Tag: George Soros

The Most Effective Argument in favor of Guns in Soceity: What everyone misses about the need for the Second Amendment–Institituions cannot be trusted

The support for an armed society is a philosophical one, not one of just emotional attachments to tradition. There is a reason the Second Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights and was so important to the Anti-Federalists in the 1790-time period of American history that is just as relevant today as it was then. The human race has not “progressed to a certain level where a one world government like the utopian Star Fleet Command is running everything on earth—and it never will. The reason is that there are traits to human beings that so long as they exist prevent the complete trust of individuals into all institutions created by society. To properly have a check and balance against absolute power, individuals must have the ability to overthrow their institutions before they get too big, and too power hungry to handle the affairs of civilization properly. Guns are that fine line of control which keeps our institutions in check with the fear always in the back of their minds that at any moment the population could remove them from office under armed rebellion and replace them. The issue has never been about “assault weapons” or “bump stocks.” It’s about the nature of people and what they do when they have power over other people. Those who want more power over more people obviously are those who support removing guns from society—to whatever degree. But the essence of the argument is that we would be fools to completely trust any institution created by the minds of man. The gun allows us to manage that power we give those institutions—and without that management assistance, institutions by their nature spiral out of control and become oppressive. Because at the heart of most humans who crave power is a laziness that always retreats to default mode and would rather run society as a bunch of compliant automatons rather than free thinking variables.

To put the issue in the most simplistic forms I will provide an example that I have used actually quite often. To provide a little background about myself I am a person who loves personal freedom likely more than most people, and I have always built my life around the ability to be free of institutional control. In my youth I was a martial artist and had developed the personal ability to defend myself no matter what was presented. Growing up I never had the feeling that anybody could “kick my ass” and I still feel that way. I don’t care how big the person is or how skilled, I made a point physically to be the top of the pecking order in regard to fighting in hand to hand combat and that allowed me a certain freedom to think properly about these matters of institutional control. But melee weapons are one thing, if a person approaches you with a gun physical confrontation is not the best way to deal with a threat like that. You really need a gun no matter how skilled you may be in disarming people. The best way to prevent a threat is to show them you have a gun and give them a choice as to whether or not to continue.

For a short while I was a repo man in my early years and I was shot at on occasion. That was back in the old days before there were the kind of rules that there are today. Back then the bank would let you do quite a few things to recover an asset, so I know what it feels like to be a bit of a thief sneaking up on a car to take it away from a hostile person likely armed. I even know what it feels like to break into a home knowing a person was armed to get the car keys. This wasn’t an accepted practice but it’s always better to ask for forgiveness than permission when dealing with bureaucracies and if I could get my hands on the keys, it meant doing less damage to the asset to retrieve it so breaking into a home to get the keys was forgivable—if you were successful. But people did get mad and they did shoot to kill. So in speaking about this kind of stuff I understand it from both sides very well.

I’ve also been to Europe and can report that the people there are pretty much a defeated people. Their gun laws and progressive societies have destroyed individual initiative and expectation. They live in small homes that are too expensive and do not have an expectation of personal sanctity the way that Americans do—and this really does trace back to gun ownership. In Europe the chances of being robbed in your home are much, much greater than in the United States because thieves know that nobody is armed in the home. They think nothing of breaking and entering to steal a person’s possessions even if they are there—because being shot is not on their minds. If they have managed to get a gun off the black market then they suddenly have become the strongest person around and they use that force to their advantage—because that’s what most human beings do when they acquire power—they tend to abuse it unless they are governed by a personal constitution of morality and valor. Without those elements they become tyrants quickly—whether they control a vast institution, or are just petty street criminals. It’s all the same human dysfunction on the micro or macro levels.

The person who trained me in martial arts during my teenage years was a thug. He was a lot like the karate school owner in the movie Karate Kid. His sole purpose for the school was to teach young strong males to be killers so that they’d go to tournaments and win trophies for his wall, so that he could then charge high fees to provide instruction. I thought of him as an evil person and he eventually was busted for many crimes and did jail time, but I learned a lot from the guy. I learned that it wasn’t hard to kill a person with your hands, in fact it was pretty easy and once you learned the basics you had leverage over every other human being that didn’t know that information. Most of his students went on to become terrors—and they got into nearly as much trouble as he did. Once they had the power to literally kill with their bare hands they had no fear of anybody and they began to be bullies that nobody could stop. It was the same concept as the robber with a gun who had something everyone else was missing. Outlawing a gun doesn’t change the nature of dominating others as a human predilection. Until that problem is solved, where humans wish to dominate others, whether it’s the liberal using institutionalism to control individual behavior, or a common street thug beating people over the head with a pipe to steal $25 dollars—the desire to rule over other individuals is the problem that must be solved. No institutional laws will have any effect—because the problem at its core is an institutional issue.

More times than even I can recollect I’ve used the threat of violence to keep peace. If someone is robbing you the way to handle it best is to say, “Hay man,” show them the gun under your jacket “you don’t have to die today. I won’t even call the cops. If you keep walking you can go to sleep tonight.” It’s that simple. Just say that, have the gun to show them—even if they are pointing one at you, letting them know you have a gun and are willing to use it, will most of the time cause them to leave you alone. These things don’t happen like they do in the movies. Criminals want a nice easy hit on someone. They don’t want to die or risk injury. If they have to risk that with you, they’ll move on most of the time. That also goes with hired killers. I’ve also known several of them as well, and deep down inside they are just people like anybody else. They don’t want to die. They know that just because you shoot someone they don’t die instantly. They know if you have a gun on you that you could still shoot them even if wounded. Because of guns in our country, we see much less crime than we otherwise would because nobody really knows who has guns in the house and who doesn’t. That secures our private property in the correct way and allows for Americans to think differently than other people around the world do because private property and ownership is the essence of personal responsibility—and protecting those elements makes for a much more civil discourse at the macro level.

Any person advancing gun control measures of any kind, even the “bump stock” debate after the Las Vegas massacre are avoiding the real issue in human failure in dealing with one another. Human desire to control other humans and their thoughts is the problem and until respect at a fundamental level is established for individual sanctity, violence will always be a threat. Those threats often come from institutions because responsibility for individual behavior is disguised. However, gun ownership is more than just symbolic, they are a proper check against the human tendency to inflict through force beliefs of one group against another. The gun creates a level playing field and forces people to respect each other—which is the first foundation of proper human interaction. There is a fine line between fear and respect, and the gun helps society get there better than any law that human beings could invent. And that is the key to a properly managed society. There is nothing barbaric about gun ownership. In fact, the concept is quite a sophisticated one because it takes the human race to a level of thought that has never been achieved before in the history of the world, and the United States is the evidence that it works. Not in the presence of an active gun culture, but in the type of society and options that Americans enjoy that nobody else around the world has. Guns are key to advancing our civilization in very positive ways because they take the bullies out of contention and allow average people to rule their own lives however they see fit. And if their institutions get out of control, then people have guns to retake control, and that is the most important thing of all. Just having the gun does wonders. Hopefully nobody ever needs to use them. But I can say from personal experience that guns work very well at keeping things……..peaceful. Better than anything else ever could hope to. Institutions want to believe they can, but they can’t. They can’t control individual behavior at its core. They can influence it, but they can’t manage it without the occasional madman emerging to destroy innocent people over any little thing.

When I hold a gun, or buy a new gun, I am making an investment into the kind of human freedom that only a gun can provide. And that is not a symbol of violence. It’s a declaration of independence that is philosophical and unique to our species.

Rich Hoffman

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

Las Vegas wasn’t a Terrorist Act, it’s a Battlefield: What’s missing determins the guilt of the Deep State

 

My view of the Las Vegas massacre is not one of terrorism or even derangement syndrome from Stephen Paddock—the millionaire who shot at people from a hotel window into a crowd of country music concert participants. It’s that of a battlefield in this ideological civil war that our country is now locked in. We are clearly not one country of one people focused on a future we can all share together, but a divided country of left and right-thinking philosophies which are not cohesive. One side will win and one side will lose and will be forced to retreat. The calls for peace for which the political left is so well-known for are only to disarm us all for their social incursions. They do not intend to live in peace with conservative Americans, and mean to destroy us, and it is there for which we must begin this discussion. The Las Vegas massacre is a battlefield, not a murder. It is obviously about destroying part of an ideology not in just randomly killing people for a personal objective and this is the reason authorities have not been so forthright about the killer’s motives.
I think the most telling evidence of this assumption is that we actually pause when the FBI says that this was not a terrorist incident, yet we are inclined to believe the ISIS claims that it was responsible—even though this guy was white, older, and affluent. Stephen Paddock doesn’t fit any of our assumptions about terrorism, yet he just committed the largest shooting incident in American history and he went to great effort to buy himself enough time to kill as many people as possible. His hotel suit was strategically selected. He had advanced cameras stationed to give him warning of incoming officers—the whole effort looked more like the ending of the movie Fight Club than anything else. There was an ideological story present that was not being revealed early in the investigation. In a time of massive media footprints from Facebook to Twitter—there is surprisingly nothing known at this point about Stephen Paddock except that he was a retired accountant who was a high rolling gambler that had an Asian girlfriend.

So what we have to go on is to examine what has been erased to draw our conclusions. The attack was against supposed Trump supporters. The gun grabbers were quick to exploit the tragedy and some members of the media actually showed hostility toward the victims because they were believed to be Trump voters. We have seen the Deep State react very violently toward the Trump presidency and even if conspiracy theories are not entertained, we must look at what President Trump has had to endure over the last 9 months and wonder how many of the most farfetched thoughts really are. Some people believe that there are means to control the weather with advanced scientific mechanisms. Three major hurricanes in just a few weeks when we’ve never seen anything like that before have hit the United States. Unprecedented investigations into the affairs of the Trump family when the Obamas and Clintons have been given a free pass—even in the face of great evidence. War being stoked by all the villains of the world, close calls with Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran and constant pressure from every regime to lash out at the United States at the slightest provocation. Trump has had to terminate more employees than any previous administration at a faster rate than at any point in history due to the constant leaks to the press—some of which have come from the ex-FBI director himself. And now on Trump’s watch is the deadliest shooting ever when the President ran on a pro-gun platform. If only one of those things could be tied to the Deep State control of our government and the shadow instigators who hide there, we have an obvious problem. These are not random occurrences, they are deliberately solicited to evoke social change—at least some of them. They are being unleashed to overload this president and the sentiment of his voters into not making such bold assertions in the future. They have declared war against America—these Deep State activists and I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here in saying it, but I bet this investigation into Stephen Paddock leads straight to the door of the Deep State itself. The bread crumbs have been deliberately picked up too obviously. It’s what we don’t see that tells us most about what’s really there. Nobody goes to that much trouble to kill so many people unless there is an ideological purpose, and that ideology was obviously against Trump and his supporters, and that to me means war.

No, this is not the time to consider gun restrictions—not by any means. The first reason would be that we can’t trust our centralized authorities. If the Deep State has so much power that they can so openly harass a rightfully elected president, then they can harass the rest of us at will. They don’t care about laws, they certainly don’t care about respect and obviously collateral damage is something they are willing to utilize to keep their grip on power. The only thing that stands between their complete takeover of American life is our rights to own guns—to stop such a thing from happening. If they were successful in making America a gun free zone then there would be nothing to stop them from running the country. All they need is to make people shake their heads yes to obvious evil such as this Las Vegas shooting to start the ball rolling. They don’t care how many people they must kill to get us to say yes—and that tells us everything we need to know.

Was Stephen Paddock insane—maybe. Maybe he did it for the girlfriend. But he had enough thought in his mind to prepare the battlefield for a game changing moment and we must understand why he would spend so much time, money and even give his life to such a thing. Those reasons don’t point to insanity, they point to warfare and ideological activism that obviously leads to the Deep State. How do we know, well, the evidence has been erased leading there, because the floor is too clean to the door of that Deep State. And that means we need more guns, not less. You don’t give your weapons over to the enemy, and yes, that is how we must view these insurgents.

After Trump was elected many people thought that they didn’t need to buy as many guns, and that they might let their support of the NRA drift in neglect—but trust me dear reader, the time for that support has never been stronger. We need guns now more than ever and we need the NRA. We are not living in a civil society. We are in a time of civil war and in moments like those in Las Vegas the bullets became real more than just ideological. The fuel that cast them into the bodies of so many people was not the guns themselves, but the thoughts behind them. And there is no law for addressing a broken ideology which seeks to destroy people to make a point. Until that war is won by us in the conservative movement, then we must have plenty of guns and the desire to use them to defend ourselves from the villains of our society. And that includes the members of the Deep State—because it’s obvious that they are in a killing mood—and the only way to rectify that is with force of our own—which is sadly the only language they understand.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Miracle of Reading: Why a book is the most powerful thing in the universe

I must take a moment to articulate something a lot of people take for granted—and that is the unique aspects of intelligence possessed by the human race and the ability we have to transfer knowledge to each other. I’m talking about reading specifically. The ability to put down marks on a page, or a rock, and to have some other person interpret the meaning of those marks into intelligent recollection is one of the greatest miracles of the universe. It bothers me to see criticisms of the human race as if nature were in some superior position, as if the construction of a planet or the vastness of space were more important than the ability to read a book. Because it’s not, there is nothing more important than the human ability to read. The ability to convey knowledge of many lifespans and to create cognitive associations based on marks on a page is one of the most important things to emerge from LIFE. The random biological nature of cells to do what they are programmed to do does not equate to the ability to think and to build on intelligence. The mysteries of gravity and the power of light do not hold a candle to the ability to reason through variables and to invent something from nothing.

I had these thoughts recently while on a call with a patent review officer in Washington D.C. while a very expensive lawyer was serving as a bridge between us all. The scope of the meeting was to put the final touches on a patent I’m associated with—something created from nothing which would be launched into the world forever to change a manufacturing technique. We were doing this work from a large conference room table with mountains of written material spread out so that barely any aspects of the wooden table underneath showed through. The amount of reading and writing it took for all of us to arrive at that moment with over 4 years of discussions and all the years of experience we all had amassed over many different careers coming to that point was to me a miracle of human existence, and was a subject of great excitement. The reviewer was a very smart man who had to have read mountains of previous material in order to speak on the conference call so fluidly and it was in that moment that I considered how far the human race had come in just a few thousand years of marking on rocks during the Neolithic period, or even the age of Iron. As humans we realized early on that the way to beat our natural lifespans was to read and write—so that we could cheat death and live on with what we intelligently acquired over a lifetime. Cows, chickens, birds or any other creature anywhere don’t do this. They simply live—do as they have been programmed to do through cellular construction, then they die and are returned to the earth. Only humans leave behind the mark of their lifetimes in the knowledge they acquire and after only a few thousand years of this here we were inventing something and making it all legal—again through the power of the written language.

The anger I have at stupidity is in this regard. I really hate dumb people—because it is a choice. To see humans waste their minds on stupidity, on collective cohesions, to deliberately intoxicate themselves or to develop addictions such as pornographic endeavor, over eating, or smoking is to deprive the miracle that is life from its full fruition and I think it is much more catastrophic than any environmental concern. The worst thing anybody could do in life is to be stupid, and to do it by choice. To not learn to read, to write, or to think. Just the words on this blog site are a miracle in themselves because I can take what’s on my mind, put those thoughts down here for all to read—just marks and symbols that we all agree mean something, and we can exchange knowledge. I can speak to my great, great, great, great, GREAT grandchildren as easily as I’m speaking to you now—and that is quite important—and powerful. That is far more important, and difficult than the reasons for the storm on Jupiter known as the Great Eye. Who cares why the eye happens and never goes away if it doesn’t lead to any knowledge. It is just something mechanical that happens. It doesn’t think or become anything. It just is. And humans are not like that.

The hippies, the climate freaks and the socialist losers out there will say to us that we should smoke dope and yield to the world around us, and to become harmonized with existence. I say that is all bull shit. What they are really saying is that they are too lazy to think, too lazy to read, and too lazy to contemplate invention on improving what is into something that could be. Learning to just live and die isn’t really living. Its surrendering. A thinking human being is the most powerful aspect of existence that there is—and we are meant to change the world around us by the necessity of invention. And we do that through the ability to read. The ability of one mind to put down on paper through symbols the contents of that thought and for some other mind to read those symbols and recollect the thoughts of the first person is amazing. It is the closest thing to actual telepathic utilization that we know in known science. And there is an immortal quality to it that advances all of civilization. A great Orca whale doesn’t sit down and write a book. They simply live, they are born, they seek out food., they mate, they become mentors to the youth, then they die. Virtually all life forms perform at existence this way and there is nothing special about it. There is nothing great about Mother Nature and the world around us—only what we can look at as human beings and improve upon—because we were meant to do so. To fully live is to improve the world around us, not to accept it as it was.

Books, written papers, blogs, articles of formality—these are miracles of human thought that will extend our reach of knowledge deep into the future and will result in even more invention through natural evolution. I say to every drunk, every pot smoker, to every person who deliberately attempts to make themselves stupid so to gain appeal among their peers who do not wish to be challenged by intelligence, that they are a disgrace to everything it means to be alive. To have the gift of cognition, to think above the status of animal behavior and then to turn away from it is simply unforgivable. The ability to think and communicate is the greatest achievement in the universe, even as vast as it is. We marvel at how dolphins can communicate under water, and how humpback whales sing long spooky songs that inspire topless heathens known as beach bums to proclaim them as evidence of a “greater intelligence.” But when was the last time a dolphin wrote a series like the Game of Thrones books by George R.R. Martin? The answer is obvious, and deserves considerable respect. It’s time we stop pandering to the superstitions of the past and begin to highlight what is best about life in general—and it begins with the ability to communicate. That small step from carving out an image on a rock to pass along some thought to other people started a chain reaction which has evolved into those piles of paper I described at our patent meeting—and from there to the essence of modern civilization—which is a wonderful thing. Only those seeking stupidity could argue otherwise—because what they fear is to become something greater than the rest of the universe—and to ponder what might come next.
There are a lot of things I love in life, but there is nothing I love more than a new book. They always excite me, more than anything else does and that is because of what potential each one holds—from the simplest kid’s book to the most sophisticated novel—they have within them a cognitive ability that is very specific to the human condition which strives to be more than our animal natures—and that is the most important thing in all of existence. I place the power and ability to read above the most fantastic forces known anywhere, even a black hole at the center of each galaxy. Those are just mechanical events operating under the rules of physics. The ability to think and ponder changing those rules into something better is what matters most. And that is the key.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Church Shooting in Tennesse: Guns are the only thing that makes us all equal

If the gunman were not a black foreign immigrant who invaded a Tennessee church shooting and maiming innocent people within the congregation—the story would have appeared everywhere for days. But as it stands the story has been lightly covered because it turns out to be a very good one for those who advocate the necessity of the Second Amendment. For whatever his motivations the Sudanese shooter, Emanuel K. Samson brought his troubled recollections to the innocent lives of the masses, and people needed to defend themselves. If not for the actions of another young man, Robert Engle, Samson would have massacred many more people. Here is how The Washington Post reported the story—which is hardly a conservative publication. The facts speak for themselves:

Authorities have not said what motivated the gunman to execute the shooting. Emanuel K. Samson, who used to attend the church, has been charged with murder.

The shooting has shaken this relatively diverse pocket of Nashville, a community now fearful that Samson’s attack on a predominately white church could disturb a sense of racial harmony here.

Samson, 25, is a native of Sudan but resettled in the United States in 1996. Nashville police and federal investigators haven’t publicly identified a motive for the attack, but the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville has launched a civil rights investigation and federal authorities have opened a hate-crime investigation.

“Everyone is saying don’t jump to conclusions and he was a nice guy but I think it was planned,” Goad said. “He knew what he was doing and picked out a place he knew where everybody was elderly, and didn’t expect to encounter anyone who was armed.”

After Samson shot Spann and the other parishioners, another man inside the church, Robert Caleb Engle, confronted him. As the two men struggled, police said, Samson’s gun went off, hitting him in the chest, and he fell to the floor. Engle then retrieved his own handgun and stood over Samson until police arrived.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wounded-minister-in-tennessee-church-shooting-describes-chaos/2017/09/26/6aa229b0-a305-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.7cdc39822148

No matter how much progressive thinking people believe that cultural assimilation is a productive thing to do, their thoughts are deeply flawed. We are not living in the times when kingdoms were united by a simple marriage. In those days people had to swear fealty to a king, so the responsibility for their thoughts and actions were not their own, meaning people of different value systems could be united out of fear of punishment by a centralized figure. But that’s not the way it works in America. People are free here and we do not bend our beliefs to a centralized figure, or even an institution. That puts the burden of social order on the strength of our values and when a group of people are suddenly thrust into a group of another people who have different value systems, then the first primal reaction to it is to inflict violence upon the other so that a challenge of their value systems is not so obvious. That is technically why we have ever had every war the human race has seen.

Now that progressive society has mixed up so many people of different values and put them all in each other’s faces—to force conflict in many cases—now they have to deal with the ramifications of that bad decision. As it stands the strong values of American tradition will prevail simply because they have worked in the past and those challenging those values come from failed states of thought where the roots of belief are very shallow—meaning their foundations are easily eroded away. That would certainly be the case of the Muslim faith and those who reside in poor communities where reading and wealth are not priorities. Their value systems are nurtured due largely to laziness—where other people work out the details and they simply grab on as the trend of the day—which is obviously the case of these young people looking for their way in the world and discovering that there are challenges to their emotional testaments. Without knowing the details of Emanuel K. Samson we can look at the situation and conclude that he was a young man who was finding the challenges of living in America difficult and he had developed enough rage to lash out in a murderous way toward those whose value systems were much different than his. So he grabbed a gun to inflict terror on those different from him. That’s an easy thing to do when the assumption is that the victims will be unarmed.

This kind of thing will of course continue—and will likely get worse as the failed experiments of progressivism fizzle out over the next fifty years. Americans are rediscovering themselves and there are many people like the young Engle who will need to wrestle bandits to the ground under gunfire in the future. Concealed carry holders will be more important than ever before. Personal firearm protection is an increasing need, not a diminishing one. The way to maintain a civil society is not to put the burden on an already overburdened “state” but to allow individuals to help the state by being the first responder to violence—then shielding those individuals from the burdens of legal activism in the wake. As many young men like Samson will discover in a world where capitalism forces values to be well defined—their foundations of belief from wherever they came from may come into conflict with the world around them. Their default reaction will be to inflict violence—so we need to be a well-armed society to protect ourselves from the psychological breakdown of these personal catastrophes, where immigrants finding the beliefs they had were failing to take root among free people—and them not knowing what to do about it other than kill those who are different from them.

To all those who preach equality, nothing makes people equal better than a gun. Personal firearm protection is something that needs to be the wave of the future for all those who wish to live in a free and equal society. Putting more trust in the state certainly hasn’t worked, nor will it ever work. The only thing that does is to have people personally armed so that when people like Samson pull out their guns, we can pull out ours and shoot them dead. Banning guns doesn’t work because Samson would have then just went to a knife or some other raw weapon of malice. Uninventing the gun won’t work either. We have to deal with the values of our people everywhere—and that is something the progressives ignored from the start of their movement. They never thought this thing through, this mixing of people in the ways we are seeing where value systems collide without an answer to heal it, and now we are seeing the ramifications. The only solution is to have personal firearms to deter the violence, and when it does occur, those threats can be quickly removed. Ignoring the situation will not fix it.

I would suggest everyone reading this to obtain a concealed carry permit and to carry a firearm everywhere you legally can. Hopefully you never have to use it. But if you do, you can be ready to blast people like this Samson kid into oblivion. He gave up all his individual rights when he walked into a Tennessee church and put bullets into innocent people. At that point he couldn’t be shot and decommissioned soon enough. Forget about the trails, forget about his human rights. Forget about the social ramifications. Once he made that decision to take the lives of other people—for whatever reason—he gave up his rights to live on planet earth. And only the gun can serve as judge, jury, and executioner in a society of clashing values. Only the gun makes them all equal.

Rich Hoffman

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

New Rules to the Game of Power: From Henry the VIII to the NFL–the world is changed forever

If you know anything about European history, or actually the history of anything human—you will find extensive evidence of people worshipping other people as their rulers.  It is something that is wired into our DNA—we seek masters to rule over us.  Even in America virtually every place of business has some semblance to their own version of the Game of Thrones—Which George R.R. Martin actually based on the War of the Roses in Europe.  People will do almost anything to gain a title that they can then use to acquire power over others and typically that is the name of the game.  When people acquire those titles and that power they have a right to rule over the minds of mankind in whatever capacity the title gives them as defined by our human history.  Such as, a village chief makes all the executive decisions that concern the culture of the people connected to that collection of people.  A CEO at a company performs the same type of function, and of course there are underlings who are always plotting and scheming to nock that person out of their seat so they can then acquire control of a company.   If people cannot become the CEO then they will usually do anything to acquire some seat of power under the CEO—in whatever capacity they can get—because the behavior is toward power acquisition and naturally assumes that the structure of that particular society will obey mindlessly the unspoken conformance to the rules of conduct that has been with us since the beginning of time.  In that pecking order politicians have always assumed that they were greater than say a CEO and thus ruled over all others because they controlled the rules in society that the CEO had to live by, and often this forces the businessman to contribute donations to the cause of the politician to gain assistance with the law giving the impression to all that in the rock, paper, scissor game of life, the politician was superior to the businessman, and that all people under those titles were to mindlessly follow their “betters” without question.

America, or the concept of it anyway, decided to revolt against this trend and provide people with the freedom to choose for themselves to rule themselves and this introduced a very confusing dynamic to the scheme of human endeavor.  It’s only been a few hundred years since this idea was created and compared to the many thousands of years of history within the human race, it shouldn’t be surprising that we are just now getting used to the idea.   Donald Trump is essentially the first president to ever be elected to a position of power based purely on the merit of his life—a free man living by his own inclinations and not given some seat of power by boot licking and heredity.  His political enemies have tried to frame his rise to power in that fashion, but it doesn’t stick because Trump is a man of his own making.  That makes him the most unique world leader in all of human history—which is the source of the anguish against him.

There is a lot of fear leveled at Donald Trump by those who have been playing their own version of Game of Thrones for years and have always thought that if they did this, or that—they’d acquire a seat of power and would then be given some authority over their peers—which they seek desperately.  There are a lot of psychological reasons for the insecurity that drives people to seek these seats of power, but for the context of this article, we must focus strictly on the desire to acquire power.   Donald Trump has changed the rules to the overall game of politics—and that has every establishment person upset because all the rules are changing to the “game” and they don’t want to adapt to it.

There is a secret to those who seek the most power through the acquisition of titles—most of them are notably lazy people.   They want to gain some title for which they can sit and boss other people around without being the smartest, fastest, strongest or most qualified person—and they count on fear to force everyone into compliance.  If merit becomes the dominating factor in acquiring power—as it should always have been—then new rules for acquiring power become mainstream and the lazy people of our species are at a loss.  That is why the establishment is and has always been against Donald Trump.  It is also why people will stick next to Trump no matter what he says or does, because Trump has a track record of success and he acquired his power based on it.

In the past people were so easy to destroy who had these positions of power because they always acquired their power through some sentiment—or some connection to others.  This gave the groupthink people leverage over the title seeker in case they ever stepped out of line.  If a politician slept with some woman while on the campaign trail and later they got out of control with their donors, or they voted incorrectly on something the violator could quickly be dispelled by scandal because what was given by emotional invisible rules could be easily destroyed by the same.  In the days of Henry the VIII if he wanted to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church from controlling his kingdom through the Pope he would marry a protestant rebel and use her to give rise to the movement against the church.  Then after the king had England’s politics wrestled away from the Pope and he was tired of his queen and wanted to change her to another he simply dreamed up chargers of infidelity against her so that he could cut off her head and marry a new woman.  What was given by sentiment and emotion was easily taken away—you see dear reader.

In politics the media has played their own version of kingdom building, they build people up, they tear them down and they use that leverage to control who has power and who doesn’t.  But that doesn’t work on Trump because the former Apprentice star has been through the fires of merit and has earned everything he became.   The media came to Trump to boost their ratings but to their dismay they never gained control of him because what was given was done so to acquire power from the natural aptitude of Trump.  The Apprentice went on to become a big success and introduced reality TV to an unsuspecting audience and would change entertainment forever.  Trump wasn’t cast to the top of the heap because of a bunch of executive producers.  He was already there.  NBC snuggled up to Trump always thinking that they’d gain control of him in some way like they did everyone else in history but it never happened.  Trump went on to become president because of his natural inclinations and is completely free of lobbyists, media influence, or peer groups which is the most terrifying aspect of his presidency to those who have spent their lives playing the games of power only to find out now all the rules have changed.

All the things Trump has said this previous week, from the Rocketman comment regarding North Korea to the blasting of the NFL for not requiring their players to stand during the National Anthem the president has done as a free person—and that is new to the stage of human achievement.  We like that Trump says those things because we feel those things ourselves, but have not had a seat at the table of power to communicate to others.  But in America we elect a president to represent us to the world, we don’t elect a king or a noble overlord—we elect a representative, and Trump represents all those who strive to have a merit based system of power acquisition so that we can actually solve problems in our government, not just to have a class of aristocrats to admire from afar who enchant us with entertainment as our “betters.”  I recognize no person on earth as my “better.”  And the people supporting Trump through thick and thin are of the same mind.  On the stage of history this is the first time this has happened, and it’s scaring the crap out of the world that has never had to deal with this elected phenomena.  Democracies have always paid lip service to this idea of a freely elected person to represent the masses, but always that person was easily controlled by traditional methods.   Now with Trump those rules are changed forever.  Our society will never be able to go back to the way it was—because the way it is, is so much better.  That is the pain you hear on the news from those who have always thought that if they did this or that they would be rewarded with seats of power.  Now those seats are meaningless making their lives meaningless because they have put so much of their lazy selves into that game that now they are left empty and staring into an abyss of future values that are beyond them.  Which is a very good thing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Donald Trump’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Moment: Venezuela’s epic failure due to their commitment to socialism

 

I know, I write about Donald Trump a lot these days.  Yes there are many other things going on in the world—especially local issues,  but as I see it we are witnessing the greatest political trend change that the history of the world has ever seen—and I can’t think of anything more important.  It dosen’t do any good to chase the tail of something as long and elusive as our current social trends which are like a very long snake.  What Trump does today will have a tremendous effect on tomorrow, so it is important to capture those little moments as they occur.  Specifically it was the great United Nations speech that Donald Trump gave which illustrated so many positive things for American culture, but none as great as when the topic of Venezuelan socialism was brought forth and put on the world stage for all to see.

I was surprised years ago when so many people were upset that the great American novel Atlas Shrugged was being made into a movie.  I knew the filmmakers, and was a friend of the crew throughout the production and for them it was a love project.  They had a small budget in order to tell a gigantic story—an epic on the scale of Game of Thrones.  Yet Hollywood wouldn’t touch the project through a legitimate studio with A-list actors essentially because the media companies were so deeply contaminated with socialist and communist supporters that such a pro-capitalist story like Atlas Shrugged was never going to get “green-lit.”

Hollywood has always been a little left but it has only been recently that they were so overtly advocated out-right socialist—as a general philosophy.  Their A-list actors, even people like Harrison Ford, have stepped out of reality and onto the socialist band wagon because it is the social trend of Santa Monica valley these days.  If you go into a bar there by the pier talking about the merits of capitalism those weak-kneed she-males and braless bitches will be ready for a fight—they believe in socialism that much.  So when the independent filmmakers of the new Atlas Distribution Company wanted to make a movie out of one of the great American novels for which Atlas Shrugged is and has always been, all the studios laughed at them.  Many years before the studios laughed at Star Wars too, but that’s another story.  I only say that because “group think” does not understand how to make good movies, or how to detect social trends.  Individuals do.  Remember that.

I thought the movie attempt at Atlas Shrugged was ambitious and they managed to do a pretty good job getting the high points down in a visual form.  I would like to see a big budget Netflix series done for Atlas Shrugged that spans for 10 one hour episodes, because I think that’s what it would take to properly tell the story—but it was a bold attempt even as the entertainment unions pushed back hard on anybody associated with the project.  The production could not keep actors from one film to the next as the movies were divided out into three parts.  The actors were beat on so much by the rest of the Hollywood community that all three movies had a different cast and the only ones who signed up were actors looking for something to do.  It was a real challenge and showed me how bad Hollywood really had become.  All the friendly meetings I had with various people over the years flew right out the window as their true intentions were revealed during the production of Atlas Shrugged.

For those who have read the book you know what I’m talking about.  The modern situation in Venezuela is essentially the plot of the book.  A successful country (the United States in the story) is pushed into socialism by their government and the world plunges into darkness.  Once the government establishes things like price controls and root themselves into a severe crony capitalist market, the world falls apart and it is the point of Atlas Shrugged to identify why.  Essentially the “engines” of the world go on strike and that leaves everyone else starving—literally.  The beauty of Atlas Shrugged is that it does something that Karl Marx never achieved—it identified why some people make everything happen while others destroy the world around them—so if the makers of the world fail to participate, economies fail and countries wither away into dust.   The political Left has never come to grips with this phenomenon and this is the aspect of our civilization that is most important to our continuation into the future.  Marxism and all the fruits that fell from it like socialism, communism and fascism all turned out to be rotten short-lived fantasies first breathed by Sir Thomas More in his classic book Utopia—that were destroyed during westward expansion in the United States.   While Marx and his followers were pushing for labor unions to take over the world by controlling the means of production the railroads, the gold rush and the promise of private property in America used capitalism to fill the sky lines of the worlds next great cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles which until that period was just a border town–until the gold rush then the movie industry gave people a reason to live there.

Venezuela had been a pretty good place to live; it was a thriving country living off its oil reserves until Hugo Chavez brought socialism to their economy.   Once Chavez died a member of his inner circle Nicolás Maduro, a former bus driver (seriously) rose to power as a union leader and became the next president.  If you want to see what happens when labor unions get their way by controlling the “means” of production, just look what happened to Venezuela in just a few short years. As the state took over more and more of its industry, they became much less productive and their economy essentially died right in front of the world.  Now the people of Venezuela are starving—literally, and nobody seems to understand why, at least those who have advocated for socialism. Yet it is the nearly seventy year old book Atlas Shrugged that provided an almost page by page analysis for all to read—but the world watched and let it happen to Venezuela anyway.

