What Is Meant by Having “Thin Skin”: Stealing value from those who have it

It has always come up, and for whatever reason lately, has come up more often than usual, the notion of having a “thin skin.”  The insinuation is that one should develop a “thick skin” and yield to insults of whatever kind for the purpose of collective opinion.  Most of the world functions on this premise; however I disagree with it vehemently.  I take name calling as a challenge to combat, otherwise it wouldn’t be attempted—for that is the real meaning behind the action.  Yet our modern American interpretation of name calling and subtle slander is to assimilate the individual into group oriented behavior—to do as the drill sergeant does and drive out individual ego from a task and replace it with group assimilation.  When the term “thin skin” is used, most of the time it is because the accuser wishes to impose upon another the destruction of individual ego so that they yield to collective enterprise.

When the issue of bullying is addressed in public schools, this is almost always the root cause.  Schools do not know what to do about bullying because they are institutions of compliance, and require the destruction of individual ego.  They generate bullying behavior by their very nature of existence.  So they hope to curb the most violent forms of bullying with rules which never work, because the desire of institutionalism craves more the compliance of ego destruction than the compliance of rules to serve the whims of individuals.  So as along as public schools exist in their current form, bullying will always occur.  There is nothing a teacher, an administrator, or a parent can do about the issue.

In the military, bullying is used heavily during basic training.   Personal insults are flung at individuals to strip them of their ego.  The military mind molder then replaces the stripped away ego with compliance to greater causes associated with sacrifice to the group.  Colleges do the same in their hazing rituals for the similar reasons.  This is why such large portions of functioning adults have duality issues in their lives—why so many of them feel individually unsatisfied, ethically, sexually, intellectually when they are alone and are driven like moths to fire at social circles of group assimilation in order to find personal comfort, which never fully comes.  They drink, get drunk, pop anti-depression medicine, or indulge themselves in some type of television prime time fiction, or fantasy sports selection to compensate their personal loss.  The human craving of such activity comes from the destruction of their individual egos—and usually at the young age of grade school.

The entire human race past the age of 15 years of age expects group yielding to some degree or another.  It has been pounded into our minds from a young age and the results are terribly obvious.  Personal depression is driven by the need to align the values of individual ego with the social imposition of group assimilation.  The desire to fulfill the empty goals of any group whether it be in a business enterprise where the underlings structure their lives around sucking up to their boss for the needs of the company rather than the drives of their individuality.  The boss should not be surprised when they discover that a parade of incompetents work for their company.  The boss hired individuals to fulfill certain tasks, yet those employees have built their lives around group pecking order, becoming obsessed with who is where on an organizational chart, believing falsely that the title one holds provides the merit of value for a job done—and those titles are given out by the boss—so sucking up might provide such merit.  Both parties miss what they are looking for in the relationship, the boss loses because they end up hiring incompetent staff members who bring nothing to an enterprise but bobble heads who nod in agreement not because they agree with the boss, but because they want the titles the boss is entitled to provide to those deemed worthy.  Because the boss often thinks the same way, they often give such titles to those who are most prone to assimilation to their organization—and failure ensues.

When I was young as is still the case, I did not accept this assimilation.  In sports I sabotaged my own career because I would not allow myself to be assimilated into the group.  I refused the snippy comments and personal insults from my coaches thinking they were making me better with violence earning me the nickname of “animal.”  The older I got, the worse it got until coaches stopped trying to involve me.  They wanted my athletic ability but I was just too much of a pain for the “team” they were trying to build.  In class, I didn’t accept it from teachers.  One example was an English teacher who was late every morning for home room class.  This went on for months. The entire class had to stand outside waiting for the teacher to arrive.  I felt as an individual that this was wrong, because it disrespected the individual rights of the other kids, and it made me very angry.  So one morning when this teacher arrived to class—late, they discovered that the lock to their classroom door was packed shut with chewing gum, so that a key would not unlock the door.  My message to the teacher was that if they wanted to ensure they could unlock their door in the morning, they better arrive early to protect it from sabotage.  It took half a day to get a locksmith to open the door, which I had packed with gum in full view of everyone.  Of course some of the students told the authorities on me as they were seeking favoritism from the teacher in a similar way that businessman kisses ass to work their way up the institutional ladder.  They want the authority figure to grant the titles not based on individual effort, but by degree of personal sacrifice to the organization as a whole.  I got into a lot of trouble, but it didn’t stop the behavior.  I went on with a group of friends to set off fireworks in the halls under student’s feet within the very next week, and had frequent fights with other students.  I sought to sabotage authority any way possible.  It wasn’t that I went out looking for trouble, but was simply protecting my individuality against group assimilation.

As an adult I am very happy, and healthy.  I’m in my middle years now, I take no medicine for depression, heart disease, or any other physical aliment.  And while many my age seem to rely on Viagra to maintain their bedroom stamina, I couldn’t imagine having such a stupid problem—and don’t need it.  I don’t drink, I don’t over eat, I don’t lose sleep at night over social issues, I could care less what my neighbors are doing so long as they don’t bother me.  And I could sit for entire weekends totally alone and not get enough “me” time.   I love myself, and I am happy I do.  The result is that I have much love to give my family because the value of “love” is generated by my ego—which is uniquely preserved.  Part of the preservation is in not tolerating attempts to assimilate my behavior to the whims of group compliance.

When it is said that such people have “thin skin” this is what the accusers hate, they wish to see a person who will yield their individuality to group goals instead of an individual pulling the group toward their goals.  When it is wondered by the masses what the invisible qualities of leadership are, the root is in the ability of individuals to get groups to follow them.  But leaders are not provided in this fashion by titles given by a boss.  Leaders have intact egos that can bend the will of broken intellects to their desires by sheer force—the force is in unifying conquered souls toward a goal the individual leader desires.   Really good leaders can do the same with individuals as well, and I am of this latter category.   Because of my background that is often dripped with blood I learned how to achieve leadership without destroying the individuality of the participants.  The spilt blood was worth the value, because the skill is unique in modern America, and it serves me well.  That value wasn’t given to me by anybody; it is something I gave myself by not allowing my ego to be stripped away by group assimilators at any point in my life.

The same rules hold today.  I don’t worry what people say behind my back, but if they engage me directly, they will get a fight—100% of the time.  It is a personal policy that I have for my life to protect it against the forces of group assimilation which I have determined is one of the most corrosive forces in the known universe.  At times when I have found myself at Walgreens to get a passport picture, or just to pick up some small grocery item I continue to be amazed at the long lines of people seeking doctor prescriptions for ailments that are mostly psychological.  Most of the morbidly obese, the headache prone, the depression driven, the faulty heart conditions of those seeking Walgreen prescriptions, and even the blue pill popping men who desire to keep a four-hour erection for 5 minutes of bedroom engagement with their wives are driven to their multiple forms of insanity because of their stripped away egos which they yielded to group compliance imposed upon them by name calling.  Of course my attitude has put me before many court judges who threatened years in jail if I did not become more compliant, but I always presented to them the perilous dilemma, which I covered in my novel Tail of the Dragon.   I was always basically a good person, with moral authority on my side.  The cost of putting my non compliant behavior into a locked up area is greater for them than against me, so they have elected not to do it.  In times when blood has been spilt and bodies were broken, it was cheaper for the statist system to yield to the individual, because the refusal to yield in a locked up environment means death and liability for the captors—and knowing that they were looking at a pure example of goodness, they elected not to impose that cost on themselves. Thus, the benefit of being an individual in a socially broken world full of followers who are lost if they don’t have a leader in their lives to issue out merit for unearned action.  Name calling is the first step into removing ego from individuals for the benefit of group assimilation.  The loss of ego destroys individuals and robs the gifts that personalities have to give to their families, their friends, their companies, but worst of all, themselves.  Such victims die a slow death beginning in their grade school years once they start yielding to authority instead of fighting to preserve themselves.

