his birth certificate—for good reason.   They questioned his ties to domestic terrorists for good reason—and they hated him for going around the world bowing to world leaders and weakening our foreign policy everywhere—seemingly on purpose.  But we didn’t shoot up congress and we certainly didn’t put out stuff trying to incite our base into killing the president the way Kathy Griffin did and many others on the political “MAINSTREAM LEFT.”  We’re not talking about fringe people—we’re talking about Madonna, Snoop Dog and the entire art community of Broadway—the people who establish “popular culture.”  The political left overestimated their own power when they took over all our entertainment and media institutions thinking that they could turn all of America into drooling idiots similar to what they did in Europe.  What they ended up with is only half the nation going toward their side leaving the other half very upset and ready to fight.  So we elected Donald Trump as a “non-violent solution” to their long-term attack on our country as a “domestic enemy.”  We stopped watching their television shows, their news reporting and reading their papers driving their numbers down toward desperation.  Knowing that, they have turned toward violence because they have nothing else.

Without question when the cameras weren’t rolling Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dog and Madonna along with hundreds if not thousands of other entertainment types hoped that their violent “art” would provoke someone like James Hodgkinson into committing an act they never could—like taking violence to the enemy—the heart of America—a baseball game between Republicans and Democrats. They also knew that invoking such violence would force everyone to look at how they’ve contributed to the situation and reassess their input, like Ted Nugent has. And by doing so, they get conservatives to admit to a fault for which they played no part of.  So, no, we aren’t going to be playing that game.  “We” meaning conservatives, did not contribute to the split in this country, or the angry discourse.  That is completely under the ownership of liberals.  They decided through aggression to antagonize the traditions of America and half the nation refused to go along and are now in open defiance.  The introduction of the hostilities came from the left—not from the right—and the mandate to defend themselves from an insurrection falls on the political right.  It’s not extreme to want to protect what you value and if tradition is it, then that is their prerogative.  But conservatives are not at fault in the least for the violence that let to James Hodgkinson.  The political left, the radical leftist loons who have nothing to win an argument with in America only have the threat of violence to stay alive in this political theater.  And it is they who deserve to feel the pain and punishment of these terrible crimes.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg

James Hodgkinson’s Assassination Attempt Wasn’t Isolated: Deep State Mueller and many others ignore Lorretta Lynch crimes to attack Trump

On the day of the shooting in Alexandria, Virginia by a radical left-winged terrorist by the name of James Hodgkinson, the special counsel investigation into the made up Trump/Russia collusion story announced that it was widening its investigation against Trump for obstruction of justice over the firing of James Comey.  If that is the case and the old FBI agent Mueller thinks that such an investigation is even appropriate—and that is the standard–then Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton need to be prosecuted immediately, because the evidence has already been produced against them.  The hatred that caused the simpleton fool Hodgkinson to do what he did in attempting to assassinate congressional Republicans begins and ends at the feet of the extreme leftists who are currently being protected by people like Mueller, Comey and the other members of the Deep State.  Then there is the media which has empowered the furtherance of real crimes, such as Comey’s illegal leaking of classified information as the Director of the FBI, which caused this special counsel investigation to begin with—they collectively created the vile creature that was James Hodgkinson.  The following video and information reported after the shooter was identified came right off his Facebook page and clearly tell the story.  I don’t know about you dear reader, but I’m not going to put up with it.  These are villains and they are attacking everything that America stands for—and they won’t stop with some liberal loser like James Hodgkinson.  They are desperate and they are killers.  They seek to use idiots prone to quick tempers and intellectual stupidity to do their bidding, but make no mistake about it—behind James Hodgkinson are the puppet masters of the political left—and their desire to commit violence to stay in power—at whatever cost–drives their every breath. Before Trump endures anything close to an investigation into “obstruction of justice” Lorretta Lynch needs to be convicted for her proven actions in that category.

James Hodgkinson was a 66-year-old from Belleville, Illinois.  On June 14th, he opened fire at several Republican lawmakers practicing for the Congressional Baseball game.

Political Views

James’ Facebook profile shows support for Bernie Sanders, FDR, and progressive causes while containing several posts that were hateful toward President Trump and his administration.[11][3]

 

His favorite television programs include Last Week Tonight, Democracy Now, The Rachel Maddow Show, Real Time with Bill Maher and The Daily Show.[3] James was a part of a number of left-leaning Facebook groups such as The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans, Join The Resistance Worldwide!!, Rachel Maddow For President 2020, The Democrats, etc.[3]

James volunteered for Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign. He viewed Hillary Clinton as Republican Lite and wanted Bernie to be the Green Party candidate when he lost.

On the morning of June 14th, Republican Congressmen and their staff were practicing for the Congressional softball game in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, Virginia. Around 7 am, Hodgkinson opened fire on the baseball field. Five people, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and two Capitol Hill Police Officers, were injured.  Scalise was shot in the hip. Hodgkinson was also shot and died from his injuries. The weapon he used was an M4 assault rifle and witnesses report hearing 50 gunshots. The duration of the incident was between 5-10 minutes.

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-details-emerge-on-virginia-shooter-favorite-shows-include-maddow-trevor-noah/81556/

Look, this is a real war, these people are playing for keeps–and you better not turn the other cheek on them.  Its time to fight back, shoot back, and legislate back.  Hit them harder than they are hitting us–because its the right thing to do.  Failure to do so will only breed more James Hodgkinsons.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg