Ayn Rand’s 1961 Capitalist and Communist Warning: Why Apple is successful and everyone else copies

The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted the below video from 1961 by Ayn Rand herself about capitalism and communism. At the time there was a lot of debate about which was better for society. The political class and intelligentsia decided they liked communism whereas the American people still in love with their John Wayne westerns and old-fashioned ideas of westward expansion loved their capitalism. Democrats and labor unions in a partnership with each other decided that they would avoid the name of communism in much the same way that Fidel Castro did during the period that he was trying to convince Cuba to turn toward Marxism by denying that his proposed dictatorship was a party of communists. Of course we know by history that it was a complete lie, just as history will show that in America public schools, colleges, and the federal government itself has fully embraced communism all along—and sought to teach children those “communal” concepts from before even kindergarten. Visit any daycare facility and you will see communism being taught to 3 and 4 year olds in great abundance. In 1961 Ayn Rand was despondent as to how the great America could even conceive of making the mistakes she had just escaped from in her mother Russia. So she made the below recording to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association to contemplate why.

Speaking of management associations and the innovations available to America it is an aspect to my life that I know first hand. I came to know Ayn Rand and the ARI work because I share with them very similar ideals about how business should be conducted and why capitalism is such a vastly superior mechanism in any global marketplace. I never read Ayn Rand until just a few years ago, yet I lived my life nearly in parallel with her character Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. When I finally did read it I wondered how I had traveled through life for over 40 years without running across it—and once I did I understood completely the intentions of the novel.

For me the most powerful part of the book was when Roark refused to be a member of the architectural board for the World’s Fair exhibit because of his strict personal revulsion toward collectivism. I too have been invited and had to decline many such associations and it has cost me likely millions in so doing. For thirty years I have been given many, many, many opportunities to do just as what was offered to Roark in The Fountainhead and I declined for the same reasons so to keep my own integrity intact. I had never heard of anybody doing the things I had been doing and taking the social positions I had until I read The Fountainhead, which was really the first time I had a measure that I was actually right in my instincts—and it was good to hear Ayn Rand from beyond the grave tell me she understood.

I had for years been struggling with the communism so present in American business—everything from Six Sigma concepts to Jack Welch management methods. I was sent to many classes over a great deal of time and on day one I lost interest because essentially what they were teaching was classic communism—not capitalism. It was no wonder that companies struggled with profits and innovation and I had no desire to learn such a stupid thing. I often refer to my years at Cincinnati Milacron as one of those pinnacle moments of understanding. I was sent to a Lean Manufacturing seminar as a hand-picked bright spot in their future only to discover that the company was dying on the first day of class. I lost interest in that company once I realized that they were has-beens and would soon go out of business more or less—which of course they did. My views at the time I couldn’t articulate against the current because everyone essentially thought I was nuts—since I was the lone voice against “consensus” and other focus group derivatives. I knew from experience that I wanted to maintain my individuality because it was within that element that true innovation in thought was brought forth.

I still run into the same opposition—actually every day. But I now have a track record to beat over people’s heads which quiets them. When I was in my 20s and 30s everyone just thought I’d grow out of such thoughts of independence—but instead I just got worse over time the more I saw that my methods worked as opposed to other studies. During the 90s I likely read every management book there was in Barnes and Nobel over a ten-year period, and most of them were so wrong, that they might as well be the equivalent to the latest “quick diet” fad because the methods were built around the same mysticism. Most corporations, and most businesses function like a communist dictatorship which quickly saps the strength of an organization of its most valuable resource—the individuals who actually work for the institution. It isn’t long that a company dies on the vine once a few decades of communist dictatorship ruins them for life. Cincinnati Milacron died in this fashion—as did General Motors. The later was only saved by government bail-outs.

Banking institutions, corporations, political structures—everywhere that there is a hierarchy of a few nameplate administrators who have power over others just by title, communism is found to be at the core philosophy of the leaders within the institution. Many of those tuning in to listen to Ayn Ran only cared about what she had to say about profit—not about the means of obtaining it. Most American businesses in 1961 were already infiltrated with communist ideals through their education institutions. They were already thinking in the wrong manner and were mapping out their own personal destructions even as the leaders built their careers and retirement pensions. Those same individuals might have been paid good money for their leadership—but what they often left in their wake was a declining business, not a flourishing one. I simply refused to play along—and over time it has benefited me and many others because when fresh ideals are needed, they are available because I have not destroyed the means of obtaining them.

As Ayn Rand said, it wasn’t communism that proved to be superior to capitalism. It was that in America capitalism committed suicide because businessmen and women discovered that to be good at capitalism they actually had to be good people to the very core of their being and could not have their egos uselessly massaged by corporate structure. The ability to dictate the lives of others because they held power over their employees’ financial purse strings proved too tempting and they fell in love with the power of communism—the ability to be the center of control of all things distributed to others according to their need. For men, the best way to test this morality is in placing a beautiful young secretary outside of their offices. If they contemplate using their power and influence to bed her—they are not moral enough men for capitalism. For women, if they use their power and position to decorate themselves with excessive sign stimuli and tales of oversea travel not out of necessity—but grandeur for the sake of it—as if to exemplify that they hold a higher title than others and therefore hold the fate of so many in their hands—then they are not moral enough for capitalism and will become seduced by the profiteer communism eventually. Once they do, you can hear the term, “team” uttered from their mouths more and more often as they are always on the search for “communal” exercises intended to achieve consensus. A typical episode of The Office is a good place to start to see this withering, pathetic diatribe of failure manifested through comic relief.

As I write this article my wife and I just bought iPhone 6 mobile devices—which to me is one of the most innovative items on planet earth presently. The company itself is nearly at a $1 trillion market cap valuation, and they’ve done it their way. They are very much as a company the way Howard Roarke conducted his business—vastly independent of other companies. They make the market come to them instead of forming themselves to the market. Many analysts college trained to think like nice little communists wonder why the market evaluation of Apple isn’t already over $1.26 trillion—after all it could be. But Apple does things their way for their own reasons and they are driving the market according to their creative input as a company driven by individuals. Steve Jobs after all was a very informal businessman who didn’t have a college degree, and was actually fired from the company he created. But in the end it was Jobs who made Apple what it is and paved the way for creative minds through an excessive commitment to a capitalism loving culture that made Apple such a successful company. Jobs was one of the first to introduce casual wear to the business place just to break down the top down communist culture of rigid dress codes and oppressive company reminders that the employees served the institution—not the other way around. What Jobs did at Apple he was able to perform because he wasn’t taught in college to hate it capitalism—but to use it to be a creative human being. He was essentially a modern real-life Howard Roarke.