So I have a strict policy against assault, I don’t allow it, verbally, or physically.  It is not my duty to learn to take it for some mythical “greater good,” yielding to the needs of institutionalism.  The by-product is that I have unique gifts to offer, and those who know me best, understand how much it enriches their lives—and institutions.  But the benefits cannot be understood without the context of leadership and what makes someone a “natural leader” and what makes others just kiss-ass administrators as worthless as toilet paper—the tragedy of our current society is in their lack of ability to know the difference because they are functioning from the wrong motivations in their lives given to them by faulty educations at an early age.  It is for these reasons that I have a zero tolerance policy for personal insult, and why many refer to my behavior has being “thin skinned” as if it were my social duty to allow impositions from inferiors to loot my value to bolster their own deflated egos with the value of my personal worth.  The term, “thin skin” is just another name calling attempt to do for the egos what Viagra does for their genitals, and that is something I won’t allow—and never will.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

What Fast Food Workers and Teachers Have in Common: Rich Hoffman and Matt Clark talk about it on WAAM Radio

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.”

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

The Overworked Lakota Teacher: New levy talking points from the regime of public union monopolies

If it was ever wondered what the cost of public education monopolies are, read the following comment from an apparent Lakota teacher who came unglued the other day on the Channel 9 website for a story they did about the upcoming levy attempt.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  The teacher’s comments are shown below.  Before I dismantle this teacher’s claims to pain and suffering, read it for yourself.  The short of the issue is that this teacher can make the claims of hardship because they are working for a monopoly—they have no competition to judge against.  So they can claim any little thing as an unwarranted pain, because the unionized workforce of the teaching profession backed by the federal government is operating as an anti-trust.  Their demands, and pay rates are dictated by price-fixing, and their expectations are ridiculously high because of it.   Now read what a teacher from Lakota thinks is a hard day as they answer to a commenter named “Joe Jobs.”

Let me be succinct in case you can only hold one or two thoughts in your head at any one time. First, those “unions” are made up of teachers; teachers who spend their every day in the classroom with their students and then do the grueling “union” job after hours in many cases. Teachers choose their profession because they are dedicated to helping children be successful people and citizens of their communities. See, it benefits us all when our children succeed in life. Joe, take a “sick day” this week and visit any Lakota school. Sign in and tell the secretary you want to volunteer in a classroom for the day. Don’t forget to pack a small lunch; you won’t be going out and you won’t have much time to eat that lunch anyway. Better be sure to go to the bathroom before the students arrive, because once they do, your only “break” of the day will be after the students go home. Please dive right in; help that teacher manage classes filled with students who arrive with a myriad of abilities and challenges. Some don’t speak English yet. Others are living through family wars, losses of parents or jobs, some are latchkey and arrive at school before the sun is up and most people are not even dressed for work. Be sure you help the students understand how to edit their writing to make it clear. Then help the students understand the challenging new math curriculum that the state and the new “common core” dictates they must understand and succeed with. You’ll have to write for the student whose muscular disease no longer allows her to hold a pencil. You’ll need to always be aware of the time so that students get to the nurse for their insulin checks and their medications. The counselor will need to see some who desperately need his/her help. Several in your class will need to leave at their appointed time to go to the resource room where they’ll continue to work with their specialist who tailors their work to meet the individual needs of each of those students who struggle. Don’t forget to challenge those kids who fly through their work and crave more! Follow the students as they travel their day to each of their classes without their favorite subjects: art, music, and PE. They’ll get a lunch and small recess; you won’t. During your half hour lunch, I hope you can eat with one hand while you answer parent emails with the other, tutor that child that comes in needing help with their math facts, and of course, you’ll have a meeting 4 out of 5 days. When everyone is exhausted, and you finally send your students home, get your butt outside because you have carpool duty. See, Lakota lost most of their busing, so you’ll stand outside every afternoon while hundreds of cars line up to retrieve their children. Pay attention; make sure the right kid gets into their car quickly. The kids will be too busy talking with their friends to be paying attention, so you’ll have to. Finally, at 4:30, go to the bathroom, finally, and drag your butt into your car. Did you remember all those papers that must be assessed before the kids arrive tomorrow? Take them home. Forget watching TV or going out for a run or walk, you have work to do. This is your 60+ hour a week job, that you love, by the way, for 40+ weeks of the year. With an advanced degree and 20 years of experience, what is your salary? Seriously? Think again, JoeJobs. Support our children and their education. Teachers have been doing just that every day.less

I see no problem with arriving at work at 7:30 in the morning and not taking a break until 5 PM.  The teacher however does get a bit of a breather between class periods all through the day, so no matter how grueling this teacher attempts to portray their day; it is an obvious neurotic exaggeration.  A ten-hour work day is a piece of cake, and I have offered Lakota schools to take this teacher’s challenge and teach not just one of their classes, but four of them at the same time.  I made such a challenge to Lakota East’s Spark Magazine where Dean Hume is the head of that endeavor.  Of course they didn’t take me up on the offer, and our relationship is so deteriorated now that it is off the table.  But the gist is they know at Lakota that their claims of hardship are overblown in a big way, and their collective bargaining agreement expecting over $60K a year on average is too high.  Way too high—by about 10K per year.

Much of what the teacher complained about is driven by failures in progressive education, where teachers have attempted to take the place of traditional parents, infusing themselves to the lives of all children in intrusive ways.  They have desired to push traditional parents out-of-the-way and raise children into a statist education making students always dependent on others.  This has made the teacher’s job harder as parents have yielded to this intrusion seeking a taxpayer-funded babysitter while they build their careers for their own pursuits.  The teacher at Lakota made themselves advocates of a progressive education, and they are dealing with the results of a classroom full of dependents.  The failure is in the style of education.  If the teacher’s job is harder, it is because the progressive education children are receiving has made it so.  The task of putting a band-aid on the failure by throwing money at education through permanent tax increases is a stupid idea.

