Tag: education funding

The Power of MAGA Hats: Kino Jimenez and the political left learned a hard lesson

There is nothing I hate more than a bully, so I was quite interested in the story of Kino Jimenez who as a 30-year-old liberal attacked a 16-year-old boy on the 4th of July wearing a Donald Trump MAGA hat in a Texas Whataburger restaurant at 2 AM. Good for the kids with the young man wearing the hat because they captured the attack on camera and posted the video for which there was a firestorm of anger against Jimenez. Within a few hours of the attack the video was spreading to Trump supporters who had figured out who the attacker was and posted an old address online. From there people went looking for Jimenez to beat the hell out of him only to discover that the posted address was only that of his brothers. Realizing that he was in danger Kino Jimenez shaved off his beard and hoped to lay low for a while, but police knew they had to do something so they arrested the assailant for theft and put him in jail, essentially for his own protection. What makes this one special is that it is showing unequivocally that people are starting to fight back and defend themselves from liberalism. The MAGA hats are the start of something, they have become synonymous with Trump supporters who want to do just that, Make America Great Again, and they are standing up to the very nature of liberalism which has corrupted our nation for decades to the impressions of bullies who make up that political philosophy. And that is a very new thing to see happening in American politics, where the right kind of people are finally fighting back.

https://www.ksat.com/news/internet-mob-hits-wrong-target-over-whataburger-maga-hat-video?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=ksat12

I’m not a supporter of mob violence so I’m not exactly cheering that a mob of internet revenge seekers essentially hunted down Kino Jimenez and forced the hand of the Universal City Police Department to arrest the guy before people beat the hell out of him. But I am an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of person. Or should I say and eye for a head, and a tooth for ripping out the heart of your enemy and eating it over his last moments of life kind of guy. That turn the other cheek stuff is for dope smoking hippies who follow a Buddhist idea of peace at any cost kind of thinking—which is not conducive to confronting evil and pushing it out of our lives. The only way to truly make America great again is to confront the evil that has been working against it and in this case, it is the fight over individual rights versus the old order of collective salvation.

People like Kino Jimenez who make up the liberal political parties because they are not personally tough people. They are drawn to the Democratic Party because they wish to hide in the safety of the herd. They use the violence of a mob to gang up on individuals who typically don’t stick together and to separate conservatives from others like them with constant harassment. The primary reason that the minority of progressives, socialists and Democrats have been able to make the gains against Constitutional management that they have is due to their gang like behavior. In this case Kino Jimenez didn’t need a gang, he was a big 30-year-old guy picking on a bunch of teenage kids. He felt the power of his party behind him to join the anti-Trump movement in harassing anybody wearing one of those MAGA hats—which is what he did.

The MAGA hats were a brilliant branding scheme created by the Trump campaign which unified many disjointed individuals under the flag of a conservative movement, which is new for the Republican Party. As people who typically support individual rights the greatest weakness of conservatives were that they didn’t tend to stick together on anything, so they were constantly at the mercy of the bullies of liberalism. Liberals have no choice but to stick together, that is the nature of their political party, group think and peer pressure. Democrats require the destruction of individualism in order to sustain themselves in every situation, so they have to be bullies in order to survive. They cannot stand on the merits of their own thinking, which is their weakness and has been from the beginning. When Trump came out with that hat as a candidate it served as a binder with the greater movement of conservatism standing together in defense of itself. The MAGA hats united individuals together in a way that no conservative movement had up to that time and now two years later with Trump now comfortably in the presidency the kids in that Whataburger restaurant were feeling patriotic on the 4th of July and wanted to wear their MAGA hat out to show their sentiments toward American celebration. I did the same, I wore my MAGA hat on the 4th of July as well, for many of the same reasons and it does turn the heads of liberals every time I do it. They know what it means, it’s all about individuals coming together to fight the incursions of group think which persists in liberalism.

That frightens people like Kino Jimenez so he lashed out at the young kid wearing the hat, but something happened that he didn’t expect. People came to the defense of the 16-year-old and hit the streets hunting the bully down until justice was served. The same kind of joined attack occurred at The Red Hen in rural Virginia when they kicked out Sarah Sanders from the Trump White House staff and denied her food service. Shortly a small mob of Trump supporters showed up to protest the restaurant which was not something any of the leftists involved planned to see happen. The political left is seeing something they never counted on, conservatives are fighting back, and they aren’t sure what to do about it.

This is what I have been saying for many years, several decades now. Conservatives essentially make up most of America. Liberalism is a very small portion of the American experience, yet they have been able to puff out their chests and appear to be much larger than they really are giving the illusion of superiority in many cases, and they were able to do that because conservatives didn’t stick together or show a desire to fight back when they needed to. For all the talk and fear that came out of the Tea Party movement, the Tea Party was never about protesting and inciting violence against those with whom they disagreed. It was always about education, which is radically different from the typical leftist gathering where the only method of interaction that they have is violence or the threat of it. But now things are different, people are fighting back, the right kind of people. The MAGA hats have unified a movement behind a common cause for liberty that has not happened before except perhaps during the Revolution and it is starting to wear down the opposition.

Liberals have never stood for what America always was. They have been asking when America was ever great, so how could there be a hat demanding to make America great again. Because to them they have to destroy individual rights to exist so America was never great, to them greatness comes under the flag of group think. But now conservatives have been united under the MAGA hats and they are coming to the defense of the weak when they see there is a need—and that is something the political left cannot deal with. When it happens thugs like Kino Jimenez learn quickly the consequences of the bully tactics of liberalism when they try to suppress individual rights, the right to think different from a liberal, the right to wear a MAGA hat, the right to separate oneself from the herd of lazy marijuana inspired thugs. For a change the mobs aren’t coming from liberals, they are coming from conservatives united by Trump for the defense of individual rights, and that is something very new.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Candace Owens Should be President of The United States: Apparently Twitter thinks so too

I wasn’t kidding when I said it, but I was surprised to see such a reaction from people when I said on Twitter that I thought Candace Owens would be a great candidate for president of the United States. I mean she’s only 29 years old now but to me she has the whole package and is presently just as qualified as Barack Obama was. Candace is an organizer so with the bar of pedigree being lowered during the Obama years, just as Bill Clinton lowered the expectations of personal behavior paving the way for Donald Trump, it really can’t be said the running the Executive Branch is beyond the reach of a political novice. What we have learned over the last 32 years, first with Clinton, then with George W. Bush, eventually followed by Barack Obama is that it doesn’t take a great genius to be president. It takes a person exceptionally skilled as a promoter from the White House and knowing how to manage the people around them. It’s the perfect job for a person like Trump who has made a great living up until his presidency promoting visions. The White House is uniquely suited for that type of personality and we are learning that we should have been putting people like Trump in office for centuries. But once his job is done a decade or so down the road, what kind of people will be good for the office and to me it is obvious that it will need to be someone like Candace Owns.

After watching Candace Owens on several cable news shows I made a simple remark on Twitter that I thought she should run for president someday and that I’d support her when she was ready. That unleashed a firestorm of interest generating over 160,000 impressions in just a few hours, the response was very encouraging in the affirmative. I mean let’s be honest, even though I replied to people that we should always be color blind and not promote people in our society just because of sex—if all things are equal in the world we are currently living in conservative ideas would best be sold from the Executive Branch by a young black woman, because it would completely disarm the political left’s accusations of the Republican Party. I think Democrats are over as a party anyway. It may take another half of a decade to realize that reality, but I’m all for finishing them off by taking away their most powerful weapon, identity politics. Candace Owens in the White House would be devastating to Democrats especially when they saw that the same people who have supported Trump would support Candace. In 2018 they rationalize that Trump supporters get behind him because he’s an angry, rich, white guy. But when those same people would support Candace, a young, nice black woman, it would literally tear their minds apart because it would force them to recognize the true reality of the situation.

I have been looking for years for a chance to show that it was Republicans who are best at putting people in the White House that free up individual merit as opposed to group think. I have supported Elizabeth Dole for president, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and many others because I wanted to show that Republicans were certainly not the party of old white guys. Republicans certainly weren’t Nazis resembling Hitler from Germany or Mussolini fascism from Italy. They were the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves and gave Frederick Douglas a platform to rise in politics while many blacks in the south were still considered slaves. Once liberals started painting conservatives a certain way, as traditionalists who were against everything, it was difficult to answer such a negative and with conservatives tending to be too nice to defend themselves, it allowed the more aggressive Democrats to take shots at conservatives unjustifiably. So for many years I have been looking for a way to prove that identity politics were not part of the Republican platform in any way, and to prove that we had to have identity politics to prove it—we needed a good woman or a person of color to rise to the top of the Republican political process.

What Donald Trump will leave in his wake will be a great thing. He is doing such a great job in selling the benefits of individualism back to the American way of thinking. When people ask what making America great again means, it is simply the mindset where individual rights were protected over group rights. I personally don’t need a tribal leader to “lead” me anywhere. The person I pick for president doesn’t need to be wise in the ways of the world, or a master strategist. I just need my representative in the White House to protect individual rights and to get the bureaucrats out of my way, and I’ll take care of the rest. The nation is presently doing well because Trump has taken away a lot of the crippling regulation and taxes which were holding back our economy, and that’s all we really need out of the White House. Trump has additional business skills which are giving him a fun retirement job, but essentially conservatives don’t need any leaders to show them the way to a good life because the core of Republican thinking is in individual rights. Democrats on the other hand like Barack Obama purposely used regulation and taxes to hold back the American economy so that other places around the world could catch up to us, which has hurt individual rights in favor of group associations and peer groups—breaking the world down by race, religion, sex and income potential. Making America great again means to conservatives not a throw back to where women were in the kitchen making pies for their husbands, but in putting the center of focus of value back on individual rights, where someone like a Frederick Douglas could become a leading spokesman for the newly released slaves. Part of making America great again would be in creating a White House that could have someone like Candace Owens running it, and the country would be just fine.

The failure of Barack Obama is that we were supposed to overlook his socialist agenda for America because he was black. We were supposed to be handicapped by his race into making any opinion about the guy because of his skin color. That is not an enlightened position and people generally know it instinctively. That is why they supported Donald Trump. But when Trump’s years are done and Republicans are looking for the next great movement, I think Candace Owens would be the perfect type of person to show just how big tent the Republican Party is. If we needed Trump to resell America on the power of individual liberty after many years of socialism have tried to cripple the United States from the White House, we will need Candace Owens, or someone like her to continue selling those ideas to a public growing older from the Millennial generation that will be learning to continue that string of success well into the future. It is not for immigrants to bring their socialism from their destroyed countries with them to destroy American culture as the political left desires, it is up to people like Candace to sell them on individual freedom and to take away the restrictions of small thinking government to allow those individuals to flourish and bring the American economy great things that benefit many other people as the 21st century matures.

My suggestion in favor of Candace Owens for president at some point once the Trump family is done with their part of making history is to sell individual rights to a society of people who have been told their entire lives that their personal salvation is in the string pulling of the political class. Those of us who already know better don’t need to be taught, but there will be many who will, and it will be easier learning from Candace than from just about anybody else. That is why I think a pretty, young, intelligent woman of color would be the ideal presidential candidate in the near future, as soon as she comes to age to do it. By taking away the weapons of the political left it would further destroy their hold on the minds of people and pave the way for learning which needs to happen anyway. So Candace would be as good as anybody, and she wouldn’t need a lot of political experience to do the job. Quite the opposite.

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

Compromise is a Dirty Word: Republicans and Democrats are not conducive to an equal and profitable exsitance

It was nice to see so many requests from the liberal left asking that everyone unite under a common cause of America for the day of July 4th. A call for civility is always a good thing, only behind a few layers of social acceptance crept an ominous villain which went unnamed—and that’s usually how it is with conservatives. All parties in the matter are not equal, the political and the left and the political right are not “equally” complicit in the crimes against the American Constitution, are not “equal” in their desire for social change, or even their basic value systems. One party is not equally aggressive, or beholden to an equitable measure of the responsibility for bringing about a day of peace so that all Americans could enjoy a few fireworks. And that assumption was very disturbing because it essentially lures conservatives to believe that they are equally complicit in the crimes of division, which of course they aren’t.

If in a married couple one member of the relationship is always trying to make the other behave in a manner that keeps the marriage alive while the other is always running around cheating and bringing bad elements into the union—both parties are not equally responsible for making the changes needed to make things work. It doesn’t take two to always compromise in order to make concessions for a husband and a wife to get along. If the husband wants to cheat it is not the wife’s responsibility to compromise with her husband and just let him surf dating websites for entertainment. She is not equally responsible to compromise toward his defects emotionally. The man might say to the wife that she doesn’t dress sexy enough to hold his interest, or that the wife is too much a sexual puritan to full satisfy his desires, it is not the responsibility of the wife to sacrifice all her beliefs so that the relationship can work. Maybe she doesn’t want group sex, maybe she doesn’t want to yield to anal sex, maybe she wants a sexual relationship that is more intimate and caring, not filled with so many taboo driven characteristics. It is in the value judgments of the two married people to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, but if the wife finds the request for sexual fulfilment disgusting, the burden is not for her to scrap her value system in order to get along with a defective husband. It is the husband who must figure out if his values are even conducive to being in a marriage if those are the types of things that he’s interested in.

A marital example is something that just about everyone can relate to and perfectly captures what is being asked when civility between political parties is suggested. It suggests that conservatives and democrats come together equally and put away their weapons just for one day while all Americans watch fireworks and enjoy American pie at their local parades. However, reality knows better and what everyone is fighting about is not a resolution that both sides will meet in the middle and join hands to live happily ever after. When the value systems of both sides are so opposed, the philosophy of the two cannot magically be bonded, reality has parameters for behavior where some things just aren’t conducive with each other. Good is good and bad is bad, they are not relatives to one’s position within the universe. Good behavior or bad behavior is good or bad here on earth or on the other side of a black hole on the far reaches of the universe. We would call that a universal truth. To use the marital example as a foundation of thought, if a man cheats on his wife or demands reckless sex in their relationship the violations against the marriage are the same here as they would be on the far side of the universe. Good and bad cannot be mixed together to form a stable reality.

Conservatives are not responsible for yielding to the ANTIFA protestors’ desires for anarchy. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires for open borders. Conservatives are not responsible for the progressive political platform on abortion where actual death of babies is a negotiating point—is life formed at conception or during the 12th week, or moments before the baby leaves the womb during birth. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires to tax everyone and redistribute the wealth of their society to the lazy bastards who refuse to work and would rather be homeless. In the case of the relationship between conservatives and liberals it is the liberals who want to take from the value of conservatives to sustain the lives of others that is the problem. Conservatives are asking for individual rights not the rights of groups to exist, and that sums up the fundamental difference as to why the two sides will never get along. One side will have to conquer the other and a basic philosophic position going forward will have to be decided upon. If a man is going to cheat, he is deciding to bring bad things to the relationship which makes a marriage unstable. He might complain that the wife doesn’t do this, or that she doesn’t do that, but ultimately it is her value systems which set the restriction for which he is trying to bend. If the purpose of a marriage is to bring about children into the world and to nurture them into a profitable existence than what does anal sex have to do with the happiness of a family, other than the husband is dealing with his own perverted desires? The fight between conservatives and liberals are just the same, if the purpose of politics is to lay the foundations for a proper society, yet one political philosophy wants to support group think and social welfare while the other supports individual rights those two positions cannot be mixed together to make everyone happy. It’s impossible.