Apple isn’t the only company out there who understands that communism has no place in American business. There are others, but they are definitely on the fringe. I am one of those proud fringe people and I know of several others because like-minded people tend to know each other. But what Ayn Rand said in her lecture to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association was completely accurate. It’s not that communism is superior, or had even won. Communism has seeped into our culture as a profiteer while those who were supposed to protect capitalism were too busy thinking about how powerful they are over their employees, or in banging their secretaries. Instead of conducting themselves in a moral way, they have instead turned toward Apple and tried to copy everything about the company hoping that they will strike gold in the same manner. But they can dress in jeans and follow other similar attributes of Apple, but if they don’t develop a creative—capitalist environment for their employees to prosper in—they will fail leaving the default mode of operation to the mindless communists who will sweep in to save the day with bail-outs, focus groups and the constant reminder that institutions are all about “consensus” building. But they were, and will always be wrong. Successful companies are built by individuals for the sake of creative enterprise and it is there that capitalism shines best and brightest—and for the most people’s benefit. It is what’s missing from our present culture and why everything taught counter to that basic ideal is a waste of time. American business knows how to get there, but they are not willing to act morally to achieve it—which is why Ayn Rand in 1961 was so baffled by the American approach to the long-standing debate. There just weren’t enough defenders of capitalism out there because too many executives were staring at the boobies of their secretaries—instead of on the next great idea and how to free the minds of mankind to unleash the power of capitalism and the ideals that spring forth from such a culture.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

The Control of Net Neutrality: Third Way economics reinvented

One of the great failures of the human condition is the personal desire to control other people through manipulation, social titles, and just sheer domination. Anyone who has worked in an environment where other people were constantly in interaction, they have witnessed this desire for control over others in all its dysfunction. Control is essentially the primary reason for the governments’ desire for gun control over its population. It is also the primary reason Obama through the FCC wants control of the internet through Net Neutrality. The control desired isn’t anything needed, but is only to satisfy the egos of bureaucrats and their lust to have the kind of control over others that they can’t get in their personal lives. If the root cause of the human desire for control is analyzed in most situations it will be found nearly 100% of the time that those who desire control over others most are those least secure about how to guide their own lives from moment to moment.

Often control is disguised to be seen as a helpful measure. An insecure parent might desire to control the finances of their children so to keep them close—so not to leave them vulnerable to social judgment which might otherwise be noticed. A boss might desire to control an employee they know is superior to them by crafting mundane procedures to wear down the challenging individual in hopes that the tasks will hone down ambition so corporate superiors might not notice. And the government at all levels–from the local zoning board all the way up to President of the United States can’t resist controlling other people through rules and regulations. For the political employee it is difficult to resist when power is confiscated through government mechanisms and provided to the desk of a bureaucrat the means to sort through and re-distribute the fruits of productivity to those they deem worthy. For the zoning administrator the rich land owner who wants to build a new garage will have to pay more and grease many more wheels to get approval than the hot young blond who wants to build a deck to sun bath upon. When the rights of others must be filtered through some government bureaucrat abuse through control is a common occurrence.

It is because of this human frailty desiring control over others that economies struggle and do not reach their full potential. It is also why there is much resistance to laissez-faire capitalism as opposed to socialism, communism, or some mixture of those ideas, especially by the political left. If the mind of those who call themselves democrats is analyzed correctly, it will be discovered that deep down inside they typically have serious personal control insecurities—which is why they are Democrats to begin with. Those who lean liberal tend to be insecure with themselves and desire to use re-distribution of resources through politics as a means to inflate their personal power over others. This was never more apparent than in the 1990s when then President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to hide their human frailties behind economic policies that pretended to support capitalism, only with a new spin on the type of socialism that control addicts desire most. They called it “The Third Way.”

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.^[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.^[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.^[4]

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”.^[5] Blair referred to it as “social-ism” that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.^[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.^[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.^[8]

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.^[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.^[10]

The Third Way has been criticized^[11] by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.^[12] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.^[13][14][15] Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.

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

In other words, the Third Way is identical to the corporate boss who is technically incompetent who steals the ideas of a superior minded employee so to impress their bosses when performance reviews are requested to drive up job security. Government has recognized that socialism and communism tend to rob people of initiative, so they give the illusion of capitalism so that the work excess produced can then be stolen and re-distributed to their political supporters to keep them in power. So essentially the Third Way is socialism without the title designed to hide the intentions toward control. It would be equivalent to the jealous husband who won’t let his wife drive a car under abusive circumstances—afraid she might find a better lover—by telling her that driving is dangerous and that he loves her so much that he doesn’t want her to get hurt. That is the essence of the Third Way economy patterns so prevalent today, introduced by progressives like Bill Clinton and heavily supported by open socialists like Barack Obama.

The point of this article is to illustrate what is really going on behind Net Neutrality. Under the current policy of Internet regulation and creativity, it is essentially a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Products are bought and sold rapidly in great number because there is an incentive to make money—so a very diverse number of products are available to consumers at a wide range of prices driven by competition. Government regulation hardly exists on the Internet and this has allowed a market sector to flourish—much the way the economy in America did during the 1920s, and 1980s under presidents Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Communists and socialists however have had their presidents elected in most of the other periods and the result has been lackluster economic growth—except for the advent of the Internet. At the heart of the desire for Net Neutrality is the desire to control the economy and the people who make it up.

There is no problem with the Internet, there is no unfairness. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on the Internet because of its limitless creative options. It has regulated itself through competition the way laissez-faire capitalism tends to anywhere it is utilized without controls imposed upon it by weak-willed personalities. Net Neutrality is all about control over others. That need for control is built on inner insecurities by lesser individuals who want to appear as equal or even superior to their betters. With Net Neutrality weak people who know they can’t compete in life need the protection of government so that they can feel equal to everyone else. Under open market capitalism, they can’t, so they must sabotage the successful so that they can feel equal. That is what is called “social justice.”

Net Neutrality is all about control and insecurity. It’s about a government that is useless trying to make itself relevant with “social justice” by stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy. It is just another version of the Third Way. It’s a scam—just like most things in government are. It’s an attack on laissez-faire capitalism. It’s all about control from inferior minds over superior ones in the only way that such an arrangement can occur—through manipulation, emotion, and a promise of security from illusionary concerns. Net Neutrality is a false argument against freedom by a lying government for the sole purpose of convincing the strong to give up their rights to the weak so that social justice through the Third Way of compromise can occur—which is nothing more than a way to hide the inadequacies of failed personalities from the realities they’d otherwise make for themselves.

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

A List of Proven False Flags: How many can you name not yet clarified?

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction. I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done. I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience. For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values. One of their reasons for asking for more money was to make the school safer because of the recent school shootings—like the Sandy Hook incident. Conveniently a shooting spree threat was found a few days before the election in the girl’s bathroom of the high school inciting panic throughout the district. CLICK TO REVIEW. The tax was won in favor of the increase by approximately a 1% swing. Likely a radicalized teacher union member left the note, but nobody will ever be able to prove it even though there were cameras and witnesses—the investigation never turned up an arrest of any kind. After the election, the issue was just dropped and within a few weeks—everyone forgot about it. That would be an instance of a likely false flag operation by an organization that needed to swing votes in their favor for a collective cause.

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes. Below is a list of several that are now far enough into the past that they can be looked at honestly. Many modern false flags still have too much political weight to them, so any analysis is still decades off—and likely history will view our current time as being filled with them. False flags are natural by-products of collectivism and such philosophy is taught in our public schools so groups of people as Nietzsche said—are quick to lend their support. In the following list, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to their part in a false flag endeavor, either orally or in writing. Pay close attention and then consider if any such action is likely in the modern context.

Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .

A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.

The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.

Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the White House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers). (I don’t completely agree with the cause, but there was certainly foul play involved)

(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.

(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(39) The highly respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-08/42-admitted-false-flag-attacks

Very interesting isn’t it? Now—after watching Brian Williams fall from grace and knowing what you do now dear reader—how many false flags can you name in your neighborhood? I bet you can find enough to fill a lengthy list. Now, imagine how many there are at the state and federal level. Think about that the next time you vote—and before you fall for the contents of the next sappy news story.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Latté Sipping Prostitutes: Tackling tough subjects in the latest Cliffhanger installment

As much as women think they have made great gains in the world of voting and the workplace, women are still used and abused terribly under the flag of collectivism. They are expected to act in unison—as a collective group and often behave in such a fashion making them a serious barrier to logic when hard decisions have to be made. It is probably one of the hardest things to write about in regard to correcting aspects of politics and philosophy plunging our society into the current quandaries that we find ourselves in—but if proper correction of modern problems are to have any hope—this problem must be identified and dealt with so that civilization can fix them. That is why the next chapter of my Cliffhanger story The Curse of Fort Seven Mile deals exclusively with this problem. Here is the description of the chapter from the book as it appears on Amazon.com.

A school board president, a chamber of commerce CEO, a teacher’s union president and a wealthy socialite plan the demise of Fort Seven Mile’s new mayor after a brutal attack by Cliffhanger upon the police force. A sinister plan is hatched during their weekly latté gatherings where the four women routinely plan the manner of politics around their community along with their fantasies of sadomasochism, gossip, and social treachery.

Their grabs for power escalate as they organize a union protest at the Mayor’s home in a hope to diminish public approval of the beautiful Misty Finnegan and draw out the bandit Cliffhanger with a trap only the crafty mind of Patty Latrine could fathom. What they discover is a secret nobody could even comprehend leading to events that will change life as they know it forever.

Long time readers here will recognize the title as a joke that has evolved over several years. Specifically, I have used such a term often to describe the type of people who illogically vote for continuous tax increases not from individual thought processes, but from the pressure of their peers. Once it became obvious to me that women were being used by other women to promote obvious trends in politics that were disastrous to our society it was clear that the tendency needed to be called out so that it could be recognized and corrected. Men have been slow to join me in pointing out such a tragedy because they have been pinned into a corner with a check-mate in regards to social conduct. If they support such viewpoints as I have proposed, then they are cast about as Neanderthals and sex is cut from their lives with surgical precision.

This has always been by design, progressive groups knew that this would be the biological component to their movement and they sought to exploit it behind the flag of feminism. Like in the story described above, every community has some variation of the characters mentioned. Sometimes there are men included, but the basis of most society presently conducts their schemes against the voting population in much the way that the ladies in Latté Sipping Prostitutes do. And usually the groupings are broke down along similar political lines. The evidence can be seen at various Chamber of Commerce events and charity fund-raising efforts. Always the intentions from a distance are good—but the subtle underbelly of the strategy is often sinister—and deeply complicated. To hide that complicated web of motivations men have been urged to go along to get along and turn off their brains. It is likely one of the biggest modern problems that is facing our culture which nobody talks about. But they should.

Even though I have written about this problem extensively and provided vast amounts of scientific data to support the conclusions and discussed it over hours of talk radio—the best format to explore the problem is within fiction. It is within the context of a story that the various psychological layers of the forces at work can be properly explored in all their connecting fashions. The primary antagonist in this particular story Latté Sipping Prostitutes is Patty Latrine—the wealthy socialite. Every community has some version of her and she is found among all the various groups herding women along like sheep toward a destiny not always to their liking.

The main protagonist in Latté Sipping Prostitutes even though she doesn’t have a line of dialogue but is only seen and talked about is the new Mayor of Fort Seven Mile, Misty Finnegan. As a woman she is truly a liberated free-thinker who is independent to such an extent that she lives beyond the control of Patty Latrine which makes the socialite feel very insecure—an emotion that she’s not used to experiencing. What has the women of her group so up in arms over the new mayor is that Misty is home schooling her children which means she doesn’t blindly support the public education system that Patty uses to advance her social strategies. To make matters worse Misty is a beautiful woman and the socialites under Patty’s leadership find the mayor to be a threat to their own power of seduction—that ability to perk out a lip or flirt with men in a way to get what they want when they want it. (Most human communication is non-verbal and women are great at it). Misty Finnegan’s presence as a powerful political figure of a truly strong and independent woman creates major problems for Patty Latrine and her minions of latte sipping despots who will do almost anything to stay in Patty’s good graces.

So what do the Patty Latrines of the world have that other women want—and why would women as a collective group even be prone to her strategies? Well, that is part of the problem and I’ve seen it firsthand—which I write about extensively in this latest Cliffhanger installment. Women like to have places to wear the jewelry and cloths they pick up here and there either from men, or from a shopping spree and people like Patty give them someplace to wear them. It’s just another form of control. If men committed sins in the past by not allowing their wives to drive a car, or getting them continuously pregnant to keep them from running off with another man, women like Patty Latrine use social status to do the same, by controlling the flow of politics at a communal level. If you don’t do and say as Patty does, an invite to her next charity dinner won’t come and nobody wants to be cast out of such events when everyone will be there!

It used to be the good ol’ boys network that was the vile centerpiece of corruption and discontent in every community, but that is no longer the case. Now it is women and they are every bit as bad as the men were. But they have the social mask of goodness to hide that evil behind built by progressive strategy over time to suppress judgment against their actions. What both groups did was wrong acting as a collective unit. Individually, if spoken to, they would say one thing, but within the peer groups of their Central Committees and social networks is a “team” approach which often requires them to act against their best judgment. That is where the trouble starts and the evil driven by a lack of personal authenticity creeps into the picture to bring with it corruption—because once a human being makes such a decision, they are willing to compromise on everything and they lose their integrity.

My work of course in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is intended to be thought-provoking. For that reason I am particularly proud of Latté Sipping Prostitutes because it is such difficult subject matter to properly articulate. I don’t see many creative types in literature or film attempting to grapple with this problem—so it is advancing unhindered throughout our social structure without analysis, but, not in this new installment of Cliffhanger. After completing the story I knew that I had pulled together some difficult elements and readers would benefit from the result. That result might be controversial but it’s honest and leads to an exciting and unique chapter to the Cliffhanger story arc. A chapter that’s a lot of fun, but is brutally honest in a way that I’m known for; Latté Sipping Prostitutes is one of those stories that has a lot going on but is all too revealing. It might ruffle some feathers but to my intention, that is the difference between good literature and slack-jawed news articles.