If there were competitive options, that teacher would be happy to have the problems they are complaining about now.  The only reason they feel obliged to complain in this case is because there is no competition to their profession other than a few remote private schools, or the occasional home-schooled family.  Therefore, the severity of the workday expressed by this teacher is measured against the unrealistic expectations of employment created by a government monopoly at Lakota.  Only in such monopolies could employees behave as badly as some of those teachers at Lakota who have been involved in sex scandals, and gotten away with the crime, and still make the claims of hardship similar to what was made in the above statements.  The reason is that they are anti-trust employees justifying their impositions on the communities that employ them with parades of complaints that are driven by their own incompetency.

For further proof of this mentality, here is a letter to me from a pro tax supporter I received just the other day.

Rich,

I disagree with your goal of $45K average salaries for teachers.  But the public will ultimately decide that.  If that goal is reached, it will be up to the teachers to work at a $45K pace and not the pace they are currently working..  Your comment that “teachers at Lakota are making too much money for doing too little” is the point of the levy results.  Why would anyone devote so much time toward a job which the community deems as being not worth it?  Why isn’t 8 hours of hard work each day enough time toward their jobs?

Mr. George says that the public wants to work with the teachers, but the union won’t let them.  Who does he think the union is?  It is that 2nd grade teacher that comes in to school 3 weeks early to set up her classroom and prepare for the year.  The union is the 5th grade teacher who postpones her bathroom break so her students are under constant supervision..  The union is the AP teacher who teachers college level material using a high school schedule with high school materials and support.  When parents go to open house and conferences, that is when they should voice their displeasure with the union because that is who they are directly talking to.

Once again I call on the labor force of the schools to determine the next round of cuts if the levy fails and those cuts should be in the time devoted to the job at hand.  Make gone the 50-60 hours work weeks.  The public, by voting no, is saying they can’t afford to type of service.

William Schmidt

Isn’t it amazing how similar those comments are to each other?  It is the new union talking points for the elections of 2013.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Egalitarianism: Parasites seeking asylum from their own ineptness

Chances are dear reader you fall on the latter half of this upcoming statement as opposed to the former, that often there are those who are on the cutting edge, who fearlessly face down the impossible with a mentality that is obscure to all others, and there are those who wish to sit down with such people and share in the wealth of fiscal opportunity they have created with sheer uniqueness.  People who believe in consensus building and shared ideas are those trained in the false ways of egalitarianism.  Most every education system in the world teaches this forged method of human achievement because it masks a grim reality—that it is the very few who have the courage to face down the unknown, the perilous opportunities of uncharted waters, but the many wish to take credit for the voyage once safety is realized and strategy is achieved.

I have sat through many dozens of human endeavor where I solitarily cut through the dangers of a task only to have a parade of parasites join me at the finish line wanting to pop corks and celebrate in a victory with the chant of “teamwork.”  I laugh inwardly at such people knowing that at any moment I could repeat the task over and over again forever—but they could not, and they know it.  They hope that I don’t know it, or that nobody else discovers it, but they do—and it terrifies them.  So they promote the social activity that was taught to them during their educations—egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning “equal”)—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for particular categories of, or for all, living entities. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] The Cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.[7][8][9]

 

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies aresocialism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism and progressivism,[dubious – discuss] all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question.

One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie—─argumentative or practical—─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism allows a room full of businessmen to believe that they deserve a seat at the table when it is only one or two at the table who gave them all something to talk about.  Without the initiative of the self-motivated, nothing happens.  In politics, board meetings and town hall gatherings allow democracy to claim the rewards of the very few who created the options discussed such as whether or not a new store could be built into a community, or how to spend the tax money taken from property owners.  The money and business opportunities were created by the very few, but is spent and consumed by the many who wish to see themselves as equal contributors to the process through egalitarianism.  But they are not equal, they are simply parasites—they depend on the actions of others to sustain themselves.

In the case of today’s egalitarian trend, for over two hundred years Europe’s altruist, collectivist intellectuals claimed to be the voice of the people—the champions of the downtrodden, the disinherited masses.  They advocated unlimited majority rule—rule by consensus.  But their error was that they failed to pay heed to those who created their opportunities. Without those types—the creators–the “champions of the people” would have nothing to discuss or distribute to the masses.  Capitalism and its moral—metaphysical bases had to be destroyed by the egalitarians so that the evidence of this parasitic enterprise indulged in by the could be realized.  The concept of justice had to be destroyed so that value judgments could not be distributed to those who were ripped off—the creators of virtually everything—the forward thinking individualist whose mind and effort molded the world from their sheer imaginations.

In the end, it was Payton Manning who won the game for Denver and the loss of Ray Lewis sealed it for Baltimore.  Everyone else playing the game were egalitarians.  The Broncos “team” simply rode the coattails of Payton Manning.  Without him, they would only be “average.”    

Every time I encounter these egalitarians it sickens me to my very core.  I offset my disgust by withdrawing from them for long periods of time, and I always return to the act of creation not for them, but for me.  I create because I enjoy it.  But the process of the egalitarians never ceases to disgust me in the way that maggots on a rotting corpse might sicken the stomach.  Egalitarians are simply vile to the creative process, and they bring nothing to the table.  Consensus building exercises do not work, it has never worked, and it will never work under any conditions.  There are always only two types, there are people with ideas, then there are people who seek to loot portions of other people’s ideas to fill voids in their own lives.  Value is not created through equalitarianism.  It is simply another form of wealth redistribution, the value of those who create given to those who do not by democracy.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Why Some Republicans and Democrats Want War in Syria: Protecting the United Nations with American money

Many pundits and social commentators seem baffled as to why some Republicans share with Democrats a desire for war in Syria while others share in common a desire to stay out of such an action.  It is mysterious to them that a supposed anti-war, pro peace politician like Barack Obama would support a war effort of any kind, while political “extremists” such as Sarah Palin does not.  The reason is not because one political party represents elephants while the other represents donkeys, but because they are both social progressives as the others are not, or are trying to distance themselves from such political parasites.

Progressives believe in global unity, and individual sacrifice for the greater good as defined by them.  They wish to think of the world as a giant global village and they are the chieftains.  If some terrible thing happens in Syria, then it is the job of the “international community” to do something about it once the United Nations is made aware of an evil.  In the case of Syria the crimes against the Syrian people has been known for a long time, but it was only once the United Nations inspectors supposedly saw footage, and were granted into the country to inspect conditions for themselves that progressive politicians decided that the time for action was now, rather than at any other point in time, past or future.

Progressives are not attempting to do justice to the poor people killed under a tyrannical regime.  They are simply attempting to preserve the authority of The United Nations as a world police force.  The war drums in Syria by otherwise antiwar politicians are the obvious result of these progressive types. If it was ever wondered what politicians are progressive and which actually hold the type of beliefs established under their respective political parties it has never been more obvious, or hypocritical as to whom are progressives than those who support the Syrian War.

Progressives are vile, despicable people who are destructive intellectual collectivists.  What they are fighting for is not justice in Syria for the benefit of free people.   They simply fight to preserve the reputation of the United Nations.  In the context of the global community, it is the United States that is known as the official police force in that global community—and other countries who have elected to stay out of Syrian engagement wish to see the police do their job on behalf of the United Nations, while maintaining their own disengagement from conflict due simply to the financial cost.