Everyone can think of people in their lives who are defective, where they eat too much, drink too much, or have destructive characteristics that harm themselves and others around them. Yet it is not the responsibility of the good to yield their values to the destructiveness of those broken people. You can try to help them by bringing them to the light, but you cannot yield the light to darkness and expect light to survive. The destructive people out there hell-bent on personal failure have nothing to offer, they can only take from value. They don’t assist value, so there can be no equal merging of the two sides. Compromise is never really a compromise because it is always value which is traded away, one side takes while the other gives, that is the nature of good and evil. One side has it, the other side takes it, so there is never an equal partnership and in order to share value with non-value the essence of that value is what gets stretched out and diminished in the process. Everyone wasn’t born equally right from their point of view. It’s not just a matter of democrats talking to conservatives to find common ground. It’s about discovering a philosophy that actually works and building a society that works on principles of good and rejecting concepts of evil that we are talking about and with such ideas, compromise is a dirty word.

Rich Hoffman

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

Richard Branson’s Free Cash Idea is Rediculoulsy Stupid: Humans need to work more hours, not less as artificial intellegence enters the workplace

I think its amazing that people thought a decade ago that all my talk about socialism being taught in our schools and permeating the entertainment industry was an extreme position. Now that all the politeness has been stripped away from politics and people are revealing what they have always been as the masks have been ripped away, socialists are showing themselves. In the Democratic Party in the United States, they are starting to emerge as mainstreamers, and of course as the world struggles with the capitalism advocate and promoter Donald Trump people like Richard Branson are speaking their mind about the ultimate socialist plan, of actually giving people what they call a universal basic income. I have said many good things about Richard Branson over the years, I am a big fan of his Virgin Galactic endeavors, and I think the Virgin Airlines wing at Heathrow is fabulous, but I’m inclined to say that the English billionaire is an idiot who has either lost his mind or he just got lucky in his acquisition of wealth. Because a universal basic income will never get people off the streets and raise the living conditions of the poor. It will just exacerbate their essential problems, it will fuel their drug addictions, their alcoholism and their personal behavior problems of self-destruction. You can’t throw money at bad behavior which is why socialism will never work anywhere in the world. Money and its value is a measure of productivity, so you can’t cheat wealth. People are either productive or they aren’t. The solution to poverty is to take government out of wealth creation as much as possible and to provide as many people with productive opportunities. But even then, a certain percentage of any population will be too lazy to meet the needs of an expanding economy and throwing money at them for doing nothing won’t keep homeless people from littering or streets—it will just make more of them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-thinks-usa-should-give-out-free-cash-to-fix-inequality-2018-7

To be fair, Elon Musk also believes in this socialist universal basic income idea, and I think he’s brilliant. Not the idea of universal basic income, but in the ideas for evolved transportation systems that his companies are putting forth. I don’t fault people for having bad ideas given to them by faulty education systems and sentiments from cocktail friends who think they have this socialism thing all figured out because one of the few books they’ve read in life was from Karl Marx or some fan of the communist advocate from the middle 1800s. I don’t think anybody is qualified to talk about economic matters unless they’ve mastered The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Honestly, that should be the guidebook for which the world applies to all matters of their economies. Marx has always been a jealous envy driven person who was a peasant in Germany and died dirt poor in London as an enormously unproductive loser for which so many countries have tried to make work—but it never has. No economist from Oxford or Harvard, or anywhere will ever figure out how to make socialism work, because it goes against the basic human needs for productive intellectual output and the most foundational desire for personal freedom. Humans are not ant-like creatures that will coalesce around the needs of an insect society with a hive mind. Socialist advocates like Richard Branson may reveal their intellectual laziness by assuming that humans can be made to function in hive mind, but that is because they are not taking into account some of the most basic functions of being human—the desire for independence. Humans are not the social creatures that socialists assume they are, their most fundamental drive is toward complete independence. They may not achieve that in life, but that doesn’t mean deep down inside their most psychological foundations that independence from other human beings is not the driver of their basic behavior.

People like Musk say that he thinks there needs to be a universal basic income because from his vantage point artificial intelligence is going to take over our lives and there will suddenly be huge amounts of free time for people to enjoy in their leisure, because machines will be doing most of the productive work. The assumption is that companies won’t have enough work for people to perform 40 hours a week. This is where these visionaries in their respective fields are going wrong. They are looking at the page too closely relative to their respective interests—as billionaires in the industry of cutting edge technology. I am of the mind that we need to scrap the 40-hour work week and become 7 day a week creatures of productivity. It was the labor union movement, which was another socialist inspired creation that has been holding back the productivity of the human race and that the restrictor plate should be removed allowing people to be more productive not less. I thought it was very destructive that South Korea announced this past week that they are cutting the maximum hours that people can work in a week. They are reducing the number from 68 hours to 52, which will be crippling to their economy. What right does a government have in deciding that people can only make 52 hours’ worth of money? That concept would have never worked for me, I’ve never worked less than 60 hours per week my entire adult life, and most productive people I know are in the same situation. The message generated by such policies given by government is that productivity and work is not valued—that spiritual wellness is not connected to productivity, and those are just wrong ideas about the nature of human beings.

Even with artificial intelligence taking over many modern human tasks, the need for human productivity is not decreasing, its increasing. We shouldn’t be thinking of cutting down our work weeks to 32 or even 24 hours per week so we can sit around the house watching more Netflix and playing video games, we need to increase our work weeks to 70 to 90 hours to meet the onslaught of economic expansion that is becoming available due to growing market conditions. There are not enough people to do all the jobs which are emerging from the current 4% to 5% growth that is occurring in the United States. Unemployment is under 4% in America as well, which means everyone who wants a job essentially has one and to keep that expansion of the economy going, more productive output is needed. Artificial Intelligence and robotics will be needed for everything they can provide. But so will every living body available. The world needs to be working a lot more, not less to meet its fate in space and beyond based on the current rate of discovery and innovation. A universal basic income would cripple that notion and limit people to an income that the governments decide is enough—as they have done in South Korea. By taking away the dreams of enterprise and wealth acquisition, governments are taking away the incentive for upward mobility which fuels any economy—leading to disastrous results.