What was remarkable about Donald Trump’s speech was that most of the people in that general assembly at the United Nations have emotional connections to socialism.  They are either members of Socialist International or they have been thinking about it.  Only the United States has maintained a defense of capitalism and our economy shows it.  The way for more countries around the world to prevent more people from being poor or from having terrible GDP numbers is to unleash capitalism and reject communism.  China’s communism only works if it attaches itself to a capitalist country and can keep the other nations around them poor so that they can maintain some form of price controls.  But if a country to the south like Vietnam were to adopt capitalism, or Cambodia, India or even North Korea—Russia and those types of places—China’s economy would sink because of their communist system.  What happened to Venezuela was that the price of oil went down and they couldn’t compete. That is all the unsaid story before, and no American president would strongly defend capitalism allowing everyone to shrug their shoulders as if they had nothing to do with anything happening to countries like Venezuela.  But when Donald Trump said what he did it put the issue on the front burner in a way nobody was prepared for, and it properly articulated the problem—boldly, people had to listen.  And that was a significant moment in the history of the world that will be remembered for many centuries.  I thought it was tremendous and it will prove to be bigger than anything that happens on the local level because that culture change will flow into the rest of the country rather rapidly.  And I love it!

Rich Hoffman

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

Guns and Books: The keys to a happy and free civilization–Samantha Power’s guilt

I say it quite a lot these days, and I’ll continue to do so. If you have two main things in your life you can consider yourself a free person. The first is the ability to read and to use it to consume many books over your lifetime. Having the ability to read and use the knowledge gained from books can make a person nearly invincible—95% of the time. If you are smart, you can get through most anything in life, even physical threats—just with what you learn from books. If you put a smart person in an MMA ring with a beast of a world-class fighter—I will bet on the smart person every time. Because there are more tools to beating brute force that come from intelligence that severally put people who rely on just physical strength to get by in life. Then for that last 5% of the time—you need to own and know how to use firearms. The gun is the great equalizer in life, so by having that you can keep villainy away no matter what anybody may throw at you. That’s why in American society, those two things are what I’d say are the two most important elements to living a free life.

To prove my point just look at the mess Samantha Power is in, who used to be the UN Ambassador under the Obama administration. The academic radical used her position to spy on political rivals and essentially brought in most of our intelligence agencies in the process into a grand scheme that showed just how dangerous collectivism in any capacity can be. Most everyone involved in the federal government activity under the Obama administration told the same story revealed by the Power unmasking of Trump political players—which was the modern equivalent to a witch hunt as we’ve ever seen. Many pundits including Rush Limbaugh did a fabulous job of exploring the who, what, when and hows of this story—so my point here would be on the “why” it is necessary to never trust any institutional system that uses collective force to enforce a philosophy. Having the ability to read and to shoot takes away that power from these types of people and are paramount in stopping villainy as we detect it.

It should come as no surprise that fascists—such as the type the Democratic Party have always inspired to become were in the business of book banning and controlling knowledge—because they needed stupid people to follow them. Smart people who are well-informed would never follow these losers who rallied behind Samantha Power to unmask people connected to the newly elected President Trump. If it can happen to a sitting president with made-up chargers created to justify wiretapping, or any other spying the government wished to conduct on their quest to control political dialogue—then it can happen to any of us. What stops that behavior is of course a well-informed society where internet information is free and easy to access, books of all kinds are available on the open market, and people are free to assemble as the Tea Party did to share educational treasures uncovered during intellectual quests that inspire others to also gain knowledge.

The same people who want to limit what people read, and watch on television under the umbrella of free speech, are the same as those who are always demanding a control on firearms and want to ban personal guns. I personally think that people should be able to carry guns everywhere—that we should be able to wear them on our hips everywhere we go, even to weddings and to court appearances. If someone doesn’t have ill intentions toward you, nor you toward them—it keeps everyone honest. The gun banning people want to put themselves between you and a potential rival as a mediator taking away the responsibility for two parties to actually work out their problems allowing passive-aggressive activity to take control of the process of peaceful exchange replacing mutual respect for fear of the law.

It is highly unlikely that a person would pick a fight with another person if that other person was wearing a gun. It doesn’t matter how big they are, or what sex they may be—when people see a gun on their hip, respect for what that gun can do is the first thing on everyone’s mind—which forces all dealings with that person to be done at an elevated level of respect. If you take that respect away and replace it with fear of prosecution, then those who think they can buy and twist the laws of our land to their advantage may not be so hesitant to do something corrupt. This is clearly what we see in the case of the Obama administration using Samantha Power to commission the many weapons of government to attempt a coup against an American election. They did it because they didn’t fear that anybody would shoot them, and they figured they controlled the strings of government so what was a person like Trump going to do to them—so long as the media played along? That’s the kind of world you get when you take respect for other people out of the equation and replace it with an adhesion to fear. The more fearless, or less moral of the human species will always think they can gain an advantage over others if they are stupid, and unarmed. That’s why Samantha and her partners under the Obama administration thought they would get away with what they did. They never expected they’d ever get caught because at the time they controlled the law and most of the people they deal with were either stupid, or unarmed—likely both.

Carrying a gun isn’t about killing other people, its more about preventing other people from killing you. Just having it does most of the work for you which then frees up your mind to pursue more intellectual pursuits. When you don’t always have to worry about some power-hungry fool coming into your life to disrupt you in some way, you can then read books and contemplate bigger ideas. Some of the best people you’ll ever meet in life are those who read more than fifty books a year and also do a lot of shooting—like people in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and in the Dakotas. They are not stupid people and they are mostly all heavily armed. You don’t see their cities being shaken to the ground in protests, and you certainly don’t associate them with any kind of crime. There’s a reason for that—and it starts with the gun and ends with the average intelligence of the people who tend to read more than other places in the country. Books and guns are the keys to a healthy and happy life and those who best utilize those two very simple things are those who end up most successful at the very foundations of existence. The proof is clear, and where those things are missing—such as in our Beltway culture, the worst that comes out of the human experience is prevalent. That is why Obama and the Democrats in general always look for ways to impose gun control. That is also why they have problems with free speech. They need people unarmed and stupid so that they can rule your minds. Once people are armed with knowledge and weapons, people like Samantha Power are just pests who can quickly be swatted aside, and that’s exactly what is happening in the age of Trump.

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

St. Louis Protesters Vandalize the Mayor’s Home: Lyda Krewson should have gunned down the people on her lawn

The St. Louis protests over the shooting of an alleged drug dealer during a police arrest migrated into radicals upset with the lack of prosecution by the legal system to go over to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home and vandalize it by throwing rocks through the windows and blasting it with red paint.  In the process nine St. Louis police officers were injured, two of them seriously, one with a broken jaw, the other with a dislocated shoulder—and in my opinion the protestors crossed the line from something possibly protected under the umbrella of free speech and migrated into something where an armed defense of the mayor’s home was justified.  Lyda appears to be a nice lady who did everything she could to deescalate the situation with non-violence, but I would argue that in so doing she actually perpetuated the situation.  It would have been better to put bullets into those attackers when they came to her home and to send them to the hospital, or to the morgue at that point in time instead of taking the passive position that she did—because she only empowered them further.

I have some experience with this kind of thing and my general policy is to engage violence with more violence than the attackers can handle.  If they come to your house to throw eggs, then you should burn their cars so they can’t escape and cripple them so there is no retreat-until the police can come to make an arrest.  Playing nice with people who are willing to vandalize private property doesn’t make things better.  As the mayor said, nobody was hurt and that she can fix what was vandalized—but in all actuality people were hurt, police were hurt seriously and getting hit in the face with bricks could have easily have killed those police officers, which to me opens up the options of what should be done to those attackers to deescalate the situation in the future.