It is not such a mystery once this basic fact is known, who is what and why they believe the things they do.  Progressives want war because it further advances their desire for global rule under a gigantic social village where the values of The United States are erased so that the values of lower quality countries can be elevated.  Eventually all progressives hope the values of all people will be equal under the leadership of the village chieftains, the progressives. Under those terms, things are not so mysterious.  Progressives are not for American preservation, they are about advancement of United Nations influence, and the war in Syria allowing them to achieve two of their goals, to destroy the reputation of America as an independent sovereign nation, and strengthen the influence of The United Nations as a global police force.  But the war is not about preserving American independence, or fighting for freedom across the world.  That is the distinct and sorrowful difference.  The supporters of the Syrian War are united in their goal of progressive politics and that makes them dangerous to every American who supports the Constitution of The United States of America.  Progressives desire to use the resources of America to destroy it while moving all the countries of the world toward a global village ruled by a Constitution not yet written, by a society of people the progressives hope to mold from their own cloth.  It is not the Founding Fathers of America that these people hope to emulate.  They hope to become their own type of “Founding Father” in a society not yet known built on political views of the dangerous progressive, and their wholesale desire to destroy individuality at all cost.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Vote Justin Binik-Thomas for Deer Park School Board: The right person for the right reasons

For those who need to be reminded, Justin Binik-Thomas is an author, one of the founders of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and was at the heart of the IRS scandal personally targeted because of his conservative beliefs.  He is also a fan of my novel Tail of the Dragon and is a recent conqueror of that treacherous road in the mountains of the North Carolina/Tennessee, which is evident by the picture on his web site: http://www.binikthomas.com.  He is a frequent guest on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News broadcast and does several radio spots a year with my friends Matt Clark and Doc Thompson.  He is also a personal friend of mine.  So it gives me great pleasure to announce that Justin is running for the Deer Park School Board.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Committee to Elect Binik-Thomas Contact

Justin Binik-Thomas
Candidate for Deer Park School Board

candidate@binikthomas.com

(513) 402-2727

Binik-Thomas Responds to Deer Park School Levy Request

Deer Park, OH, September 4, 2013– The budget shortfall remains one of the largest district concerns.  I have had the opportunity to review the coffee session materials and the five-year budget with senior district leadership.  I have come to the conclusion that the levy is premature.

As a taxpayer, I expect budget lines that do not impact services or people should be reduced or removed prior to a request for new funds.  The five-year budget includes quite a few areas where this has not yet occurred.  Among these are a postal meter, awards, and a line labeled “other.”

The coffee session materials provided attendees with a false choice of ‘tax me a bit more now’ or ‘tax me a lot more later.’  Predictably, the attendees selected the lower tax number.  District mailers tout this “choice.”

The proposed levy will tax us forever in order to plug a potential four-year gap.

Next Steps

Regardless of the outcome of this levy, we need to engage in long-term revenue planning to ensure we can cover unfunded mandates, educational needs, and emergencies without continually asking for taxpayer bailouts or levies.

We have two success stories in town to use as a model:  my alma maters, Walnut Hills High School and the University of Cincinnati.  Each has provided ways to grow funding, using many under-$20 donors, to achieve their goals.

We can further mitigate this risk by limiting our dependence on taxpayer (federal) funds.

About Justin Binik-Thomas

http://www.binikthomas.com

Justin is married to Casey and the proud father of two preschool children (aged 1 and 3).  He is a nine-year resident of Deer Park and graduate of Indiana Wesleyan University (MS) and the University of Cincinnati (AA, BS).  In addition to working as a contract manager in the medical research industry, he specializes in media relations as owner/consultant of Conservative Media Group.

In his free time, he volunteers as a chaplain at his synagogue and leads the Sunshine Committee.  Justin has taught at religious school (grades 2, 3, and 7), currently teaches a social media course annually at a local university, and is responsible for training new employees at both businesses.

Even though I personally think public education is a complete waste of time, and am not the politician type as I don’t play well with others, I admire when local people who are very passionate about reform get involved in politics.  I would say to Justin that he is wasting his time with the Deer Park School Board; however, he wouldn’t be if all the school board members were like him.  It is entirely possible that public education would not be such a wreck as it is today if people like Justin were school board members in every district in America.

Unfortunately most school board members are big spenders who are in love with the government statist version of public education—filled with progressive politics and antagonistic toward American tradition.  That’s why they often run and win while conservatives build businesses, make money and throw money at progressives like a fisherman trying to escape blood thirsty piranhas by pouring blood in the water to take them off the scent.  Justin Binik-Thomas is not one of those types.  He is a star in his own right, an accomplished person who could care less whether or not he has a powerful nameplate on his desk in charge of millions of dollars.  If voters of Deer Park had to pick anyone in a ballot box during their entire lifetimes, it is unlikely they would run across a candidate as pure as Justin Binik-Thomas who simply wants to do the right thing for the right reasons at the absolute right time.

Vote for Justin Binik-Thomas for Deer Park School Board!overmanwarrior-team

 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON JUSTIN.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

The Lakota School Wedding Crashers: Levy supporters late to the party and pretentious

I’ve given my two daughters both nice weddings.  One had her wedding at a nice country club setting that was very private.  That was a great experience and has fond memories.  The other was one that took place near downtown Cincinnati in a nice establishment specializing in wedding receptions, and often hosts multiple weddings in the same building.  When my daughter had her wedding at this facility, there were four other weddings going on in the same building and that I didn’t care for.  The place we were holding the wedding was very posh and elegant, but the lack of exclusivity made me perpetually uneasy.  I didn’t like it.

Our wedding reception went on for quite a while and was the last of the multiple weddings to yield to the night.  With that said as the music was thumping and our dance floor was crowded a group of guys from another wedding which had just ended came into our wedding looking for some fun, alcohol, and action.  Well, that was a big mistake, because this is my family, my nieces, and friends of my daughters, not some random pieces of meat for young men to fondle, and I wasn’t going to stand for it.  So I told the boys to get lost, that I wasn’t going to tolerate any wedding crashers.    They insisted that they just wanted to have a good time, and that I should reconsider.  I told them flatly, “NO.”  It was my money, my family, and my decision, end of story.

The boys left with their heads hung with rejection.  They couldn’t help but notice the attractive women in my family and cussed at themselves for the lost opportunities.  However, little did they know or understand that part of the reason there were so many attractive women in my family is because there are men like me who fight to give them some sanctuary to reside within, who keep them from being just cheap pieces of meat for the use of young boys looking for conquest.  Some members of my family thought I was too hard on the boys, and thought the wedding would be a lot more fun if a massive party erupted and I was the “cool” type who allowed wedding crashers to liven things up with their spontaneity.  But I’m not that kind of guy and if I’m spending thousands of dollars on a reception center for my daughter’s wedding, it will be the way she wants it—and wedding crashers didn’t fit the profile.