I would go so far to propose that birth rates need to increase around the world to post World War II levels just to meet the need for all the jobs and positions that will emerge out of the global economy over the next two decades. Artificial intelligence may end up everywhere, but it won’t be enough, we will need humans to continue to be productive, more productive than they’ve ever been. We certainly don’t need people sitting on their ass most of a work week collecting a paycheck from the government for doing nothing to help with their gross domestic product leaving all the employment tasks to artificial intelligence. We have the opposite problem that what Richard Branson assumes, humans aren’t less needed, they are needed more than ever, and a strong work ethic needs to be taught in our schools and through our media, certainly not what we have today. Our work weeks need to exceed 40 hours a week and the ceilings of wealth need to be raised as to what is expected. Minimums should never be a target for anybody—just doing whatever one needs to get by with. Wealth creation is an art form unique to human beings, the creation of productive output that generates income born of a human mind in pursuit of independent desires. Richard Branson obviously has faulty thinking in this category and so does anybody who thinks that socialism is going to become an international trend. I was right ten years ago when I pointed out the trend of socialism in our public schools and I’m correct now in saying that human productive output needs to increase, not decrease. Obviously its just a matter of time before the rest of the world catches up to that reality. I can promise they will, and when they do, they’ll want to read Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

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

How to Have a Happy Life: The nature of love and meaning of Pavarotti’s ‘Nessun Dorma’

I ran across this unique article linked below which of course inspired comment. So many people in life are drowning in misery and self-doubt which is a real tragedy because it’s all avoidable. It’s one thing to have little regrets in life which start when we are all very young, but if not dealt with properly they become monstrosities as we age, and it really destroys people. The burden of regret is a tremendous liability on most people as this little article explores in Best Life. Things get even more complicated philosophically for people as we instruct them that a sense of “self” is selfish and that they should always put others before themselves 100% of the time. Such a position in life is not conducive to a successful existence, so for the sake of inspiring people to live just a little bit better not just in the short-term, but the long-term as well, perhaps a few encouraging words are appropriate.

https://bestlifeonline.com/this-is-biggest-regret-in-life-most-people-have/

From my earliest memory I have always had a strong sense of self and I’ve protected that concept vigorously for over 50 years now. I’m not a believer in reincarnation, but my inner compass has always pointed toward the need to protect my individuality. For that reason, I have never struggled with peer pressure attempting to take me away from my personal goals which later led to regret. I can honestly say that at age 50 that I have no regrets in life. Not a single one. That is true of both good and bad memories. Of course, not everything is always rosy, but when I’ve needed to I’ve certainly defended my sense of self with arguments and fist fights—and even though some people did get very hurt, for me those events didn’t lead to regrets because I was defending my sense of self. I think a lot of people go wrong in their lives because they feel like they should say this or that when other people impose themselves, yet the target of those negative emotions never say anything, they just internalize the emotions leaving them to reflect later in life back to a regret, which then destroys them in thousands of negative ways always from the inside out. Speaking personally, when I felt I needed to do something to defend my sense of self, I have always done it, sometimes recklessly and against the advice of everyone. At the time such things seemed crazy, but it has led me to a life without any regrets and that is a huge benefit to me now.

We are all taught that there is something bigger than ourselves, which is really stupid. The person that people fall in love with and want to be near and to learn from is what we are, not what we sacrifice to others. If you are the type of person who is always giving of yourself and your time you should not be surprised that the people you attract in your life are all people drowning from their bad decisions in life, and that they migrate to you to take whatever you can give them. So unhealthy relationships persist under such conditions. On the other hand, you can’t be psycho about your sense of self either going to the extreme opposite, never letting anyone near you because you feel you are so weak that you can’t let people tow in your wake. I find that the definition that we all have for “love” is wrong. Love isn’t about “falling” for other people, a spouse, a child, or a friend, it’s about taking the substance of one’s existence and allowing people to share in the fruits born from the pronoun “I.” If a person does not have a strong sense of self, than what is there for anybody to “love” about you.

What people love is not what you can give them, but what they can “love” about you—that strong sense of self. For instance, children might love their father but if the guy is just sitting around on the porch of his house thinking about all the things he regrets about his life, the times he should have made more money, or the times he stepped away from a fight with a neighbor over grass clippings, or even gave up his seat in the employee cafeteria to avoid some kind of conflict, there isn’t much for the children to love about such a person except for the sacrifice they provided to their own existence. Compare that to the father who builds a model train set in his basement which the grand kids play with whenever they come over. The material representation of the train set is a reflection of the sense of self of the grandfather which provides some hook for which others in his life can love about him, and the relationship is much more beneficial for everyone. The self-interest of the father to pursue a train set is much more value to a family than a regretful shell of a man rocking in a chair at the end of his life handing out twenty-dollar bills to his children who appreciate the gesture but are craving a sense of love for their father.

I had a tremendously bad day the other day at the start of it and as I am known to do on such days things got a little hairy. One of my daughters was coming over for dinner that night and as the sun was starting to set they asked me what I wanted for dinner and were putting their toes into the water to check my mood. By the time we had the conversation I had solved many of my problems and my response to them was that I had taken a lot of curvy roads through the mountains that day and turned them straight through a desert terrain. Upon further inquiry they asked for details so I sent them by text this video of Luciano Pavarotti singing the famous opera of Nessun Dorma. It is a favorite of mine not because it has inspired me to great things, but because it often matches my mood and approach to things in my life. When I hear Pavarotti sing this opera it reflects my sense of self for which provides many people in my life with something to love about me. I had two choices in such an interaction, I could say that “oh, my day was so bad, I just don’t know what to do” which for me would be uncharacteristic, because I always know what to do. Or I could send them an uplifting message for which they could invest their love—which they could trust because they understand my need to turn curvy roads into nice straight roads and solve problems—no, to “conquer” problems.

It is far better to live a life with bumps and bruises and occasional broken legs than to learn to live with regrets. Similarly, on that bad day I described I gave a little class to some of my employees who needed to hear It about the road less traveled which I’ll share here for context. Do not expect in life to take the safe paved roads that are provided for you and expect to find rare treasures just laying along the side of them. All you ever find is pocket change that people who came before you accidentally drop. The way to really find treasures in life is off those paved roads in the places in the forest where no trail exists. That is where snakes will bite you, thorn bushes puncture your skin and you can even break a leg stepping on the uneven surfaces. But it is also there where treasures are more likely to be found and they don’t all come from actual gold, but in other valuable forms that are otherwise left unmolested due to the difficulty in retrieving them. Yes the road is safe, but the sense of self that we have for which people fall in love doesn’t like safety—because it leads to regret. Not asking that girl for a date, or not taking the time to read that book, or driving that car, or taking that vacation to Hawaii because it’s too expensive leads to a life filled with regret. Life can be difficult and it often can be punishing just to breathe in it, but for me I expect to end each of my days with that feeling you get from Pavarotti singing Nessum Dorma “I will win.” Win what and why, that is defined by our sense of self, and you must have that to know what winning means and how being a winner brings more love to the people in your life who care about you than just being a loser that stays on the safe roads of life and does what everyone tells you to do, leading to an obvious life of misery and regret that isn’t good for anybody.

Rich Hoffman

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

With the Election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador Mexico is now an Open Enemy: People will finally understand why we needed to build the wall

In a lot of ways the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the new Mexican president is a good thing because it removes the masks of pretense and allows us to deal with the true nature of what Mexico is. Mexico has never been a friend to the American government. It is a socialist hell hole that has been barely surviving off the tourism of Americans looking to do things there that they couldn’t do in their home country. It is a country run by drug cartels as that is their primary export, and Lopez Obrador knows that, which is why he is seeking amnesty with the main drug lords to just make everything official. As a radical leftist, his election will just take the mask off what the Mexican people always were—social radicals desiring an openly socialist state-run confiscation of all wealth. At least we know what we are dealing with without the fake handshakes and kind words through the media.

There is no heritage of the Mexican people. They are a conquered people infused by the country of Spain and have been on a social justice campaign experiment that nobody would have tried in Europe that was a spectacular failure. Most of the Central and South American countries that have attempted the kind of turn to the left that Mexico has have not survived which is why they have gangs running their economies instead of legitimate governments. That is certainly the case in El Salvador and Guatemala, but at least in Mexico they benefited in spill over money that came from the richest country on earth.