The new installment can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Latte-Sipping-Prostitutes-Curse-Seven-ebook/dp/B00TBW2D12/

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

The Obama and John Kasich French-Kissing Budgets: It will cost Lakota $5.9 million and worse–yet another levy

John Kasich has shown that he is fully capable of surpassing Pete Carroll’s Super Bowl losing decision as the dumbest idea to date. Failing to address the runaway costs of Ohio public schools by giving more money to poor districts while taking money away from the wealthy ones—he proposed early in February 2015 to solve the gulf with a tax increase. His comment to the wealthy districts was, “If you live in a district that can afford it, you can help yourself.” Essentially what he means is that he’s redistributing the wealth of Ohio tax payers from well-off regions to poorer ones with an established result to raise taxes on communities hosting gigantic schools with treacherously inflated employee wages like Lakota. Taking the largest schools hit in Butler County will be the Lakota Local School District—where I live, which will lose a total of $5.9 million over the next two fiscal years. A neighboring distinct to the west, Ross will lose $438,765. Talawanda to the north, $594,482. As residents we already pay state taxes intended for the unconstitutional distribution of public education—yet Kasich is taking that money and passing it out disproportionately to districts deemed more needy than others, then telling wealthy districts like mine to raise taxes and take care of themselves—all while taking our state tax money and dispersing it like Santa Clause everywhere but in Lakota and other Butler County schools. Then to make matters worse Kasich said this to a Cleveland newspaper—which is appalling. It looks like Kasich and Obama put their budgets together on the same napkin at the same bar, French-kissing each other when they thought nobody was looking—because they are both just as ridiculously stupid.

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Gov. John Kasich said he doesn’t consider his new school funding plan to be a redistribution of income, even as it sends more money to poor districts and less to richer ones.

“It is a conservative point of view in that every kid should be in a position to thrive,” Kasich said.

“I don’t see it as redistribution,” he added. “I see it as a formula for driving resources to kids.”

In an appearance at the E Prep and Village Prep Woodland Hills charter school campus in Cleveland his morning, Kasich said he expects “a lot of squawking” when he releases the changes in state aid to individual districts this afternoon.

About half of Ohio’s districts will see reductions, he said, despite him adding $700 million in aid to schools overall.

Kasich said he wants to send more money to district with less “capacity” to pay for schools and less money to those that have the income and property values to cover the costs.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/gov_kasich_says_his_school_fun.html

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/kasichs-education-speech-under-way/nWCBT/

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/budget-increases-funding-for-poorer-school-distric/nj4tr/

The ultimate failure in this debacle is in believing that more money will actually help kids in a poor community—as if money alone will make schools better. Government schools suck because government is incompetent. You could throw $1 million dollars per pupil into a poor community and the money will be completely wasted on teacher salaries, new paint for the schools but not a single elevated child—because schools do not make children great. Teachers don’t make good people. Parents do. Schools and teachers can assist, but they can’t take broken Humpty Dumpty families and put all their broken shells together again if their home environment is full of drug addicts, gamblers, whores, or people who enjoy watching the Bill Cunningham show. It doesn’t work now, it hasn’t worked in the past, and it certainly won’t work in the future. Money does not make quality. People make quality and there is a reason that kids in richer districts do better scholastically than poor kids. It’s because their parents generally care more about the outcome of their kids and there is likely peer knowledge of similar families who also care about the fate of their children. In poor communities very few people care about kids. Teachers generally pretend to, but in the end, if their union calls for a strike—they’ll march in the streets and leave the kids in need of a mentor. Most teachers are unfortunately in the profession to make money. I believe they start out well-intentioned, but a few years into their mandatory union membership—they become socialist radicals just like the rest of the employees in public education. And those employees aren’t worth the money they demand to be paid.

That is the real issue—the money the employees cost a district. A properly run school district would wisely cut all their most expensive employees and let some other school have them—hiring cheaper teachers who will do the same work for half the cost. Experience doesn’t mean much in public schools because kids aren’t learning anything anyway. Government schools are simply an expensive state funded baby-sitting service and nothing more—for parents too busy to care for their own. So they pawn their kids off on society to raise and hope the school will cover their faults. At least in a wealthy district the parents ask how the child’s day went and try to bring some semblance of family structure to children. In poor districts—an intact family is as rare as an eclipse. Money can’t fix that problem.

As for pre-school education and subsequent grade school skills—teaching itself has entered a new age, and the government schools are way behind the curve. For anybody who hasn’t yet learned, there is a thing kids have these days called, LeapFrog—which is a computer tablet intended for kids 3 to 9 which teaches them math, grammar, and other logic skills. If I had one of those when I was a kid I would have been done with all the skills of grade school before 5 years of age because the programs are so good, and intuitive. The government school profession is no longer effective in this fast paced age of massive data consumption. Kids are bored with public school by the time they are in the 2^nd and 3^rd grades and learning for them becomes a chore instead of a pleasure because of the way its sold to them in public schools driven by radical—expensive labor union personnel—is destroying our youth—not helping them.

So Kasich has made an epic error. To mask his lack of courage in dealing with the public labor unions, he has instead punted to the local districts to allow them to fight it out due to his progressivism. He might as well be Obama in the Ohio capital at this point. Sure he moved some money around to create a surplus, but he largely did it with wealth redistribution like this situation with the schools, and by taking federal money. He’s not a conservative—he is the definition of a RINO. If he were a governor in New York or California—he’d call himself a Democrat because that’s where his values and leadership point to as far as values.

As for the development of the I-75 corridor in Southern Ohio surely he knows what this means. He remembers the Lakota fights of a few years ago, and now because of his decision, he’ll see them again. If he thought they were bloody before, he and they haven’t seen anything yet. And those fights will be in the newspapers, and they will influence investment into the area at a critical time—and he’ll be to blame. I can say that I’m not alone in anger on this high tax proposal by Kasich of the Lakota and Mason area. Paying for overpriced government babysitters isn’t going to go over well and it will take a while for those districts to pass a tax increase because of the fights coming—so public relations of the area will take a hit. And the blame will fall squarely on John Kasich. Once something is done—you can’t undo it. And now he’s simply blown it. He has fallen from a political star to a simple grain of sand on a vast beach being washed out to sea by larger and larger waves. Any hopes he had at greatness are now washing away with the high tide as he panders to the power of the unions with a feeble attempt to appease them—which of course won’t work. His decision and budget proposal regarding education will have a catastrophic effect and the blame will be solely in his possession.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

An Insulting Budget Proposal: What happens when you let a drug abuser become president

What happens when you take a former drug abuser and put them in the White House and ask them to come up with a budget? Well, you get the 2015 budget proposal by president Obama who brought out his budget this week with great fanfare only to essentially reveal it as a word for word utterance of the preposterousness shown in the recent Greek election. In Greece the communists are now in control of the economy which swore to reject the austerity measures there. In the United States, Obama declared the same with an insane budget against austerity as reported by USA Today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama submitted his $4 trillion budget wish-list to a Republican Congress Monday, calling for a return to increased domestic and military spending to be paid for in part by higher taxes on the wealthy.

The plan includes a $478 billion public works infrastructure program for roads, bridges, and transit systems, to be financed by taxes on overseas earnings. The budget calls for new tax credits and other initiatives devoted to education, child care, paid leave, and infrastructure, with tax hikes resulting from the closure of tax loopholes. The president also wants to put an end to the automatic across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration, calling for a 7% increase in spending over the budget levels he agreed to in a 2011 compromise with Republicans.