I spent about the same amount of money on that reception hall as I do in taxes for the Lakota school system each year which is the public school in my area.   Yet just last night embolden by events at the Lakota football games where the school had a booth set up passing out campaign signs for their upcoming levy attempt, several emails and comments came my way from levy addict supporters who were charged up with “school pride” established at the football game.  The message to me was that if I didn’t like the tax increase then I should move out of the community.  Click the link below to see one of those comments and my response.

 https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/lakota-schools-does-not-need-a-school-levy-meet-the-new-carriage-hill-development/#comment-38777

To me, those types of people are like those kids who wanted to crash my daughter’s wedding.  I graduated from Lakota many years ago and have lived in the area most of my life.  When I was a kid I grew up in a house along 747 when it was farmland for as far as the eye could see.  My home was on the kind of land that the Carriage Hill homeowners are paying 150K per plot to own today.  But I lived on such anchorage when very few homes could be seen from my front yard.  Traffic down 747 had the character of a distant country road.  My boyhood home is gone now replaced by a strip mall that one of the guys in my group No Lakota Levy built.  I didn’t always get along with those guys, but we did join together to fight the Lakota schools massive taxation plans for a community we had all been in from the beginning.  I have watched many new homes move into the area who are willing to pay extraordinary amounts of money to have essentially what I had as a kid—and that’s fine.   I understand wanting to have the best for families.

But when snot nosed despots move into the area with about a 5 second investment of their time and resources into my community then tell me I need to move, I think back to the kind of mentality that was exhibited by those wedding crashers at my daughter’s wedding that I had to run off.  These new pretentious homeowners who have moved into the Lakota community and overpaid for their properties due to their own stupidity, and arrogance are wedding crashers in the Lakota community relative to my position.  I am the one who paid for everything with my years of tax revenue contributed, and I helped shape the school into what it is with my participation in it, because I attended there.  So it’s my business if I want to tell the Lakota administration they are full of shit and need to manage their money better.  And if I want to call the levy supporters a bunch of pretentious latté sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires, and diamond rings to match—I will do it, and I have a right to do it—because it’s my community and I’ve invested a lot more in it than they have.

The levy supporters think that just because they show up in Lakota and purchase a half million dollar home on a quarter acre plot of land that they have some right to tell people like me to move if I don’t like their intentions to vote for higher taxes.  They are just as stupid and immature as those wedding crashing young men who thought they could come to my daughter’s wedding and play out some fantasy of what they saw in a movie.  In that fantasy they thought I’d sit idly by while they grabbed the asses of the women attending and had a jolly time drinking from the bar while I paid for everything and quietly sat in a corner and acted like the out-of-touch middle-ager they thought I was.    To their mindset I was old, and I had my day in the sun, and I should sacrifice myself to the youth so they could have their fun, and memories which they wanted to make at my expense.  The same mentality is present with the wedding crashers of Lakota.  A bunch of pretentious snobs have moved into the area and think that their little 7 to 8-year-old children should have infinite resources and that the community should spare no expense for their pleasure.  They are of course wrong.

I spend as much money in taxes on Lakota every year as I did on just that dance hall for my daughter’s wedding.  So it should come as no surprise what my response to the wedding crashers of Lakota is.  To me they are mindless zombies who don’t consider what the cost of a tax increase will do to the community, but only indulge in their own short-term desire to fill their bellies, and they have no right to make any demands, let alone move into my community then tell me to move out if I don’t like their decisions.  That is not how the world works.

If that is the levy strategy concocted at the Friday night football games by the pro levy crowd, good luck.  I’m not the only one who feels that way.  To most who live in the Lakota community, they see the levy zombies the same way I do, as wedding crashers.  Those types of people—the wedding crashers do not care for all the events that led up to the wedding, they only want to attend the party once everyone else has done the work.  In Lakota, few have done more work than I have, and few have the concerns of Liberty Twp., in their blood more than I.  So it naturally disgusts me to see pretentious, short-sighted snobs enter the arena of debate with demands for higher taxes to cover a neurosis that resides deep within their psychological imperfections.  I do not tolerate “community crashers,” especially when I’m paying the bill.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

War in Syria: The real cause of chemical weapons in control of terrorists and dictators

I am not a supporter of military engagement in Syria by America.  If “they” do so, “they” will do it without my backing.  If “my” military must engage in the long mismanaged debacle in Syria, it is due to the incompetence of our own government—driven by progressive politics that does not represent me—but has “progressed” along to do their own thing for global reasons.  By saying such a thing I understand that the “establishment” will attempt to label people like me as a radical for not supporting our military—but so what.  I could care less.  To understand why, watch and listen to every video on this article so that you too may come to understand the real intentions, and meaning of the Syrian military engagement and what is really behind it.

Few recently have even contemplated how Syria acquired the supposed “chemical weapons” to begin with, which has set off this whole debate.  As to the question as to why America must become involved in Syria the reason is that it is highly likely the weapons came from American CIA involvement to begin with.  Here’s why:

As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:

“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”

“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’

“Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in 2003…

“The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the UN investigation.”

In September of 2002, Reid is quoted as saying:

“Saddam Hussein has, in effect, thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”

And then in October of 2002, he said:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

And then, finally, in 2008, said:

“Now I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense…and you have to make your own decisions about what the President knows…is that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as is indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”

I would also be equally nervous if I were Nancy Pelosi, who in December of 1998,said on her congressional website:

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

And who then said in May of 2004:

“I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers…”

Read more details about this issue at the link below.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/14/And-where-did-syrias-chemical-weapons

But how did the weapons get to Iraq?  Well, many have long forgotten that Saddam Hussein was put in place by American desire to send Iraq into war with Iran, and the weapons likely were given to him by America, directly or indirectly, to off-set the Iranians during the Iran, Iraq war.  From 1980 to 1988 Donald Rumsfeld could be seen shaking hands with Saddam Hussein openly showing support for Iraq.

Tensions between Iran and Iraq were fueled by Iran’s Islamic revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force, in contrast to Iraq’s Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq’s goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab,[note 2] the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran’s Revolution, which overthrew Iran’s Shah, who was seen as a common enemy.[4][25] It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build, but there were some cross border skirmishes, including when Iraqi aircraft bombed an Iranian village that anti-Iraqi Kurds allegedly hid in on June 1979.[31]

After this incident, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, and it was received with considerable anger in Baghdad.[25] On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.[25] When Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture by calling for Islamic revolution [17] in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed.[25] Iran’s new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the Ba’ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed.[25] Some scholars have argued that Iranian-backed attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion.[32]

However, Iraq’s regime was very politically secure, and in little danger of being overthrown by alleged plots of revolution-wracked Iran.[17] According to some sources, Khomeini’s hostility towards Saddam was actually milder than his Arab neighbors hostility towards Saddam.[33] Saddam’s primary interest in war stemmed from his desire to right the supposed “wrong” of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower.[17] Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the “leader of the Arab world” and to achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf.[34] He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation.[27] Saddam had heavily invested in Iraq’s military since his defeat against Iran in 1975, buying large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and France. By 1980, Iraq possessed 200,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks and 450 aircraft.[4]:1 Watching the powerful Iranian army that frustrated him in 1974–1975 disintegrate, he saw an opportunity to attack, using the threat of Islamic Revolution as a pretext.[4][35]

Read all about that war at the link below, which also has a nice picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein warmly greeting one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

It would appear that once the relationship disintegrated between America and Iraq leading to two wars in two subsequent decades, the Iraq’s chemical weapons were stored across the border in Syria so that UN inspectors would not discover them leading up to the war with Iraq during 2003.  America knew Iraq had the weapons because they allegedly supplied them, even if they couldn’t find them.  That was because Hussein’s buddy Assad was storing them in Syria.