Out of frustration since the election of President Trump the real strategy of Mexico as a country has been revealed, the desperate poor have been encouraged to flood the U.S. border and to overwhelm the court system and to bring all that destructive socialism into America to loot the value of the capitalists and destroy the country from within. That attack was to take place on two fronts, with poison from the drug cartels infecting the youth of the United States then by mixing socialist people desperately poor with the American people to change the voting patterns. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador not surprisingly has proposed to make peace with drug cartels and to use drugs as one of Mexico’s greatest exports, openly. People in Mexico who elected Lopez Obrador are desperate to try something, and conservative ideas are not in the Mexican vocabulary, so at least we are dealing with villains that we can see for once. Instead of pretending to be friends to America, the open hostility has been revealed for what it always was.

This will help the Trump proposal of a border wall and secure the funding much easier than before where too many Americans were willing to give the Mexican people the benefit of the doubt. But essentially you can’t have one of the world’s poorest economies right next to the richest and expect everything to go well. It’s like leaving a mansion unlocked at all times with a next-door neighbor living in a double-wide. The poor will always seek to steal from the rich because they are poor for a reason. A lot of people from the Mexican culture are hard workers, but they lack a proper philosophy that would allow them to become wealthy, as much of their “heritage” has either come from the collectivist based Aztec and Mayan cultures, the socialist Christian conquistadors from Spain or the Marxists from Germany. The people of Mexico need a capitalist revolution in their home country before they are ever ready to be a proper neighbor to the United States and I can’t think of any better way for them to get there than to learn what will happen to them under a Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador presidency.

It was stated during the Lopez Obrador campaign that he desires to sit down with the United States as equals and negotiate NAFTA. The trouble is, Mexico is not “equal” to the United States. Capitalists and Marxists are not equal—one takes from the other so there can be no terms that promote a conducive relationship. That is like a robber negotiating with their victim, either I shoot you and I take all your money, or you give it to me so I don’t have to shoot you. That is the kind of negotiating that Mexico is proposing under Lopez Obrador. There is no equality, and its time that people who don’t pay much attention to politics in the United States finally learn what kind of neighbor Mexico has always wanted to be.

For a long time, open border progressives have attempted to fuse the two countries together playing on the sympathy that most people have for each other. Nobody wants to see some of the dirt-poor conditions that people live under in Mexico. Any right-thinking person would want to help, and Americans have, which is the only thing keeping Mexico barely hanging on. But the two cultures don’t mix as their value systems are radically different which is why there needs to be a wall to separate the two. Up to this point there just haven’t been enough Americans willing to admit that such divisions existed between Mexico and America. Large American businesses wanted to believe they could move to Mexico and run manufacturing plants, but now that will be nearly impossible as socialists will seek to take control of their facilities now that the pretension of civility has been removed leaving Mexico to rely on their primary export—drugs—poison.

Things needed to get worse in Mexico before anything would ever get better—and with the election of Lopez Obrador they have. As a far-left leaning activist everyone on all sides will finally get to see what it looks like to be an openly socialist country interacting with North America. Canada is another socialist leaning country that is now finding itself at odds with the American government under Trump. The business community of course wants peace between all countries just as Mexico hopes that Americans will still travel south and spend their money on Mexican tourism. But you can’t have something of value next to something seeking value by looting it from others and that is where Mexico is as a country. Canada is as well, only their mixed economy interacts with North American capitalism in more dynamic ways which blurs the lines for people who don’t see the socialism on the surface of things. But Mexico doesn’t have such blurred line.

While its true that the election of Lopez Obrador likely wouldn’t have happened if not for the election of Donald Trump, trying to maintain the illusion of civility would have only prolonged the inevitable. So, we might as well get to the meat and potatoes of this dilemma and let the American people see what has always been going on in Mexico. We’ve always been at war, we just never talked about it. Now we will, and now the intentions will be obvious. The border wall will further define the differences between the two cultures. The pain of that difference may have elected Lopez Obrador, but it has also caused Mexico to reveal their true problem, their Marxist roots and the failures that were created in that country because of it. By stripping away the civility that has camouflaged that difference for too many years, now we can all deal with reality, Mexico is a country of leftists made that way from the very beginning and they want to attack America. Some within our own country who call themselves leftists want to see that happen and they are domestic enemies for attempting the insurrection. But now the illusions have been lifted and we can see what really divides us and that is ultimately a very good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

No Conservative Can be a Racist: Understanding the nature of merit based exsistance

We need to clear something up about our present time, it is impossible for those who are philosophically aligned with conservatism to have any remnants of racism in them. No real conservative could be a racist. Its impossible in every way imaginable. When a Democrat or some 26-year-old reporter writes an article explaining how Donald Trump is a racist due to his border policy, they are expressing their own vast ignorance at the meaning of such a word—they simply don’t know what it means, or how its applied. Racism is a very ancient form of stupidity and is a left-over remnant of mankind’s past in experimenting with superstition and religion. It’s the ultimate group think, to assume that all Jews think this way, or that all Germans think another way, or that people from the continent of Africa have limits of this kind or that kind—all those thoughts are rooted in a misunderstanding that cultural behavior is directly connected to genetic structure—which its not. For anyone who believes in individual rights, it is disingenuous and ignorant to chain people to the group association of their past. It just doesn’t make sense.

To get to the roots of this debacle examine the nature of the type of people who are doing all this genetic research these days, into their own family trees. I have listened to many crazy lunatics over the years go into extreme lengths to discover who in their family’s past was a rug cleaner in the court of some European king, or some great, great-uncle cleaned the gun of a letter carrier in some great American war. Or that their grandfather or father knew a guy who knew a guy who was friends with a guy who knew the agent of a popular rock band and managed to get back stage passes—and for that the entire family is supposed to be proud of their association with touching celebrity in their lives and to actually brag about it. Such thoughts are the foundations of racism, and people who believe in any way that the genetic fortunes of some family member from their past equates to some rubbed off merit passed down through the ages are simply wrong.

You can see this same type of behavior when people inherit unearned wealth after a powerful character dies in a family and the less intelligent descendents try to figure out how to manage the wealth that was left behind. Often those direct family members didn’t have to work hard and learn intellectually how to manage wealth, so millions of dollars that took a lifetime to build are squandered away in months or years by the relatives who inherit it because they do not possess the skills that built the wealth just because of their genetic makeup, or that they happened to marry into a powerful family. The world functions off merit-based intelligence not whether or not a person becomes great and just because they have a son or daughter that all that greatness magically rubs off on the offspring. What does rub off is the access to such greatness and for people within a circle of influence to learn from some older person, but to assume that magically success will just happen because of genetics is a preposterous concept that has long left the minds of anybody intelligent. Those types of thoughts might have had a place in primitive times, but they are long outdated and have been proven wrong and are not part of any conservative movement. The very concept of conservatism puts values on individual behavior, not group assimilation and racism is all about group identity.

Those on the political left do not think in individual terms so everything they see has some primitive form of group association. For instance, there are actual discussions about President Trump’s Supreme Court pick and what school of law they might have attended as if the school itself might make a Supreme Court Justice better than another from a different school. The failed assumption is that it is the school as a group that is responsible for a brilliant legal mind, not the actions of the student in becoming great through hard work and perseverance. It is in the mind of the liberal the association with groups that deserve the credit for excellence. We hear the same type of comparisons in sports, a team that wins a lot often umbrellas the credit for frequent victories on “team philosophies” not the individual efforts of the team members themselves who are responsible. Even with the great play of LaBron James the other individuals on the 2018 Cleveland Cavaliers weren’t very good and they could not beat the Golden State Warriors for the championship. Just because LaBron James was on the Cleveland Team, the entire team wasn’t suddenly good as a whole. The team sucked and only found themselves in the playoffs because of LaBron James. When they had to play teams with other talented NBA players, they couldn’t match the effort and they lost. A school, a team, or a family lineage cannot make someone great, only individualized hard work and effort.