“I want to work with Congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security. “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward. It would be bad for our security, and bad for our growth.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/obama-budget-399-trillion-republicans/22695611/

For those who don’t know, austerity by definition is a severity of discipline, regime, expression, or design—a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxury. Obama instead of austerity applied to an out-of-control government suggested even more debt, spending, and taxation. It really is amazing that he even could conceive of such a proposal as to actually put it in printed form, because in reality, it amounts to the blithering of an intoxicated drug addict. It is amazing that this kind of nonsense even gets print in USA Today without a complete castigation for the mere proposal. Who is going to pay for all this stuff—the “rich?” That’s the plan, just increase taxes on people who create wealth? He’s kidding right?

Well, apparently taxing the rich and bitching about austerity is the essence of Obama’s entire budget proposal which is as ignorant as giving the keys of a nice new car to a slithering drunk barely conscious. It’s not even in the realm of viable possibilities, let alone considered seriousness. Yet Obama put out the proposal and the media covered it as if it were a legitimate attempt which was only laughable to those who can actually read.

Obama is an embarrassment to the United States and is a functioning communist based on the type of values he expresses. “Laughable austerity” means he doesn’t think there should be financial restrictions that are confined to a budget at all—his world view is simply beyond consideration of any legitimacy. It is as loony as the slap stick Greeks believing that their debts can be forgiven without payment and that the social spending they are all addicted to can continue forever. One might expect such stupidity in a country like Greece, or some Middle Eastern armpit of a world where economic activity is traded in goats—but in America—such budgets as Obama’s 2015 anti-austerity proposal doesn’t even count. Congress should have stopped the delivery of the proposal right at the door without even wasting further time—and sent them back to the White House unopened. Unless the President’s budget included budget cuts—and a reduced deficit plan—there isn’t any worth to it. It was disrespectful to the American people to even print such foolishness on actual paper.

Corporate taxes are already too high, yet Obama proposed a 14% one-time tax on overseas profits. He proposed $478 billion over six years for roads and bridges and he suggested a $38 billion dollar increase in defense spending over sequestration levels due to his mismanagement of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Obama’s numbers don’t even come close to balancing out; he expects to increase the national debt to 26.2 trillion dollars by 2025. That is insane!

Look, if someone put such an insult on my desk I would have likely blasted them out of a canon in less than a second. So I have no personal tolerance for that kind of thing. Congress should deal with this recklessness appropriately and set an example that future losers in the White House will never forget. Because if they don’t, more attempts like this one will be tried—and its about time that Americans learn the hard truth about our economy rather than through politicians who are obviously mentally deficient and seek to hide it by giving away other people’s stuff. Obama is a spending addict—just as he needs to chew gum to keep from smoking cigarettes, covering up his drug abusing past, and his Marxist teachers who made him the person he is today. He has an addictive personality. He needs an encounter group to help him with his various addictions. He doesn’t need more enablers in his life. He needs to hear the word “NO” much more often and to be treated like the louse that he truly is. Obama is a reckless loser who happened to talk himself into winning elections by giving things away to those too lazy to work. It doesn’t make him capable of putting together a budget—obviously. So his proposal deserves the ridicule measurable to the insult of even trying.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Worship of Mumbadevi and the Almighty Dollar: What traffic patterns in India say about their culture

One of the great miracles of our day is that communication is now easy for the world, and global commerce is now an assumption. That is good for people who have lived far away from capitalism for far too long stuck to the old village mentality of communism which has plagued most land masses around the world into poverty. For as much as modern politicians hope to relieve the poor of their misery, by standards compared to the rest of the world, even the dead broke in America are far better off than they are most anywhere else. So it is hard to explain to people generations taught into the follies of collective endeavor why American concepts of good living should be adopted elsewhere in the world.

I am certainly not one to impose my culture on others. I have a generally live and let die attitude toward the rest planet earth except in my writing where it is obvious that I care a great deal for the success of every living human being. So for that success to work certain conditions have to be in place to allow the human race to flourish. The general rule is that the more authoritarian the government whether it be a business or a country—the less creative input that citizens have toward the fulfillment of national GDP. For instance, in America, creative companies like Apple, Pixar, Lego, Microsoft, and the Hollywood studios produce more personal wealth and opportunity than most GDP economic purchasing power in most countries, such as Iraq, Iran, India and everywhere else where theocratic religion and communist philosophy are holding back the intellectual power of the people inhabiting those economies.

There is a reason that creativity and personal freedom are utilized in those flourishing American companies because the intention of that strategy is to allow minds to think without the pretense of authoritarian concerns. The end result is a much more robust workforce that directly contributes to the wealth creation of any given enterprise. The more restrictive that minds find their society—the less innovation and wealth that will be created there. It is a very simple formula really. Even in the United States where freedom of thought is taken for granted, not all companies understand this concept, and many still attempt an old approach to job creation that embodied the top down approach so common when America was much more theocratic.

But with the communication barrier down due to the Internet, people from those far corners of the world are able to read the things I say, and they have been up in arms in anger at me in India recently—because of my articles against Obama’s fundamental third world country upbringing and obvious view of humanity that was shaped in that region. The primary reason that President Obama is so messed up intellectually is that he wants to turn America into the type of people he was raised around in Malaysia which means a theocratic society mixed with Hindu and Muslim influence along with small “C” communism so common in most third world economies.

To measure success, which has only recently been readily available to the world because of social media—web sites like this one for instance—much can be learned by looking at how other cultures live. Their lifestyles are directly applicable to their fundamental beliefs. For instance, take Dallas, Texas as an example. When landing at an airport there vast spans of wealthy homes can be seen from a West to East approach complete with swimming pools and large yards. Oil fields are also seen as well as sprawling industry and much economic activity. The highways below are orderly, and speedy—because people have places to get to quickly and without bringing harm to their vehicles. The airport itself is a sprawling complex with four basic terminals spread over a great distance. The only way to get around from one to another is with a tram system because the terminals are not connected all together to allow room for all the planes coming and going to maneuver. In Dallas to deal with all the economic activity, the airport is spread out to handle all the business there.

Now do the same in Mumbai, India, the wealthiest city in that theocratic country. For centuries the Indians blamed the English for their imperial grip on the people there and thought their freedom gained in 1947 would cast them onto the world stage, but like China and the city of Hong Kong—also a British territory—the best things economically related to Mumbai were put there by the “invading” country. These days landing in that city involves miles and miles of slum neighborhoods that look like children building forts out of cardboard boxes and the economic activity looks like the blood stream of a patient dying on an operating table—its chaos and dysfunction. The traffic patterns are random and impulsive assuming that nobody is more important than anyone else in the mass collectivism of that ancient civilization still struggling to climb out of the Stone Age intellectually without the capitalism attempted by the British.

The highways have lines on them separating traffic, but nobody follows the rules. Some drivers drive right down the middle of a lane that might be four wide, yet there are six lanes of traffic crammed into it—with everyone going their own way. In the city it is even worse as seen in these accompanied videos. There is no order in their approach to traffic, just like their rudderless economies. Without help from the capitalist West, India would slide back into the pre-deluge days of Biblical apocalypse. However, the Indians reading my statements about their country have become angry and have taken insult blaming Americans for having a third world view of their country by looking down our noses at them. Well, it is a third world country that is currently restricted by collectivist oriented religions and political philosophy. Sure I like Indian food, and I like their history—but as for having a dominating economic force—they are sadly behind the times and are a world liability to growth throughout the planet.