But years later after America had finally removed Hussein from control of Iraq, the modern progressives went to work on Assad.  This is how John Kerry as a senator was seen dinning with Assad as their wives gathered to discuss all the fine shopping options in Syria.    A photo is going viral (GO AHEAD, CLICK ON THE LINK) showing the Kerrys and the Assads enjoying quite the intimate dinner in 2009.

Kerry was leading a delegation to Syria to discuss peace in the region at the time. According to French news agency AFP, Assad told Kerry during that visit that America needed a “proper understanding” of issues Syria faces.

Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/28/john-kerry-wasnt-always-so-harsh-to-syrian-president-assad/

Now that all the progressive manipulation in the Middle East region has come to fruition it is time to cash in on the years of investment and wash everyone’s hands of the evidence.  That is the cause of most conflicts between nations, when governments have to clean up their mistakes from the past.  War is the great eraser which wipes away the sins of history—the manipulation of progressives in a region designed to advance their agenda.

The current situation in America is that Obama has a trail of scandals behind him and is falling in the polls.  The Republicans are terrified of getting stuck in a budget battle in September, so all the statists in the American government need something to avoid the justice seeking their careers.  War is the great unifier which often brings together members of all political parties under a common flag.  After all, that is the mantra of the Skull and Bones Society.  Military action of any kind is an attempt by the current government in America to erase years of mistakes they have made following interests that do not reflect The Constitution.  I do not trust the American government to do the right thing, so I certainly don’t trust them to spend lives and limb to erase their errors at a cost I provide with tax money.

I’m all for providing humanitarian aid, but the poor people of Syria are only a small group of people in the grand scheme of the world where millions upon millions of people suffer under governments not advocating capitalism.  Military engagements to help rebels who are built by terrorists to help former friends of Saddam Hussein is a no win situation that will not bring about justice, but only serve to allow the current government in America full of statists, progressives, and open socialists to cover the sins of their mismanagement of the Middle East region.  So I do not support military engagement in Syria.  If the U.N. wants to see justice there, let them use their own troops not supported by America do so, and see how far that goes.  I am not open to allowing the United Nations to believe they have authority over Syria by dragging America into a war so that they can take the credit for justice at our expense.  Syria is a mistake and will only serve to allow the bad guys to hide just a little while longer, and many of those bad guys, are in the American government.  They cannot be trusted to do the right things…………because if they could be, there wouldn’t be chemical weapons in Syria to begin with.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

‘For the Record’ On The Blaze TV: Hosted By Laurie Dhue, exploring the depth of the NSA

The Blaze Television is one of the most cutting edge programs produced today and is the latest project of Laurie Dhue.  She left Fox News to work for her new employer Glenn Beck.  Watch this stunning episode and share it with a friend on the extreme depth of the NSA and how it affects your life. 

The level of domestic surveillance in the United States has reached such shocking levels in the post-9/11 world that people will find it hard to fathom, said Laurie Dhue, host of TheBlaze TV’s new investigative series “For the Record.” The show’s first episode, “Surveillance State.”

“I think this is going to open a lot of people’s eyes…people will be absolutely shocked to know that things have gotten even less transparent in the last 10 years — there’s even more surveillance going on than ever before,” Dhue told Beck on his radio show.

The show reveals how the National Security Agency transformed from its stated purpose of foreign intelligence gathering into an arm to listen in on U.S. citizens — all on the taxpayer’s dime.

“After 9/11 the spigots just opened, money continued to flow in the NSA. The NSA got everything it wanted, and the taxpayers basically just got taken to the cleaners,” Dhue said.

What information the government collects, they keep — including in a massive Utah facility slated for completion earlier this year, Dhue said.

“This is all being done in the name of protection, in the name of keeping us safe. But it’s scary stuff when you think about it,” Dhue told Beck.

Read more here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/13/people-will-be-absolutely-shocked-beck-interviews-the-host-of-for-the-record-ahead-of-tonights-premiere/

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

State of the Union at Lakota: The compliment of silance

I know a great deal about human behavior and would happily argue with the most respected minds in the fields of psychology and psychiatry regarding their theories wherever they came from in the world.  I learned what I know because I’ve been around the block so many times that I have every brick, and crack memorized around that block.  On my blog postings I openly invite comments, but there often isn’t any.  This isn’t because people aren’t reading—they are.  Just watch the daily counter off on the sidebar.  However, in the world of strategy, silence is the best compliment.  When “they” can’t beat you—whoever “they” may be, the only tactical option available to them is to ignore you and hope that social castigation will dislodge a deep-seated insecurity taking you out-of-the-way of “their” objectives.

Over the summer while on vacation in Florida my nephews and I had an intelligent conversation about human nature while throwing football in the condo swimming pool.  One of my highly educated nephews argued that human beings are social creatures and needed to be brought together in optimal ways to manage peace and harmony in society, even if those instances are sometimes coerced by government.  Of course I disagreed vehemently with that statement, not because he was wrong, but because that is only part of the issue.  He is right; human beings are a social species.  They learn from babies to mimic others and this is how we all start in life.  99.99999999999999999999999% of all human beings continue that destructive practice well into their adulthood—so he is right, humans are a social species.  But my argument is that humans are destined at some point in their life to graduate from this way of thinking as the mind takes over what the social connections cannot provide and becomes a freely functioning entity of its own.  I am this kind of person.  I do not need the approval of anybody to make a decision, and this is a radical concept to most.  I am able to function without social input based on the product of my own thinking.  I do not need to consul, collaborate, or gain assurances about my decisions about my private life.  It is a learned trait that I would argue every human being should strive for—but it takes courage—like a child learning to walk on their own for the first time.  Human beings need to be able to function off the products of their own mind—but often they don’t.  Instead, they gather together in clumps of social organisms like our primitive ancestors around a fire and wait for some village chieftain to instruct them what to do next.  This is how we get into the political messes we are currently in.

The reason for this elaborate introduction is to explain this next phase in the Lakota school district levy fights and why things are the way they are.  It might be noticed that the newspapers and I have very little to say to each other these days.  I have thoroughly insulted the press and would not expect them to solicit my thoughts, but at this point it no longer matters.  I have made my decisions based on the observed conditions, and the strategy of current was formulated on those observations.  With that said, I offer this small article as an explanation for those curious.  It gets back to me what Lakota administrators say when they think the doors are closed and the phone lines are secure.  I know they are frustrated with me for being a “bomb thrower” and working from the outside instead of partaking in their structured manner, so this is more directed at them than my normal readers so that they can understand what is happening and why.