Knowing all that, it is impossible for a race of people to lay claim to any level of intelligence or aptitude. There are brilliant people born along the shores of the Congo River and in the mountain tops of the Andes. They can occur anywhere at any time, and it is up to them to develop those skills as individuals. America was never a racist nation. There is no place on planet earth that has such a diverse and successful assembly of individuals achieving greatness. A successful American is not a person of any kind of color, not even white. Such concepts are entirely made up by people who are liberal in their thinking because they don’t understand the basics of individualized achievement. People aren’t successful in America because they inherited some business from their father or that they went to a certain school. They are successful because they worked hard and developed themselves as individuals to do what others could not, or would not. But once done, the achievement doesn’t carry over into all the children and grandchildren. Doing a heredity search two hundred years from now won’t automatically make some future person more successful just because someone in their family was successful once. It takes the actions of an individual to brew success and that comes from a well-developed mind, not skin color or sex.

The misconceptions of the ignorant, which most liberals are, do not make reality a defined state. Their ignorance and lack of philosophic understanding does not change the rules of the universe. All existence is merit based. A success today does not make a success tomorrow and it certainly doesn’t hide in the genetic makeup of a human being. Only really dumb people would think such a thing. Conservatives are by their basic epistemology those who believe in individualized achievement, and that goes for a person of any color or sex. If a person is good, it doesn’t matter what their background, and it doesn’t matter who their parents were or if their family lineage at some point in the past touched greatness. All that matters is whether the individuals who make up the human race are working to become exceptional in some endeavor and whether or not they manage to have success. There is no racism in the conservative political parties because they are all based on individual behavior, and that knows no genetic limitation. Only the effort behind the mind of individuals.

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

A Note to the Political Left: You want to fight, I’m more than ready

https://twitter.com/overmanwarrior/status/1012131397878865920

31% of people polled in a recent Rasmussen poll believe that we are headed to a second civil war in America.  I am one of them and when and if it happens, I offer myself to help win it on behalf of traditional America.  Just let me know.  It would be fun, and is greatly needed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon

I am an excellent communicator with a great vocabulary. I’ve done radio broadcasts, television, given public speeches, written a few books and conduct myself at a high professional manner in business. Additionally, I have a martial art background, am a professional bullwhip artist and am one of the fastest gun owners on the draw from a holster to target that there is in the United States. No matter what kind of confrontation I find myself in, I can deal with it easily. I can debate any topic with any person at any time and any place in any format, and I know that 99.9999999999999% of the time that will be enough. For that rare time that physical violence does erupt, which the older you get and the smarter you get is much less often—that I can take care of the situation. The reason I bring this up is that I know how to avoid conflict and prefer debate over violence any time. But I also know where the limits for debate are and when physical violence is unavoidable—and I am quite certain that the situation the political left is in currently, a year and a half into the Trump presidency, that likely violence is the only thing that will work against the threats that are being made against conservatives. Liberals cannot and will not listen to reason about the things that are going on in the world because their entire political platform is about avoiding reason and functioning from pure emotion—how they would like the world to be, not how it actually is, so no matter what format they choose to fight on, they are going to lose leaving them to retreat to the most primal of threats—physical violence.

I have said often what the purpose of public education is. I know a lot of school board members both current and former, and many of them want to believe that they can have some positive impact on public education, but they really can’t. The way public education was designed from its inception as a government instruction tool it’s primary concerns were not to make children literate or to learn math. It was to shape them into peer groups for which they would be controlled for their entire lives. The children were always meant to confront bullies in school and to learn later in life that when a neighbor, a homeowner’s association, a boss, an IRS official, a FBI agent or a mob of leftist protestors confront them that they were to yield to that bully. The reason there are bullies in public schools is because the system is designed to bring them forth and to confront the masses to teach them conformity to the system as a whole—not to nurture individualized feelings.

In addition to the things I mentioned above I had a very unusual period in grade school, from kindergarten to my senior year in high school—I never once in all that time yielded to a single bully so naturally I stepped into adulthood unbroken completely—which is an unusual vantage point. I learned these lessons very early in life when getting a paddling from the teacher and being sent to the principal’s office were supposed to be the scariest things a kid would have to endure. I’ve told this story before but it’s very relevant to this situation, in the first grade there was a really scary bully that everyone was terrified of and the teachers avoided because he was impossible to deal with. He had terrible parents and they knew there was nothing they could do with the kid. Yet he was learning in a classroom environment with all the other kids. He was twice the size of all of us and he was just mean. He was smoking cigarettes in school in the first grade! So he was hopeless and everyone knew it. But the suggestion was that we would all have to learn to live with him and learn to like it. We were supposed to go out of our way to appease the kid so that we wouldn’t get beat up. Well, not me, he happened to sit in front of me and I didn’t like the way he smelled or spoke, so we never got along. And one day he turned around to punch me in the face for smarting off to him and to defend myself I poked him in the eye with my scissors, as a raw reaction to his aggression. I got into a lot of trouble, and essentially the rest of my school years I was in and out of the principal’s office not because I was a bully, but because I refused to yield to them. The bullies never got into any real trouble, but I sure did. I was the good kid that was supposed to be molded into a productive citizen that would learn his place under the rule of the bullies. I did learn to be a productive person, but I never learned to yield to any bully. That has given me clarity to speak from regarding this present problem.

The political left is largely untested radicals who were nurtured from their youth to be bullies in their adulthood, not individually of course, but as pack hunters. Their greatest weapon is the kind of mass force that was experimented with during the Berkley Riots of 1965—where the students were used to drive social issues in a left leaning direction by essentially using mobs as a bully to instigate fear into the voting public. They were created in our public schools and deep in their subconscious have key words programmed into their minds which are activated by media buzz words for which they act like robots upon hearing them. And just like that they are trying to kick out Sarah Sanders from The Red Hen, or confronting Mitch McConnell outside his Georgetown condo and are roaming the country under the hoods of ANTIFA threatening to rape, destroy and vandalize any Trump supporter because they have the sense that the mood of the country has finally turned away from them and they may very well lose the next election cycle to even more Republicans.

Violence is all the political left has, they don’t have ideas, they don’t have a strategy, and they don’t have a future. All they have and all they ever had was fear driven by emotions. If they fail to evoke fear in their audiences, they have no impact legislatively, and as we all know, all rules in society should be made by reason, not emotional fears. The strategy of the old conservatives who hold a Bible in one hand and tell us to have compassion for our fellow people on the other side of politics are wrong. You cannot appease a bully when they are programmed to do nothing else but destroy. Like that bully I mentioned and many that came after him, there was no talking to or reasoning with the guy. He had to be destroyed, because that’s all he understood. And that is what we are dealing with now, people who will destroy you if you give them the chance. They are not ever going to listen to reason, they will never seek peace from thuggish aggression—because they don’t know anything else. We have to deal with them the only way that anybody can, with the offer of debate, but the moment that doesn’t work, violence. I certainly know the difference between the two, debate and violence. Debate is always preferred, but this fight before us isn’t a rational one. All the political left has in their arsenal is fear. And without that they have nothing. So when an opponent is intent to use the only weapon they have left, you have to meet them with at least an equal force. That means the time for talking is over, they will have to be beaten into oblivion in order for peace to ever have a chance. You must take away the only weapon they have before anything can change, and that takes courage, and the self-confidence to do so.