It is not enough to surrender modern life to the gods of theocracy then complain when other cultures out-perform them with sheer economic power. In Mumbai they can pray to Mumbadevi all they want, but it won’t fix their nation. Only by accepting the success of the West and putting their own spin on it can they hope to do that, because to date America is the most successful country on the planet taken as a whole, as to culture, racial dissemination, and raw GDP. And the lesson for Americans is to stop apologizing to the world for being so good. It would be excellent to help India become more American, but it would be bad to ask people in the United States to become more like those in India. That would be morally reprehensible.

The traffic patterns in India tell the whole story. Yes, they ride tricycles, motorcycles, small little cars and even animals that can keep up on the highways of India and they don’t crash into each other as much as you would think. But they don’t get where they need to go in a hurry either. This system works just well enough for the Indians because they are a society functioning from collectivism in their religions and political systems. Thus, they carry the same limits to their businesses. This is the primary flaw in their thinking. They can be angry that somebody points it out to them, but it doesn’t make them better by default if they eliminate a superior culture to their eyes and ears. The fact remains that compared to the West, India does not produce enough GDP on their own to care for their people and that is a major tragedy—which then feeds the theocratic nature of their entire national consciousness.

The key to any endeavor whether it is a small business, or a massive national economy with one of the world’s largest populations—is that freedom of individual thought provokes positive economic growth. This basic psychological emphasis can be seen in the traffic patterns of any society. In India, its chaos and slow, In America it’s orderly, and quick. It’s quick in America not because we’re all godless heathens, but because we have things to do and buy. Theocratic cultures might state that such consumerism is false material worship, but then again, look at the living conditions between the freedom driven culture and the theocratic one–then declare such a thing to be a sin. American standards are only demonized because the rest of the world can’t compete based on their false ideologies which limit economic activity. And now that the world is so small, and those in India can now see how people think in the West—they of course will feel bad. The question is, what do they plan to do about it? Will they just bow down and pray to the Koli goddess Mumadevi, or to the almighty dollar. They all have value in the eye of the beholder—but which one makes lives better, and which one worse? The answer is easy—but the admission is not for the culture that is failing.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Dana Loesch and the New Counter-Culture: Superbowl and American football

I was never a fan of the first major counter-culture movement in the United States. You might say I hated it with every cell in my body. Even as a little kid I despised the dirty, smelly, tattooed hippies with their long air, and smoke smelly cloths. I’ve never liked what they stood for, and I have never thought for one half of a second that there was something that might come out of their brains that might have value. Ever. So it should be assumed that I am a big fan of the new counter-culture movement that has risen up to undo all the terrible impositions induced by the old scum bag hippies. It brings great pleasure to my mind to watch exchanges like the one below with Glenn Beck and his very articulate news personality on The Blaze TV, Dana Loesch who quite successfully punches all kinds of holes into the Washington Redskins debate below. I was thinking of this interview during the recent Superbowl as the game of capitalism played out on such a vast national stage. The game was complete with all the wonderful commercials displaying American products arriving to a marketplace thriving with freedom and unapologetic profit. So I thought it was time to revisit this clip and share it in mind for the wave of counter-culture behavior that I know is coming.

My friend Doc Thompson and his producer Skip LeCombe are part of this counter-culture of goodness that is spreading rapidly. If you haven’t listened to their radio show in the morning from 6 AM to 9 AM on The Blaze Radio network you are missing a rare treat. You can get them on satellite radio and is one of the best morning shows in America presently, and is a force behind this new counter-culture movement hell-bent on destroying the one created by the vile old hippies. Their show is extremely funny, and informative in a way that talk radio has not been able to produce since its inception. It’s a little Rush Limbaugh, a little bit of The Daily Show, and a good ol’ fashioned variety show that might have been heard at the start of radio. But better yet, Doc produces the kind of material that makes the faces of progressives melt clean off—which I find delightful.

Yet Dana Loesch is unique as shown in her above video with Beck. She is uniquely qualified to make arguments against progressives; she is very pro-gun, very pro constitution, and extremely liberty minded and knowledgeable about history. She is the exact opposite of the kind of losers who found themselves attracted to Charlie Manson’s family of communists and dope smoking losers. Dana is a counter-culture to the counter culture-movement. She’s young, attractive, and smart and she can argue with anybody leaving all the duds from the hippie generation in intellectual dust with obvious superiority. To say the least, I’m a fan of Dana.

Progressives have intended from the beginning to “progress” beyond American pride. They have attacked American football because they know it’s a game unique to the United States and the most powerful economy in the world. They have attacked it to bring down the capitalism that drives that massive economy and to a large extent, for over thirty years, the erosion from the old hippie has moved unchecked against tradition. So to counter that erosion a new counter-culture movement is needed to push back against that social destruction. It has been emerging for a number of years, but Glenn Beck has managed to put a point on it that is directed in very positive ways. Doc Thompson found a home with The Blaze because of Beck, and so has Dana, along with a whole host of similar counter-culture stars in the stable of the creative studios now built in Dallas.

Progressives wanted to destroy the Star Spangled Banner sung at the Super Bowl just like they wanted to change the name of the Washington Redskins out of guilt for some perceived sins long ago committed. But they didn’t know all the history involved, just like they ignored that the Redskin name came from one of the first Native American coaches for the Washington-based NFL team. Progressives just wanted change and they attempted to use guilt to provoke that change, just as they have tried to use guilt about the economy to redistribute wealth to the far corners of the world to indirectly feed communism and its massive failure.

Every time I watch a Superbowl in America I am reminded of what a great country it is. I love the pageantry before the game of all the pre-event ceremonies during media week. I love the half time shows. I love the commercials. I love the violence and strategy of the game itself. I love the Superbowl parties, the chicken wings, the beer, I love all the gatherings of family and friends that often come with viewings. I love watching the game on big televisions and I love the commentary by the various media personalities before and during the game. I love everything about it—and much of that is what the first counter-culture movement sought to undo.

The NFL rose to prominence during the hippie movement of the 1960s, so it deserves credit for staving off the impact. Even hippies enjoy football in America, so the game itself has cast doubt upon the thoughts of even the most ambitious hippie. The Superbowl in 2015 cost over $4 million dollars to run a 30 second commercial during the broadcast. And it cost a minimum of $9,000 per ticket to attend the game in person. That value is a created exception to the tide of the rest of the world hoping to spread the message of the dirty hippie to the soccer stadiums and sports forums everywhere. In America they have failed.

As much was said about Marshawn Lynch’s bizarre interviews during media week, he really livened up when he did a commercial/interview for Skittles. It was another fine example of capitalism by a popular player who really increased his brand with controversy leading up to the Superbowl. Many throughout the world would find the behavior disgraceful in that it was an open example of American product placement. But I love it.