In past levy attempts I tried to work with Lakota in the traditional way.  I came to the school board meetings and allowed compliance of their silly two-minute rule where the board members pretend to be in control of a courtroom setting by “allowing” members of the community to speak to them as though they were royal nobles of some sort.   When I was acting as a spokesman for No Lakota Levy I put up with this behavior to respect the wishes of the members who wanted to see the levy defeated without fracturing their social relationships with Lakota.  I did not like the social schmoozing that went on in the early days of my involvement.  I also took note that as I began to go on the radio and television to argue the case of No Lakota Levy, those members did not want to sit near me at the school board meetings as they feared members of the Lakota community recognizing that we were all on the same team.  They enjoyed the benefits of my tactics but wanted to maintain their social status with the same people from the other side of the political aisle.  After a couple of levy defeats under my strategy, those fears began to relax a bit.  People were less resistant to acknowledge their association with me as I had several victories under my belt at that time—and people love a winner.  So people began to sit next to me at meetings and say hello in public.  But not until then.

I went out of my way to speak with people from the other side like Ron Spurlock who was the acting superintendent until Mantia came along, Jenni Logan, the treasurer, and Linda O’Conner.  I was happy to speak to them in a civil manner even though we agreed on very little.  But I knew it wouldn’t last because the behavior wasn’t changing which put them in trouble.  As nice of a man as Ron Spurlock was, he felt woefully slack during handshakes and he looked away a lot when I spoke to him.  This was because he was in internal conflict.

At this point everyone in town was trying to advocate that I run for school board and become politically active.  They still suggest the same when it comes to trustee spots and other high-profile political offices locally.  Yet the strategy to the kind of victory I am after cannot be obtained in that fashion, so I never had any intention of indulging in that activity which frustrated people who want changes to the system within the system.  When Mantia was hired essentially by Linda after all the discussions we had, I saw the direction that the school board was going.  They hired a political divider who would come in and play all ends against the middle where Lakota would control the strategic high ground.  Immediately that is what Mantia went on to do leaving Ron Spurlock to retire and stay on at Lakota as a consultant.  Mantia came to a late night meeting with the key people of No Lakota Levy assuring us that she would do one thing if the levy failed, then she did another when that reality presented itself.  Within a month of the levy failure Lakota was in full political mode.  Mantia did not perform as a business mind, but as a progressive radical politician, and went straight to the type of levy passing tactics that was taught at the OSBA’s Levy University.

I came to one of the meetings announcing Lakota’s cuts and as Channel 19 was interviewing me in the main hallway at Lakota East, Mantia stood off to the side like she wanted to speak to me.  When I made eye contact after the interview she looked away and hustled into the auditorium.  It was a strange engagement that I noted for later.  Then I saw Ron Spurlock who was approaching a man who was well-known at Lakota in the band circles—a popular guy who was well-respected.  That man had come to the meeting with me, which I had known would cause trouble—which is why I did it.  I wanted to confirm the moral position that I suspected about the school.  After my television interview this “respected man” stepped next to me and Ron, who had been working his way through the crowd to a warm greeting, immediately stopped and turned away.  Out of all the bad things that were said about me behind the scenes at Lakota, the much discussed Lakota Kroger Survey, the Letters to the Editor in the Pulse Journal, it was this event that bothered me the most.  I liked Spurlock.  I thought of him as a good man.  But he was so terrified of the internal politics at Lakota, even though he was officially retired, that he didn’t want anybody of any authority at the school to see him even shaking hands with me.  It was at that moment when I knew what Lakota was all about, and that the path to fixing it would not be by running for school board, or any other “respected” position.  More extremes would be necessary.

A month later my group started Yes to Lakota Kids under tremendous pressure from community groups to bring No Lakota Levy away from being such a negative social influence on the community.  I agreed to the charity group creation because it was a kind of checkmate against Lakota.  This was confirmed when I organized a press conference.  We were giving a $10,000 check to Lakota to help pay for student participation in sports.  Both sides were talking and were going to be present to issue and receive the money.  I brought the media.  Nobody from Lakota showed up, instead excuses were provided as to why they couldn’t come.   Anticipating this, we staged the press conference within walking distance of Lakota East where many officials especially from the athletic department were.  Even better, the board of education was literally four miles down the road.  It was a 15 minute drive for them, yet nobody showed.  Channel 5 was there, Channel 19, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Pulse Journal, but there wasn’t any Lakota representatives.

This didn’t surprise me at all.  It simply exposed what was already known.  Lakota couldn’t take a donation from their enemy No Lakota Levy, even to help children and they knew it.   They needed the extortion of children to execute their demands, and would not stand for losing that emotional leverage against the community by my group.  Lakota did exactly what I expected; they went on a full court press to smear me personally because they knew they would never pass a levy as long as I was intimately involved in the process.  If I had been the kind of person who needed group reassurance as the foundations of my thinking, some of the moves made against me at this time might have destroyed me for life.  This appears to certainly be their intention.  They did not care who they hurt, or to what extent they executed their plans, as long as they preserved their strategic objectives, which was a tax increase.  Mantia and others put a lot of pressure on the other No Lakota Levy people to publicly pull away from any association from me.  The reason was that it was believed that in so doing I would feel the bite of being an out-cast and either change my behavior, or be ignored by the public.

Little did they know but I was choking under the “in” crowd and desperately wanted those shackles off so that I could be an out-cast once again, to have the freedoms that come with such a position.  That is where the best strategy is, and what I desired.  I did not want to be a school board member and fuss with people who constantly played things both ways every day of their lives for some perceived “greater good” and at the point I had arrived at, there was no desire to see public education preserved in any fashion.  It’s a bad idea that should have never been implemented, and that is the direction I wanted to argue.  I did not want the burden of being a spokesman for a system I think is destroying our youth even in protest against taxation.

Peer groups are learned in public schools primarily.  The kids who are “in” and “out” are designated quickly.  Kids who are “in” have something to bring the “greater good,” of whatever group is involved.  Kids who are “out” do not.  When I was in school I was certainly on the “out” group because I did not want to be in service to any group.  I enjoyed thoroughly being on the “out” because there are many more opportunities for a colorful life outside of group comfort, which is what I’ve always strived for.  Of course back then nobody really understood what I was rebelling against.  My parents encouraged me to buy a class ring which they said would mean something to me later in life.  It doesn’t.  I never wore it, but simply gave it to whatever girlfriend I had at the time.  They also told me I needed a school jacket, which I never wore—favoring my leather jacket instead.  They also told me I needed to go to my five-year-reunion that was at Coney Island.  So I did and while there they had the usual contests, who had been married the longest, who had the most children, who had the oldest children and that kind of thing.  Out of the five categories in the contest I won three of them, I had been married the longest, (four years at that time), I had two children, three and two years old, clearly the oldest of the participants.  In fact my children were running around playing tag around the podium where the Class President was speaking from.  Yet I didn’t win a single category formally.  I was sitting in plain view of everyone, my wife was there, my kids playing and screaming in delight running around the tables which everyone could see, yet I was as invisible to them all as a ghost on Christmas morning.  Apparently it was frowned upon to bring children and spouses to the Class Reunion and socially I was supposed to know that.  But I wasn’t about to go to Coney Island without taking my children.  I never did things like that without them.  So I brought them without asking if I could.