I can only speak for myself in this matter but when I hear the political left threatening violence against Trump supporters it makes me want to confront them and actually beat them into submission. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I have all the tools to engage them with methods other than with violence, but if they think we are going to yield to them out of fear, they have a lot to learn. I would say, again, speaking for myself, it is impossible for them to beat me. I’ve been threatened in every way possible in the past and been through more than enough to know what happens during physical confrontations and there is nothing that worries me about anything they have to offer either as individuals or as mass groups. If you know how to defeat such people it doesn’t matter if the threat is one or a million, they can all be beaten—easily. Nobody is going to hurt me under any conditions. And nobody is going to hurt my family, friends or associates. There is no way for them to make a person like me comply to their brute force tactics and peer pressure. Being very Kantian philosophically they are inclined to believe that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, that the event didn’t happen, because for the event to happen, they as a collective would have to accept that the event occurred. But reality says that if a tree falls in the forest it doesn’t matter if anybody heard it or not. It fell, and it happened regardless whether everyone agreed that the event occurred. That is the game that political leftists are trying to play with the Trump presidency. They are in denial that it happened, and they are willing to use whatever force necessary to deny its existence, not just from us, but from themselves. So for the good of mankind and of reality, we must take away their weapons and meet them with force equal to or superior to what they offer. And they must be destroyed, utterly, and completely as a philosophic species and be reborn as children of reason. That is the only option there is in 2018.

Rich Hoffman

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

Jesus Christ was Wrong: Turning the other cheek is a dumb idea

Jesus Christ was a socialist—they were of course called something else back in the day as religion and politics were less distinctive from each other. But a quick study through history will show that while Jesus was traveling in the wilderness he obviously came across Buddhism and adapted it for his own homeland in a way that conflicted with the powerful orthodox of the Jews who worked closely with the Roman Empire to be regional governors. Jesus used passivity to inspire the poor to rebel against their overlords and the Jews killed him for the threat to their society. Several centuries later the Roman Empire had a desire to turn to the political left so they imposed Christianity onto the regions they controlled and shortly thereafter the their entire society collapsed. The Dark Ages followed which had a Medieval Church that used the blunt hammer of Jesus Christ’s “sacrifice” as a mechanism to keep the living from trying to overtake their church leaders who ruled the lands with a Bible only they could read, as ignorance was the most powerful weapon in those days. People were too stupid and superstitious to think of individual rights until the Age of Reason rescued Europe from its long dark past. It was during the Renaissance that the ideas for America were born culminating in a mad dash for a country overrun with oriental savages from China with the same kind of leftist occult driven superstition as Jesus ran into during his days in the wilderness. The American frontiersman confronted those left leaning heathens on the western frontier and won. But along the way the Christian values they brought with them from Europe became the basic tenants of conservatism which worked well among their own kind. But the many oriental ideas in the teachings of Jesus paralyzed conservatives as they tried to deal with enemies to their value system—after all their leader had been crucified due to his threat to the Roman/Jewish relationship in Jerusalem.

That brief history flashed through my mind as I watched an exasperated Brit Hume on Fox News attempt to put his conservative finger on the problems of our day, as leftists were openly calling for violence against any Trump supporter in the streets of America. Brit’s comments showed us why we had turned away from Jeb Bush, John Kasich, John McCain and Mitch McConnell and started flying our flags behind Trump. It was a mystery to Brit how we could regain a civilized society under the value systems he embodied as a conservative. The Christian conservative is perfectly fine as a value system in the open spaces between the big cities of America. Just visit a Bob Evens at around 8:30 AM anywhere, and you’ll see America at its best. People are good to each other as old men sit at the counter and read the newspaper. Families eat in peace and treat each other respectfully, it’s an idea that has a lot of appeal—until a political leftist tries to steal that value through some kind of protest. At that point the same elements that ended the Roman Empire, destroyed the Churches of Europe and essentially led to every war that mankind had fought with each other throughout history is exposed and the conservatives have no recourse to deal with the intrusion because of their paralysis in the teachings of Jesus Christ. They turn the other cheek to their enemies only to find that cheek slapped too, and not just once, but twice, three times, and more, until the skin is literally falling off their face. The typical leftist is a heathen not that much unlike the Indians that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s mother described in the famous novels written by that author constituting the Little House on the Prairie series.

The big story of the day when Brit Hume was musing about the lack of civility in our modern political world was that Laura Ingalls Wilder was having her name removed from a prestigious literary award due to her comments on Indians, which in her day were always a threat to kill families on the frontier. Modern leftists have attempted to reinvent the past by defining the Indians as the original inhabitants of North America and that the white European settlers that brought with them new philosophies of self-management from the Age of Reason were confronting Chinese settlers who had radically different ideas on the nature of existence, and the two sides fought it out. The new Americans won over the oriental colonists from China. Many of these Chinese colonists came to North America during the Ming Dynasty when their giant ships were trading with countries all over the world, well before the Europeans were even thinking of a journey to North America. The New World at that time was already well-known in the East because they had been traveling there for centuries. And before the Chinese it was the Vikings and Phoenicians. Ancient descendents from all those nationalities were already in North America and had many empires rise and fall well before Laura Ingalls Wilder’s mother said that “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.” Many of the Indian nations were warring factions that used violence as a test of manhood—they were not docile nature lovers. They were the original leftists in the New World and the modern left has tied themselves to their ancient ancestors and have been trying for quite a long time to use that guilt as leverage over the newly founded country of America.

That is where conservatives find themselves paralyzed because the leader of most right-thinking people is ultimately Jesus Christ who was very ideologically aligned with the typical socialist and Indian warrior on the frontier of America. Maxine Watters isn’t the first radical to call for action through collective assimilation. So when the political left plays Jesus against conservatives by taking advantage of a turned cheek or a desire for peace, the political leftists attack and has been pushing conservatives further and further back for as long as humans have interacted with each other and we’re at a point where the running has to stop.

I would say to Brit Hume and to the estate of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and to Trump supporters in general that peace is not possible with the leftists. Just as treaties were not possible with the Indians because they were of a different mindset that was not conducive to the American idea. Or the Renaissance artist who was drawing naked bodies on buildings after hundreds of years of stagnant thinking coming out of the Dark Ages—the two sides of thinking are not compatible. Values cannot stand up to constant attack if the person with values always surrenders to the aggressions of the heathens. The Chinese were heathens during the Ming Dynasty because they were a collective based society seeking to impose themselves on the entire world. The Indians were heathens because they were another mixed batch of collective based cultures seeking to put superstition over the minds of reason, no different from the cults of churches in the Dark Ages were inclined to follow some priest who could magically read words on a page and decipher meaning from them. Or the Romans and Jews who were collectively based cultures who wanted to execute an individual preaching a collective eastern based religion that didn’t even need a church to guide them—a hippie from the wilderness known as Jesus who taught us all to turn the other cheek even as he was crucified on a cross with his blood dripping out upon the ground. The Roman Empire in its last days turned left and told us all that we should follow the teachings of the oriental Christ and sacrifice ourselves to the living so that we could live eternally in the afterlife. But in so doing they implied that we sanction evil in the here and now putting peace on earth above the morality of the good—and that is something that we as conservatives need to stop doing. We cannot surrender the world to evil with an eye to the everlasting. Because as many wise people have said over many centuries, what we do in life, does reflect us in death, and yielding to evil in life or death is not permissible. Jesus was wrong.

It’s one thing to be good to your fellow neighbors and to preach peace to people who have shared values at church, in our neighborhoods, and even at Bob Evens on a morning breakfast at 8:30 AM. But when the leftist as they are known to do, whether it’s the barbarian hordes that sacked Rome to officially end the Empire, or the Indians who were Chinese conquerors from the Ming Dynasty, and probably earlier, the Vikings or the latest clan of Maxine Waters supporters, they intend always to attack those of us who have individual values so war is always their first option. And when faced with such an option it is not enough to sacrifice ourselves to the crosses they wish to nail us to, which has been the path of most mainstream conservatives for many years—the world of Brit Hume. When faced with such a menace we must fight, and that goes beyond what our religions instruct us to do—unless you seek the deeper meaning of the plight of the Christian Soldiers, marching as to war. Not all of Christianity is a turn the other cheek religion. But for the parts that are, do not listen to those instructions, because they were created from the very beginning by liberals of countless names throughout history, and their intention was always to leave conservatives with no other option but to be conquered. And its time to change that history for a change toward the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Rich Hoffman

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

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Hollywood is going extinct

I had the feeling while watching Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom that like the dinosaurs in it that were being resurrected through DNA tampering, that Hollywood was putting on its last great epics before going extinct themselves. Identity politics is killing the motion picture experience, which was certainly present in the new Jurassic World movie, which have always been there just enough to appease the industry radicals. I never expect the Jurassic movies to be deep character pieces, they are adventure films and this one is certainly one of the best. I thought it was a really good movie, better than Jurassic World with jaw-dropping visuals and deserves everything it is making financially. But I couldn’t help but see the bigger picture at play, and this is connected to Solo: A Star Wars Story which was a great movie too, but was torpedoed for being politically incorrect, and lost money at the box office. Identity politics has destroyed this particular story telling experience. Movies in general are now officially extinct. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom does a good job of sidestepping that problem with dinosaurs and some really well-done action sequences, but if this is the best that Hollywood can do—and it is, then no wonder the movie industry is dying. As good as Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was the critics gave the film a 50% Rotten Tomato score and I’ll tell you why, because Chris Pratt was fabulous in this movie. He was a traditional, very strong, white male matinée actor on par with Indiana Jones and Hollywood’s identity politics doesn’t want to feed that tradition in America and the world, they want to destroy it. Unlike Solo: A Star Wars Story fortunately, parents were willing to take their kids to see Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom anyway, because the dinosaurs were just great, so this particular movie will do good business in spite of industry efforts to punish the film for sticking with traditions in the role of heroics. I thought all the actors did a great job, but Chris Pratt really made this a work of love and it showed.

If the industry can’t get 100% behind a movie like these Jurassic World films they won’t get behind anything and that is the cause of Hollywood’s failure. When leftists took over the industry completely way back in the late 80s and early 90s their goal was obvious, to use Hollywood to sell their message of progressive politics. They were intent to use the fantasy aspect of movies to sell the fantasy of progressives as a disguised reality for which audiences would accept as truth, because they saw it in a movie. Only people went to movies to get away from that kind of politics, so the power of Hollywood started a gradual decline. And it wasn’t just the rejection of the product itself. Over the last thirty years video games have become so much more sophisticated, people have less time for movies and traditional television, and online streaming has proven itself to be competitive with the cinematic experience. If people were able to watch something like The Game of Thrones on their home theater systems why would they rush out to the movies to watch another Jim Carry movie from the Dumb and Dumber series?

Hollywood has a labor union problem, its presence in every movie has jacked up the cost of doing business while at the same time restricting creativity. You can’t make a movie in Hollywood unless the key people are in the labor unions and that means that people who do well in the industry desire to make the union bosses happy by slipping in politics from the union literature that they are always getting from their memberships. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Bryce Dallas Howard played Claire with a nice mix of modern woman mixed with traditional damsel in distress fantasy which is very appealing to young male viewers. So the film makers walked the line well in this movie, but her father Ron Howard has completely lost his mind if you watch his Twitter feed, which I think reflects what all these Hollywood people are suffering from and that is the liberalism that is part of their inner circle of experience, and their memberships to the trade unions are the connective tissue that holds them all together toward that distorted reality. Ron Howard I thought did a great job with Solo: A Star Wars Story, but his politics were certainly a turn-off for prospective viewers. I loved the technical aspects of that movie as well as the character itself, but the identity politics in that film were abundant. Critics couldn’t get behind the film obviously because it was about a strong white male. Now if Han Solo and Lando were involved in a homosexual relationship then critics would have loved the movie and pushed it with great reviews. But it was about a traditional romance where the white guy hero tries to win the love of the leading lady and the industry showed its wrath on that film as punishment. In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom they had a lesbian character in it to appease those demographic stereotypes circulated around the trade union press—like The Hollywood Reporter. Thankfully, the producers cut the scene where the lesbian reveals her sexuality—so the nature of her sexual relationships with women went undefined in the film. Nobody goes to see a movie about dinosaurs because they want to think about the sexual appetites of the characters. They want to see action, and heroics—that’s why they buy tickets. But the trade unions don’t care about profit or the reason people buy tickets, because they are under the assumption that people will always attend movies at a movie theater so they can push their members into left leaning radicalism to get their progressive messages out to the world at any cost.

That cost is horrendous. Hollywood has turned toward global box office takes to cover their costs, and expectations. If a film doesn’t make $100 million in the communist Chinese market these days, it’s considered a failure. Movies these days can’t just be movies, they have to be vehicles of progressive propaganda that have globalists messages. Movies like Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom walk the line as closely as is possible these days. I thought the action scenes were as good as any of the past Indiana Jones movies, both in quality and execution. It was smartly made on a $170 million-dollar budget which is essentially a two-act play—where most films are three act structures. I thought that was a great move, to start the movie with a tremendous action sequence that would be the climax of most movies, then to turn toward a Hitchcockian style of horror film. One of the main villains was an auctioneer played by Toby Jones, which I thought was very good—yet it wasn’t lost to me that when he was about to be eaten by a dinosaur that his combover flying in the wind was a shot at Donald Trump. There was certainly an anti-capitalist message that would have stepped all over itself if the dinosaurs weren’t larger than life and were the real scene stealers. But making a movie like this where little anti-Trump Easter eggs were thrown in to make the cast and crew happy is risky business because the filmmakers certainly don’t want people like me to derail the film over the reminders of modern politics that is entirely left leaning. For instance, there was much made about how much better the new Oceans movie made in box office acceptance over Solo: A Star Wars Story, because it’s a film where females take over the role of traditional men in that heist film. That movie is on its third weekend and it just broke $100 million domestically. Solo: A Star Wars Story did that the first week and a half of its run so the game is easy to see for those who have the eyes for it. Hollywood has used that oversea number to hide the dismal domestic box office reality from not only themselves, but the entire entertainment industry. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was smart to cut their film into a two-act structure and to put all their money upfront because it wasn’t easy to tell how the movie would do in this toxic identity politics driven world. Not every movie can do that, so reality is starting to cook the industry alive, and it is obvious.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a great movie if movies were allowed to just be movies anymore. But they aren’t. Hollywood metaphorically is the fallen kingdom refered to in the movie. Mankind is losing the world to dinosaurs because we tampered too much with science to allow our species to coexists with them, and ironically it is the Hollywood industry that is now going extinct. There is just too much competition and social media has too many critics to allow Hollywood to achieve their aim at just making progressive movies with global box office numbers that carry them all over $500 million each. That is a formula that just isn’t going to work so in many ways this latest Jurassic World movie is like watching the end of an era where literally everything we have ever known about it was blowing up in front of our faces. It was spectacular to see, and worth the ticket. But the writing is clearly on the wall. The next generation is not going to support the movie industry. They have too many other options to enjoy for their entertainment dollar, and time. Identity politics has killed the Hollywood product. And that is the real story behind Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.

Rich Hoffman

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