It’s good to see a counter-culture movement coming out in defense of capitalism for a change instead of standing against it. And of that counter-culture Dana Loesch is the new Oprah and Connie Chung. Those old names helped feed the previous counter-culture movement—the progressives and excessively liberal Democrats slowly eroded the value of American society with guilt and sappy old hippy dialogue against capitalism. But their time is waning to a new movement which is emerging preserved by American football and maturing under fine people like Dana Loesch. Because of people like her, the Superbowl this year was just a little bit sweeter—pointing to a future that should be much better than the present as the hippies whither away into dust and are replaced by people like Doc Thompson and Dana Loesch.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

John Boehner Sticking Up for Himself: Benjamin Netanyahu and Congress

My biggest criticism of my representative John Boehner over the years is that he has been too soft on President Obama. The current president is obviously engaged in a power grab and has been pushing conservatives around for years without a proper response. Speaking from personal experience the best way to deal with a bully is to push back when they push you, and Obama is simply a bully when it comes to radicalism and advocating his points of view. Largely Boehner, obviously respectful of the presidency in a way befitting royalty, has let the president push him and his congress without fear of retaliation to the point of embarrassment.

Well, it appears that Boehner is finally pushing back a little, now that the Senate has gone to the Republicans, and it’s good to see. It’s about time. It’s also good to see Boehner go on Fox News to talk about the ways that he plans to push back against the encroaching president. Obama has done plenty of speaking to the media from MSNBC to MTV and one of the primary reasons that Boehner’s Congress has such low approval ratings is that the President has out-talked him as the Speaker of the House to the media. Boehner could take advantage of the many conservative talk shows on the radio and television, but really hasn’t much—which is why he has lost over the years to the slick talk of the Democratic socialists and their wealth-redistribution schemes. But that appears to be changing as reported by the below Fox News article speaking about the recent Boehner interview.

WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday that Republicans plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive action on immigration.

“The president’s overreach when he took executive action to deal with the immigration problems in our country, frankly, in my view, is a violation of our Constitution,” Boehner said on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

“We believe that the filing of a lawsuit to try to stop the president from – from violating our Constitution is an important step for our institution,” he added. “This isn’t about immigration. This is the president violating the Constitution, violating his oath of office, and frankly, not upholding the rule of law.”

The move to sue has been seen as an effort to appease conservatives who are upset they may be forced to accept a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that does not include provisions rolling back the president’s executive actions.

Earlier Wednesday, the White House shrugged off Boehner’s threats of a lawsuit.

“House Republicans seem to be relying more and more on the courts these days to challenge the president’s authority,” White House spokesman Eric Shultz said. “We believe that we acted within the full bounds of authority enshrined to the executive branch, and we’ll be defending that.”

Last year, the House moved to sue Obama over his administration’s delayed implementation of the employer mandate in ObamaCare.

In the wide-ranging interview with Baier, Boehner said he wasn’t surprised by the pushback he’s received from inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress.

“The Israeli prime minister can also talk with some expertise about the growing threat of radical Islam,” Boehner said. “We’ve got a serious problem in the world and the president just wants to act like it’s going to just disappear. And so as a co-equal branch of our government, I don’t have any problem at all in doing what I did to invite the prime minister to come to Congress and address those concerns.”

Boehner also discussed hiccups he’s had with the Republican caucus.

“Listen, I was the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party,” he said. “I understand their concerns. I understand their frustrations. But we have a Constitution that we abide by and we’re going to live by.”

When asked why the House would once again hold a vote to repeal ObamaCare, as is planned next week, Boehner said it came down to getting new Republican voices heard.

“We have 47 new members of Congress on the Republican side who have never had the chance to cast their vote to repeal ObamaCare,” Boehner said. “ObamaCare is hurting our economy. It’s hurting the job prospects for millions of Americans. And it’s hurting our whole health care delivery system while at the same time driving up costs for the average American.”

Boehner also said Republicans would offer an alternative to ObamaCare by the end of the congressional session.

“There are three committee chairmen that have the jurisdiction over the health care policy in our country and those three chairmen are working together to craft what we believe would be a better approach with regard to health care for the American people than ObamaCare.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/boehner-confirms-lawsuit-against-obama-on-fox-news-address-pushback-on/

Of the most important note in that interview was Boehner’s claim to be a co-equal branch of government, which a lot of people apparently don’t know. Obama behaving like a king of some kind has routinely stepped around Congress to implement his plans, so when it came to inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Boehner finally stepped around the president and acted on his own—like he should have.

No politician would dare say it in the light of day for being labeled a conspiracy advocate but Obama’s behavior has been dangerous in regard to Israel. He obviously is sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and has created an adversarial relationship with Netanyahu consistent to the views of radical Islamic elements. Even when ISIS terrorists have done their worst against the peace and stability of the entire world, Obama has been careful not to call them Islamic terrorists so not to insult Muslims—which is strange behavior. When Christian radicals go too far, most sane Christians will call out the bad behavior as such—as in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church types people. There are plenty of Christians who thought Reverend Fred Phelps was over the top and vile—and they were not afraid to say so. They certainly didn’t make excuses for him the way Obama does with radical Muslims. So what is really going on? Likely, the answer is not a good one.

I think Boehner thought Obama was a decent human being who played golf with him, and considered that the names people like me were calling the president were uncalled for, and the stuff of conspiracy. But any rational person would have to look at the evidence and conclude that there is something really wrong with Obama and his view of the American presidency—and that he has been bullying Republicans around for years—especially John Boehner.

So it’s good to see Boehner starting to stick up for himself, and Republicans in general. At a bare minimum, Obama is a scum bag, liar and history will confirm it. So there is nothing wrong with pushing back against such a person when it is obvious what his intentions are from the White House perspective. There is certainly nothing wrong with bringing Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress to speak without asking Obama if it’s alright. Obama doesn’t ask for permission to do things and routinely bypasses Congress—so the precedent has been set—and Boehner as an equal member of the federal power structure has a right and obligation to do the same. And he finally has—and it’s about time!

As far as Boehner being “Tea Party before there was a Tea Party,” well, there’s room for converts, and people have to live with their decisions in life. If he sees correctly where the wind is blowing from and to, and decides that he wants his sails to be carried by those currents into fate—well, that’s fine. He can believe what he wants. What really matters is what he does and says day to day—and if he suddenly discovers in himself a spine against Obama—then he can call himself a Tea Party guy from now until eternity. Because in his position—Boehner is best prepared to keep the power grabs of the president in check. So we’ll see how long the Tea Party in him lasts. Hopefully, it won’t fade away in the coming months like it usually does. I remain hopeful that Boehner has finally discovered within himself the Marty McFly from Back to the Future. Hopefully he’s finally going to say to Biff—“Hey you, take your damn hands off her.” We’ll see if this time he can actually make a fist.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

This is What Democracy Looks Like: Greece falls to communism

I was at Barnes and Nobel in West Chester purchasing my usual weekly necessities when I happened to notice the Wall Street Journal behind the counter. It stated “LEFTISTS TAKE OVER GOVERNMENT IN GREECE.” I had to take a minute to consider that severe world problem. As I read it a major snow storm was bearing down on the North East and President Obama was in India back slapping authorities there hoping to open up trade with that nation—for some reason—as if that would solve some major economic hurdle in the United States. I bought the paper and found the following information scrolled upon the pages:

Alkman Granitsas

Updated Jan. 26, 2015 6:17 a.m. ET

ATHENS—Greek voters handed power to a radical leftist party in national elections on Sunday, a popular rebellion against the bitter economic medicine Greece has swallowed for five years and a rebuke of the fellow European countries that prescribed it.