My wife and I laughed about that event for years.  It was a clear example of the social need for groups of pack mentality to preserve their thinking on an issue in order to maintain a pre-conceived notion.  The evidence of who had the most and oldest children was running around the podium during the award presentation, yet I did not win a single category.  That was because I was an outcast even then, and very proud of it.   The only retaliation they had to offer to me was to hope being castigated from their group would make me feel some level of shame, and desire to comply socially.  Of course that concept is horrendously preposterous to anyone who knows me.  Just yesterday I was having a nice lunch by myself taking some time to read a book and enjoy my day.  Another man dressed in business attire sat down next to me, first asking if I was dining with anyone.  I said no.  So he sat down and started talking about the upcoming Bengal season, the quality of the food, the weather, about anything and everything.  The guy was a real chatterbox.  I was trying to be polite, but there was a reason I was eating lunch alone.  I wanted to read my book.  Nothing the guy said was of any value to me, and it was really getting on my nerves.  After about five minutes I told the guy as politely as possible, “You know, it’s hard to read a book and have a conversation.”  He looked at me as if I threw Holy Water upon his forehead.  “Sorry, I just thought you wanted some conversation.  I saw you sitting here by yourself and thought you wanted company.   I guess you don’t…….right?”  I replied as nicely as possible, “that’s right.  I don’t want any company.”  He got up in uncomfortable silence and took his food with him and disappeared into the restaurant.  I was so happy that he left and for the next hour and a half I was alone with just my book, my food and the nice outside air of a late summer August day.  When I was ready to leave, that guy was inside the restaurant sitting at the bar talking to the bartender and anybody nearby who would listen.  Three businessmen were comparing Fantasy Football picks with him and they were all happy as sluts at a navel port gabbing at each other with much fanfare.  The man didn’t look at me even though I had to pay the remainder of my bill with the bartender.  It was easier not to acknowledge each other, and I was grateful that he felt that way.

That same mentality was present when Ron Spurlock turned away from me in the halls of Lakota East to preserve his position in the social structure of Lakota.  Well before I called the levy supporters at Lakota “Latte sipping prostitutes with asses the size of car tires and diamond rings to match” in the Cincinnati Enquirer the wheels of castigation were well in place.  I had tried to work with the Lakota school board and the superintendents to bring down their costs.  I worked with the media nicely to give them entertainment within the context of their acceptability, and I was gloriously successful at it.  I even played the charity game to make my friends happy who stood against the tax increases, but still wanted to maintain relationships with members of the Lakota administration.   But none of them wanted to stand by the truth and deal with the severity of the situation in the manner it called for.  They all separated into their various groups and expected me to facilitate myself to their whims, which simply wasn’t going to happen.  When I didn’t, not even good people like Ron Spurlock wanted to be seen speaking with me in public out of fear that it would put him socially on the “out.”  People fear more than most anything in the world being rejected from their respective “groups.”

I learned a long, long time ago that these groups are more destructive to the human psyche than all the mental deficiencies available to insanity.  They are as my nephew argued part of the human condition generated upon the human mind during childhood when dependency is the only option.  Good parents never allow their children to feel the bite of this dependency so that as maturity sets in, those individuals grown into self-driven entities reliant on their own thoughts and motivations and cast away group participation like a snake sheds its skin.  The human race cannot survive with the mode of thinking that drove Ron Spurlock to walk the other way under the Mantia regime at Lakota, or the class president ignoring my children as they ran around playing at her feet.

When groups of people are at wit’s end and cannot strategically deal with the impact of an individual, they attempt to look everywhere that they aren’t.  They attempt to ignore such people so to preserve their own thoughts and feelings without a challenger.  Shortly after No Lakota Levy and I parted ways after the events described above, I received the following note from a radical levy supporter at Lakota.  The contents are particularly revealing as it confirms everything stated:

richhoffmanhateskids@gmail.com

208.102.50.136

Submitted on 2012/03/19 at 4:40 pm

HA HA HA!  LAKOTA DOESN’T WANT YOU…HA HA HA! Its a sign that you are a nobody when groups start running away from you.

ha ha ha ha ha!!!

That letter writer was an adult who holds a very responsible position within the Lakota school system, and provides insight into the kind of mentality that Ron Spurlock feared so much on a cold February evening at Lakota East.   As mature and sophisticated the participants of the education profession pretend to be, they are still functioning human beings that are deficient of self-reliant thinking, and as far as I’m concerned, behind the evolutionary curve.  The money they ask for with tax increases is to cover the gaps of their thinking and mask their internal neurosis.  It has nothing to do with reality, but only the primal need for group behavior to separate social tasks into blocks of consensus building.  The very foundations that they have built their institutions upon is set to sink in the sand during high tide as it has no philosophical foundation to plant roots of thought.  All they can do when such a reality is presented to them is to ignore the facts to preserve their warped illusions.

That is why this next levy attempt of 2013 will be different.  I will not try to solve the problem from the inside, because it clearly will not work under any condition.  This is a problem that must be solved from the outside—in, because the root of the problem is on the inside and must be starved out of existence.  They cannot see the problem because they refuse to look at it and nobody on a school board or through the mechanism of politics can solve the problem in that insider fashion.  So my new tactic will be to launch the attack from the outside in, to famish the antagonists from within their own walls by starving out their supply chain.  Such strategies brought down the rule of the Mongols in China, and it brought down the Roman Empire.  It can bring down little ol’ Lakota, which is what I intend.  It’s not against education that I rebel; it is the institutionalism of individual minds that I despise.  I love education.  I just can’t stand the process that is currently accepted, and I don’t like the politics connected to it.

As it should be clear by now, at no point in my life did I care to be on the “inside.”  I have been at times when groups wanted to use my talents, but I do not volunteer to go.  They come to me.  And they can go away just as well, but my position does not change, as it has been built upon the foundations of logic and my personal observations.  I will not surrender that position to the illogical perspective of group consensus to preserve the neurosis of established thinking if that thinking is wrong.  My nephew was right from an academic standpoint, human beings are a social species.  They need each other, and seek to speak, touch and interact with others of their kind.  But I am right too, that such behavior is for the human race equivalent to a small child learning to walk for the first time afraid to let go of what props them up.  A human mind needs to learn to walk on its own, free of emotional shackles to inferior intellects and it must grow from there perpetually over a lifetime.  What Lakota does, and other institutions like them is artificially constrain thinking so to preserve political beliefs forged by group consensus, and that is a recipe for disaster that I cannot, and will not support—but will fight as though it was the most corrosive organism in existence—because it is.

Now, if anybody who has read this wish to argue with me, feel free to leave a comment below.  I won’t chastise or belittle you for trying.  I like the mental exercise.  But if you don’t, your silence will confirm all that I have said above.  So have at it……………….

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!