Private property is what we’re talking about here.  While Mayor Krewson’s position is the one that current law and order adheres to—it has the assumption that material things can be replaced but lives cannot-it is technically wrong.  The reason for the police, the Second Amendment and the trappings of a legal system are to protect the private property of America’s citizens.  By going to the mayor’s home and attempting to influence her where she lives the mob was purposely attempting to use fear and the destruction of private property to influence the nature of law and order.  That is not acceptable.   When those lines are crossed and a mob of insurgents arrives to your place of residence to influence your behavior in the realm of law and order, then violence in return is the only option.

Obviously the actions of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA are open about their strategies of violence against those they disagree with, so that opens the play book to violence which can then be conducted against them.  And the battleground which gives merit to the action is in the defense of private property.  I would say to the reporters who had to endure having water bottles being thrown at them, or violence inflicted on them in any way that your personal space then becomes private property and should be defended with any means necessary.  If the attackers lose their life in the process–then so be it—they had it coming.  This is the right way to think about these matters.

I’m writing this now as a kind of qualifying statement for future behavior.  Speaking for myself, I get by most days without having to inflict violence on other people.  If it happens it’s never because I started the conflict.  I have had to be violent with people before on occasion and while doing so have in my mind the complete destruction of those people.  Most of the time things work out alright and everyone lives to see another day.  But when it comes to private property and the defense of it, we have a right as individual American citizens to defend it.  Our politics does not give those rights over to enemy insurgents to do with whatever they want.  If I were the mayor of St. Louis I would have had to engage those people after the first broken window with violence that likely would have ended their existence—because it would have been the right thing to do.  All that stands between such things is law and order and once the mob failed to be contained by law enforcement, then the next tier of defense is personal protection.  For me, I have lots of options, but firearms are part of that defense.

I always try to use other methods before reaching for the gun in this present so-called civilized world.  Someone trained in various combat methods should have various degrees of defensive persuasion to apply against villains.  But for Mayor Krewson who obviously is a nice lady who doesn’t think much about such things, machine gunning down the protesters on her lawn would have been acceptable.  Those protestors made it very clear that they were willing to fight and possibly kill the law enforcement personnel on the streets—so that means that all the rules are off the table and anything goes—essentially.  It is quite obvious that appeasing these radicals is not the best method and that our legal system does not know how to handle these matters.  The path of Mayor Krewson has only made the situation worse.  Turning your back on these types of aggressive people empowers them to do more vile acts, it doesn’t deter them.  So we must draw the line somewhere and a personal residence where your family sleeps and your possessions are kept is where that thin line of justice resides.  If anybody is willing to cross that line, then they are said to be willing to surrender their life to your protection of it.  Because you really have no way of knowing what their intentions are.  Are they there to simply scare you, or under the pressure from the mob and the politics of our times, will they simply revert to the animal nature of rape, pillaging, and death?  We must assume the worst and hope for the best, but if they cross that line, they’ve made that decision for us.

A legal system that cannot protect our private property and our pursuit of happiness is ineffective and they don’t have a right to then prosecute us, the law abiding, with the use of firearms or other things to protect our personal sovereignty—and our bodies are part of that sanctity.  People do not have a right to get in our faces, vandalize our cars, or threaten our homes in any way shape or form.  If politicians cannot get this situation under control and use the rules of law to produce a society filled with justice, then we have no other choice.  In my opinion the mayor should have gunned down those protesters and left the lifeless bodies hanging from the trees of her front yard—because that’s the only language that people corrupted with primal instincts understand.  And in the realm of value assessment private property cannot always be replaced.  It represents more than material possession—it is a token of our personal sovereignty, and if we don’t have that in American society—then we have nothing of law and order.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Piracy of St. Louis Protesters: It’s a behavior problem, not one of law and order

It’s important to understand what is going on at the St. Louis riots over the weekend of 9/15 2017.  We’re not talking about a free speech case where protesters were just upset over the ruling from a court case where a police officer shot a man of color during an attempted arrest—we are dealing with communist trained radicals who fundamentally want to change the nature of American life.  After the acquittal of the police officer due to a lack of evidence, the Black Lives Matter people along with ANTIFA took to the streets to vandalize the mayor’s home and commit violence against police officers and journalists hiding the action behind free speech—when in fact all it truly was could only be considered open insurrection.  It’s time that we properly define things so that we can deal with them.  People who are working against the American way of life don’t get to tear down the institutional judgment of protections under the 1st Amendment and even the 2nd Amendment, then hide behind them to commit violence, loot stores, break people’s bones and generally become a menace against society.  We don’t have a system of law and order which allows for mob justice-such as what these communist oriented protestors are advocating—that if you don’t like a court ruling, you get to destroy things built by a capitalist society.  That behavior just isn’t acceptable and deserves to be met with violence of its own.

The suspected drug dealer who was shot in this case by a panicky police officer is an old story and it won’t be the last time.  If you are a thug who shows no respect for the law you are giving an open invitation to the police to shoot you.  If I acted the way that guy did when the officers tried to arrest him, using a car as a possible projectile to run the officers over, they’d shoot at me also.  It has nothing to do with being black—but everything to do with having law and order on the side of the police who are commissioned to walk a fine line between justice and anarchy.  Without police, people like these protestors would turn our society into some rotten destination of human degradation—and when they get the police on their heels paralyzing them from action, which is precisely what happens they change the nature of our society into a much greater negative.  Of course that is part of the strategy behind the anti-capitalist groups that sponsor these race riots such as what we saw in St. Louis and many other places recently.  But it’s important to remember that it isn’t a race situation at all, it’s a behavior problem.  The police will shoot at a white person under the same conditions as they will a black person.  The difference is that the black person has been taught from their youth in many cases to function in a victimized state and that the law doesn’t apply to them whereas the typical white criminal shows much more restraint when dealing with the police—so they get shot a lot less often.

Additionally, it’s the location of these shootings, usually in inner city dwellings and city streets where crimes are statistically higher because of the demographic circumstances.  The Democratic failures of applying people of low value into concentrated dwellings has produced a society of crime where the only way to advance their lives is through criminal conduct.  If you take young black men and give them mentors, and raise them in the suburbs where there are good neighbors, things to do, and reading isn’t considered a negative—they tend to grow up somewhat successful and they don’t get shot by cops because they aren’t in trouble to find themselves in that situation.  It’s not a color problem it’s a behavior problem.   The way to fix it is to change the way that people live in cities and under what conditions.  Throwing money at them isn’t enough; you have to change their behavior from the ground up.  The people participating in the St. Louis riots this past weekend are not interested in law and order; they are conducting themselves as communist insurgents looking to rule society through mob influence.  If they don’t get what they want they are looking to the violence of a mob to change the conditions of the world around them—and that is an essentially anti-American activity.  We can define that by characterizing the nature of the rule of law toward individual behavior as opposed to mob justice-which is a distinctly different thing.  Mob practices are associated with communist and socialist countries, not American culture, so to apply it to this case complete with flag burning voids the warranty so to speak of constitutional protection.

As a society we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by people who have no intention on living within the parameters of a capitalist nation.  You can’t have a nation of communists within a nation of capitalists and expect everything to work out OK.  That’s just not possible.  Just like you can’t have a bunch of people protesting the values of the United States flag by not standing for the National Anthem or burning the American Flag then claiming that the activity is protected by that same flag under the Bill of Rights.  It’s just preposterous.  When we stand for the flag or put it up our flag pole, we are saying to one another that we adhere to the values for which that flag represents.  You can’t protest those values then when trouble breaks out run to the protection of that flag, even as you burn it in the city streets of St. Louis.  You also don’t have a right to protest that flag if you are currently taking money from the government for which that flag has been instituted—and most everyone participating in those St. Louis riots have their hand in the government cookie jar—so we need to look at this situation with the correct lenses.

Vile groups who hate America are using these protestors and the issue of race to fundamentally change the nature of American culture.   Back in the glory days of the pirates off American coasts where looting nations were hauling gold back to Europe from the conquered Central and South American regions, it was customary to fly the flag of whatever ship you wanted to raid.  As you got closer, as a pirate and earned their trust so they would not fire on you prematurely, pirates would then run up the Jolly Roger flag to let the victim know that they were about to be attacked and by then it was too late to flee or prepare the cannons.  That’s how pirates took over vessels to loot them of their worth without being blown from the water.  Communist groups are doing the same thing in St. Louis; they are using black people, poor people, stupid people and out-right criminals to get close enough to the law of our times to take over institutions under a condition of social paralysis.  It’s not a case of free speech; it’s an act of piracy.  The only way to quell that violence is with violence because reason has left the battlefield.  It’s a behavior problem which causes these situations, but its insurgent activity which fuels the violence afterwards with an aim of changing our nation from a capitalist society to a communist one.  That is what these rioters are really after, so we should treat them accordingly—and stop treating these insurgents as if they have a right to do what they are doing.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why Hillary Clinton is Technically Insane: The dangers of people who are functionally crazy who seek office–like Joan Powell

I wouldn’t keep talking about it but it’s such a fascinating example of mass psychosis that we’d be doing the human race an injustice not to examine the situation. Of course I’m talking about Hillary Clinton’s book tour for her new excuse called What Happened. While doing press for the book she has said some of the most bizarre things I think I’ve ever heard as a collection of thoughts from one person in serious denial. Its equivalent to a psychiatrist conducting theory on a wife-beating alcoholic drooling from being freshly drunk with his spouse sitting next to him with blood dripping from her lips from a fresh beating and bruises all over her face and arms and for the drunk blaming the lawn mower for all the miseries in his life. Mark Dice did a pretty good video seen below on this subject, but honestly, the collection of many clips displaying the sheer insanity of Hillary Clinton is overwhelming—even for people like Dice. It is difficult for any sane mind to even grapple with the insanity it takes to pull off the Hillary Clinton case. As it turns out, she is even worse than her most vicious detractors have theorized. Hillary represents just how crazy progressives typically are and how delusional they are about the nature of the world around them. Naturally a person who cannot deal with reality in the forms for which it is presented is clinically insane and must be treated with cautiously.

Locally in my home town politicians like Joan Powell who is running for a trustee seat displays similar insanity as Hillary Clinton—because the situation isn’t specific to Clinton—it is rather indicative to a mass psychosis that emerged as a result of progressive philosophy being injected into a traditional Christian culture in America and assuming that it had a right to do so. Those who subscribed to it have had to actually ignore elements of reality to pull off the ruse—in themselves, and that process has destroyed their grip on truth as defined by the relativity of human society. I have often looked at these local politicians and their supporters—like in the case of Joan Powell and observed their craziness. But the situation is obviously even deeper than that. With Hillary Clinton representing kind of a spokeswoman for insanity, many people suffering from this condition follow her blindly and its fascinating to observe. They typically say and do the same kind of things as Hillary is exhibiting—and we might not have this observational window into their crazy minds if not for the hurt feelings of the former presidential candidate who assumed that she would win an election just because she was a woman.

I never took Hillary Clinton serious as a candidate. I thought Trump would win a full year ahead of the election and I said so much on these very pages. When it was clear that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee and not someone like Joe Biden, I knew the party had picked the wrong person and that they would be defeated. I even predicted this current situation for Democrats live on the radio just a few weeks before the election of 2016. It was clear to me what was going on not because I’m a white male with an affluent background—but because I’m dealing with reality and the rules of nature to make decisions. Hillary Clinton and her supporters are not—they deal in a kind of voodoo cult of belief, suspicion, assumptions and superstitions indicative of the early hominids of our species. For people who call themselves “progressives” they have not evolved passed observing a lunar calendar and having a party when there is a summer solstice or doing a rain dance trying to usher in water for their dried-up crops. It’s not against the law to be stupid—largely it’s a choice—and people are free to be stupid if they want. But they are not free to be stupid and rule over others—and that was exactly what Hillary Clinton and all her doppelgangers running for various offices around the United States are attempting to do. Knowing something about human nature, I never thought she had a chance even though she was sold as reality by those in the media who think they are the progenerates of truth.

It’s one thing to believe something even if it’s not there, it’s quite another to go into public and blast it from every avenue defending it which clearly indicates insanity when the values of the message do not align with reality in any way, shape or form. That is what Hillary Clinton is doing on this book tour. Anybody with a thinking mind can hear her talk and know that she is not a person people like. She is a person most people would not enjoy having a beer with unless they themselves were suffering from the same condition. The trouble with Hillary is that people just don’t like her and they never have. She’s always been Bill Clinton’s punching bag and that earned her sympathy from sadomasochists and drug addicts, but normal people found her repulsive—and she should have known that going into this whole effort. But to go to the extent to break the law like she did before the campaign ever got started was in itself a kind of mass psychosis. Only really dumb people were buying into her candidacy and her polling numbers should have shown her that—and they likely did, only she didn’t pay attention to it because she was living in her own brand of reality. But to put herself out there as a presidential candidate with the media fully at her back, the crony capitalists, the progressives, the global elites, and the entire Beltway culture trying to get her elected and still get destroyed in the Electoral College is something quite spectacular. It wasn’t racism, sexism or fear of any kind that kept her from getting elected. It all came down to the fact that she was a terrible candidate and a not very likable person.

Then to watch her go around assuming that reality is something else and to write it all down for all to study for many centuries in the future is pretty crazy. If she had even a thread of sanity she would have just retired and let people think what they wanted—but to go out into society and say the things she is shows an insanity that is actually quite troubling. There are a lot of people out there in the world who aren’t very smart who use power gained through peer pressure to cover their illness—and Hillary gives them validation and hope. What should happen in the case of people like the local politician I mentioned such as Joan Powell is that they should get medical attention. But instead, because of Hillary these insane people are kind of cosplaying at life, dressing up as normal people but playing the role of a social lunatic. And that might be fine for their domesticated lives, but when they seek the levers of power for other people, that’s when they become dangerous.

Rich Hoffman

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