With nearly all votes counted, opposition party Syriza was on track to win about half the seats in Parliament. In the wee hours of the morning, it clinched a coalition deal with a small right-wing party also opposed to Europe’s economic policy to give the two a clear majority.

“Today the Greek people have written history,” Syriza’s young leader and likely new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, said in his victory speech late Sunday. “The Greek people have given a clear, indisputable mandate for Greece to leave behind austerity.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/syriza-win-in-greek-election-sets-up-new-europe-clash-1422168982?tesla=y&.tsrc=lgwn/

That night I watched Fox News Special Report at 6 PM and the Greek tragedy wasn’t covered at all during the entire hour-long episode. I watched the next night and discovered the same apathy. The snow storm sucked up the entire news cycle. CNN covered the story a bit, and Fox News covered the Greek story on other programs to a lesser effect and did an online article about it for their website. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones did some radio on the topic—and MSNBC was dancing in the streets over the news, but certainly didn’t cover the story from the perspective of the extreme negative connotations that are directly implied by the Syriza party. It was the biggest news in the world and nobody was talking about it—relatively speaking.

Essentially Greece voted to default on their debts to Germany and the European Union. The danger is that other countries a few years away from the present Greek situation will follow. It was clear that this is what democracy looks like; when the mob of ignorant masses decide they collectively didn’t want to deal with the ramifications of their austerity measures, that they could just vote against reality in the hopes that the debt would just be wiped away. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Greece spent themesleves into economic ruin with their vast amounts of socialism introduced to their culture without an economy to even begin to support it. The only proper thing for them to do is to tuck up their belt and thin down their financial expectations dramatically. That is what Greece has been doing over the last 5 years, which was originally covered here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom. I said this event would happen even way back then, but I didn’t think the Greeks would be so arrogant to not even pay their bills. After all, they incurred the debt, so they have to be the ones to pay back the obligation. Nobody else is going to pay for it—because they have their own problems. Italy is suffering from nearly the same problem. Spain is as well. France has an openly socialist president who seemed gleefully relieved that the Paris terrorist attacks took the focus of the world off his dismal economy and onto something that people can unite behind—which is terrorism. Greece stated that their reasons for supporting the Syriza party was to restore their sense of national pride. The falseness of their assumption is that eliminating debt through the forgiveness of the lender of the value lost can do that—which is an extremely scary proposal.

The Greek people have lost their way and think that their ability to maintain their pensions, long vacations, and trips to the beach with a lifestyle that is above the means of their GDP will restore their pride when they have essentially filed for bankruptcy against the European Union. This trend will have a domino effect with ever other nation within that union struggling against the same excessive legacy costs from a generation gone by. The youth of Greece does not want to pay for the sins of their parents—and that is why they voted toward communism—and relief of their financial obligations. The same issue is headed for America.

More and more young people are turning toward socialism and communism to give them relief against the massive debt incurred by their parents. Under president Obama the national debt will be $19 trillion on an economy that only produces $17 trillion per year. The path is unsustainable and reckless, and Obama knows it. When 9/11 occurred the national debt was $5.7 trillion and it is presently over $18 trillion in just that very short time. It has grown by over $2 trillion since I first wrote about the Greek financial crises just a few years ago. It is a mess and spiraling out of control in full view of Washington D.C. Obama knows very well how bad the situation is, yet he won’t stop proposing measures that inspire more spending. Because he knows what happens in a democracy and it favors his politics. Not the politics he shows to the world. But the politics he was committed to when he started his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers.

The United States was built to be a republic. It is supposed to vote wise representatives to their state and federal appointments to act as caretakers of the tax payer resources. The quality of those representatives is directly attached to the value of the republic. And the culture that produces those representatives dictates that the voters behave in an intelligent fashion so to preserve the republic. A democracy is where popular elections occur by the masses toward a contest where raw numbers determine the outcome allow for poor quality people to gain power, which erodes value. Obama and the rest of the current Beltway know that as America has eroded away from a republic and more into a democracy that the chosen mode of politics in the future will be the same as there is in Greece currently. When given an option between debt relief and austerity a democracy will choose bankruptcy over paying back the sins of their fathers. So communist sympathizing politicians like Obama know what they are doing. They are purposely toppling our economy right before our eyes to fulfill their promises to the communism popular within intelligentsia circles on college campuses and Marxist fan clubs. The desire for global communism is what is fueling this recklessness. In that respect, because Greece had very little GDP to sustain it, they are the first to hit the communist insurgency. But America is not far behind. For us, it is within a generation to reach the same mark—and it’s by design.

Those same academics are also saying that this situation in Greece will be good for them. How ironic. Clearly a wave is coming; it is hitting Europe as we speak. It is going to wash across the Middle East—also as we speak. It currently has all of Africa under its spell. It has China, presently with the exception of Hong Kong, parts of Malaysia, and Japan. From there it will sweep across old communist Russia and meet in the middle by the Black Sea. Communism within a few short years from this very moment will completely dominate all the land mass from Europe to Asia. Then it will be coming to America and when it arrives it will find a youth in the same situation as modern Greece. And they will vote the same way because nobody wants to pay for the sins of their parents and at over $19 trillion dollars, and a debt of over $60,000 per person, nobody will want to work hard through austerity to communist China to pay all that money back. So they will vote the same socialism/communism that brought Obama to the White House in the first place and it will be too late for historians to say they should have seen it coming. Because the youth will vote in favor of communism—which was always the plan. Democracy will flourish to wipe away capitalism and usher in the darkness of communism—and just like in Greece it will be done to waving red flags and lots of partying. That is what democracy looks like—and it’s coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

You would have thought that the news outlets would have covered this tragedy more vocally, because it is much more serious than a simple snow storm. However, the more I thought about it, the more it was obvious that many in the media are actually hoping that what happened in Greece will in fact happen in America. And unlike a snow storm, it won’t melt away when spring hits. Instead, it will linger for the rest of our days, and will destroy many lives. So for television ratings, such an inevitable destruction is pretty scary if reported correctly. So they stayed away from the story hoping for some miracle that will never come. And even Fox News didn’t have the courage to look at the terrible fate that is before us all. So they just turned toward the next presidential election and a New England snow storm for relief and did as most everyone else is—just looking away and hoping that they won’t be around when the next wave of communism hits. But sadly—they will be. In many ways—its here already.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

	Rich Hoffman on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Paradise Lost, Pickle Rick, Jo…
	Anonymous on Why Christianity Survived as a…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Weapon of Wa…
	Anonymous on Is God an Idiot: I don’t…
	Anonymous on Christianity as a Scaling Move…
	Rich Hoffman on The Jonathan Edwards Study Bib…
	Anonymous on The Jonathan Edwards Study Bib…
	Anonymous on The Day the Past Arrives in th…

Share this:

Share this:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: