Welcome to the End of the World: Will it be laissez faire capitalism or socialism–don’t let the stupid decide

The only real solution to the health care debate is more competition.  Now, because of the oligopoly and mandatory requirements on insurance coverage, prices are now guaranteed to always go up.  The only way to change that guarantee is to introduce competition—sort of like what’s happened with oil prices where a few years ago we were told that they’d always go up.  But once the United States started fracking more heavily and other nations joined into the oil-producing fray, the Gulf States lowered their costs to squeeze down the margins making domestic oil investments less profitable—hoping to maintain their dominance on the market.  Currently in health care—due to hundreds of millions of dollars poured off K-Street into politics—there are only an oligopoly of insurance providers—which drives up all the costs ridiculously.  As I’ve covered here many times, a lot of this health care cost isn’t even necessary any more.  CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHY.  There are cures for cancer, there are technologies for regenerative growth—there really isn’t any reason to be sick or to even grow old.  The only reason we still do is to satisfy the market expectations of the pharmaceutical companies.  Things have to change dramatically and quickly.  Obamacare has to go away and the next president will have to tap into as much laissez-faire capitalism as possible—otherwise there’s no chance.

On the Democrats side of the political spectrum, they don’t really have a candidate for president.  Hillary Clinton is a criminal and I have serious doubts as of this writing that she will be able to beat the socialist Bernie Sanders for the nomination.  Then with that said, I really don’t think America is ready to elect an open socialist.  I don’t think in 2016 the nation is ready to accept socialism the way that France has, and many other European countries.  A large portion of America has been raised on socialism—especially victims of public school over the last two decades.  They have been taught in their educations that socialism is the way to go—especially college graduates.  It takes most young people at least a decade to start seeing the reality that they can only get once their parents cut them off from an allowance, and they pop out a couple of kids.  Hopefully by that time they aren’t sick with venereal diseases and can actually live moderately healthy lives for two or three decades without overloading the doctor’s office every time they get a sniffle—which is another large contributor to insurance increases—the preponderance of so many people living their life with risky lifestyles—reckless sexual attitudes, chemical abuse through narcotics and alcohol—and high fat diets.  What is remarkable however is how stupid most people are these days, and to exemplify it read the comments below from a recent CNN article about health care and the Bernie Sanders socialist approach.  We all know they are out there, but it’s another thing to hear them speak so foolishly.  Have a look and read the CNN article linked below.

DemandSider12 hours ago

@davidfour @sunny5280 

We have let capitalism run rampant, to the point that we borrow money from Communist China, to subsidize the human resource budget of our largest private employer, so that they can profitable import from Communist China. Do you think this is wise?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/16/news/economy/sanders-health-care-taxes/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

hardhatharry6 hours ago

I’m a Bernie fan but why even get people worked up about this, we all know Congress would never pass 99% of his ideas.  What it would cost is irrelevant, he is just getting people talking about it longterm. 

FlagShare

1LikeReply

medianone5 hours ago

@hardhatharry You never know….  Conservatives have done a great job of pushing their “anything but Obama” or “anything Obama does it bad, terrible, a failure” to the point that maybe people would consider something different that is not associated with Obama.  Maybe?

FlagShare

1LikeReply

QuestionCNN5 hours ago

@hardhatharry What this article refused to mention is that Hillary will do the same thing – increase taxes under the pre-tense of providing Universal Health care, then divert it to pay for her police-state Marxist Utopia. But CNN is in the Clinton camp and is helping her by providing free negative campaign attacks on the other Marxist – Bernie Sanders 

FlagShare

LikeReply

DemandSider5 hours ago

@hardhatharry 

This election reminds me a lot of the 1932 election The inequality, the Republican leaning Congress, the economic collapse due to middle class destruction and speculation. With FDR’s election, both Houses switched to heavily Democratic. Sanders’ views are very similar to FDR’s. 

FlagShare

LikeReply

RustyShackel1 hour ago

@DemandSider @hardhatharry Agreed, Bernie does seem like such a believer in the authority of government that he would take actions to throw Americans in imprisonment camps much like FDR did with innocent japanese-American citizens. I wonder who Bernie would target  – conservatives? The rich?

FlagShare

LikeReply

DemandSider1 hour ago

@RustyShackel @DemandSider @hardhatharry 

No, you are confusing him with Chewbaca, The Confederate Republican nominee. He’ll probably just put another wing on in Cuba, call it Trumptanomo, and make a killing at tax payer expense, per usual with these “free market” parasites.

FlagShare

LikeReply

DemandSider7 hours ago

sickforprofit.com/ceos

Stephen Hemsley, CEO, United Health Care, total value of unexercised stock options (Forbes):  $744 million

“Hemseley returns $190 million in stock options acquired as as result of practices found to be fraudulent by The SEC” -American Medical News

Edward Hanway, Cigna CEO, total value of unexercised stock options, $28.8 million,five year compensation, $120 million “The family of a 17 year old girl who died hours after Cigna reversed a decision to deny her liver transplant to sue” -Oakland Tribune

Michael McCallister, CEO, Humana, total value of unexercised stock options, $60.8 million, “Humana abandons seniors in Florida; returns after Republicans pass new Medicare law, upping HMO payments by 25%” – NY Times

Has this Bernie Sanders fella no sense of decency??!?  Who would hire these, ah, people?

  

FlagShare

2LikeReply

pulsecolo7 hours ago

@DemandSider Gosh, those salaries could be used to help pay to retrain and pay

all those insurance company employees mentioned earlier…. 

FlagShare

1LikeReply

JRCHICT6 hours ago

@DemandSider ” Bernie Sanders would LIKELY raise taxes,……”

“SOME experts say,…..”

Great journalism Tami

FlagShare

2LikeReply

medianone5 hours ago

@JRCHICT @DemandSider to be fair, or at least in cutting Tami some slack; we do live in a very litigious society.

Plus the article did say, “Sanders’ plan hasn’t been evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office or major think tanks…” which seems to be the standard for vetting candidate tax proposals.

But I agree with your thinking.

FlagShare

LikeReply

DemandSider1 hour ago

@medianone @JRCHICT @DemandSider 

Yes, for a person to have their medical bills reimbursed, they often MUST be litigious. SIngle payer would ease the burden on our courts. 

FlagShare

LikeReply

DemandSider12 hours ago

Insurance stocks rose with the passage of ACA. I don’t think they’ll rise with single payer. Manufacturers should rejoice, however, as their expenses will fall a lot.

FlagShare

1LikeReply

booboospal11 hours ago

Assuming a President Sanders could get his proposal through Congress, how would it affect (adversely?) the 50 million and increasing number of folks now getting Medicare benefits?

FlagShare

LikeReply

CPR8 hours ago

@booboospal Well it would greatly impact the hundred thousand plus people that work in private insurance or in support of it. 

FlagShare

LikeReply

booboospal8 hours ago

CPR: Do you know the answer to my question?

FlagShare

LikeReply

pulsecolo7 hours ago

it would do nothing to adversely affect those folks, the only thing that would happen is that the advantage plans would go away.   But, there would no longer be a need for advantage plans as better coverage would prevail for all seniors as well as the rest of us with everyone in the pool.  Keep in mind, that the Silver  exchange plans under the ACA, that most Americans have with the subsidies,  have much higher deductibles and out of pocket costs than traditional Medicare does without any advantage plan at all.  The insurance industry successfully lobbied and sold America on the “snake oil need” for advantage plans.  Advantage plans have a daily deductible for in hospital stays, and do not cover long term care.   Plus, when seniors sign up for them, they may actually be paying more in the long run than had they banked the money they are spending for those plans.  

FlagShare

1LikeReply

booboospal6 hours ago

pulse:

Would there still be Part B premiums?

Would retiree pension and investment income be taxed more than now to pay insurance costs?

Would there still be a need for supplementary coverage?

FlagShare

1LikeReply

JRCHICT6 hours ago

@booboospal  all good questions.

I’m pretty sure though that we’ll have many who will expect to be perfect right out of the gate. Find any and all reasons to condemn it as we’ve done w/ ACA

Primarily use it as a political football.

FlagShare

LikeReply

medianone6 hours ago

@booboospal Again, all good questions.  And shouldn’t debate on universal health care also include looking at other countries who’ve successfully implemented such systems?  Their costs, outcomes, sustainability, etc?

Seems like this debate has been ongoing for decades, at least since Hillary Care proposals.  And if other countries have been successfully operating single payer systems and covering 100% of their populations, it is a wonder our “top men” haven’t been able to track these successes and implement them here. 

FlagShare

LikeReply

JRCHICT6 hours ago

@medianone @booboospal  I’m not sure our “top men” care more about taking the money from the lobbyists of the health and insurance corporations for same old same old, or they’re interested in doing what’s right for us.

FlagShare

LikeReply

booboospal10 hours ago

My former employer pays a fixed monthly amount (adjusted each year) toward employee AND RETIREE and dependent health insurance. So far it has been enough $$ to cover a Blue Cross supplemental policy AND the basic tier Medicare Part B premium for both my wife and me. Of course both of us paid for Part A (hospitalization) Medicare coverage by payroll tax while we were employed.

How would the Sanders proposal affect us?

Anyone?

FlagShare

LikeReply

CNN User8 hours ago

@DemandSider

Republicans: you blame non religions christians, atheists,Muslims, blacks,Hindus, Obama,gays etc. for US weak middle class,but the real problem is no healthcare,expensive college, no paid maternity leave etc. 
—- 
-evil socialist countries all rank higher in median wealth(or wealth of the middle class) 
Source: 
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2013/06/us-median-wealth-only-28th-in-world.html 

(Before you republicans blame colored people, remember that UAE, Kuwait , Qatar, Singapore have a high percentage of colored folks but still have a richer middle class than us ) 

If you don’t believe my source just google “median wealth by country” and you will see similar results. 

We dont have paid maturity leave, free healthcare or free or reduced college. We are the only developed country to not have this. Thats why we rank so low.

Uninsured by state- 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184514/uninsured-rates-continue-drop-states.aspx 

dem. states have a lower percentage of uninsured than republican states

Those are some really poorly educated theories shown above generated by a society raised on a terrible public school system which taught them all the wrong things.  The basic instruction was that mixed economies such as what Scandinavian socialism proposes is the answer to equal distribution of resources without considering what the source of the value of what’s distributed entailed.  For years the word on the street was that the United States would become more service oriented as other countries would become the producers.  Otherwise, China and the Gulf States would make most of our American stuff and we’d have more time to think about things and have service jobs to sustain those “intellectual” pursuits.  Well, that plan hasn’t worked out.  The “money” jobs are now overseas and socialists think that by raising McDonald’s jobs to $15 an hour that the “middle class” will be sustained.  Only idiot academics who live in a campus bubble could have concocted such a stupid notion.  Only laissez-faire capitalism will solve our problems.  Not crony capitalism which is what the pharmaceuticals and oil conglomerates have—I’m talking about open markets competing with each other to offer the most superior product for the lowest price.

All the countries mentioned above, places like UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Singapore are ultimately servicing the United States demand for products.  The United States creates the global demand with their $17 trillion a year in gross domestic product.  That GDP in order to survive by the way must increase by nearly double just for us to hope to survive as a country—and for the world in general to even have a chance.   Without the United States all those mentioned countries wither away and die.  So they are not examples of success or flowering epitaphs to managed economies.  Socialism is the tombstone that the epitaph needs to be inscribed upon, because it has not worked.  The United States is the only life support the world has.  It is sad that more people don’t understand that.

The next president cannot be a Democrat.  The House and Senate can’t just have Republicans; it has to have “conservative” Republicans the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  Whoever is in the executive branch will have to be willing to fight the world and idiots like those in the comments above from their instructed commitments to socialism and convince them to embrace not just capitalism, but the most open form of it imaginable– laissez-faire.  We are no longer at a “theory” phase in this global economic struggle.  We are at the rubber hitting the road phase and it’s not the time for games.  If the situation doesn’t get fixed right here and now it will be over in the future.  Because there are just too many socialists who are having kids and are raising them to be just as stupid as they are—the evidence is right above you—they do exist.  Astonishingly they somehow manage to feed themselves, but they aren’t much good for anything else.  But they do vote.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

‘Once Upon a Time in the West’: Hidden truths in a declining culture as time does fly

Little things matter to me quite a lot.  I notice everything and of my many careers over a lifetime, one of them will be a cultural expert where psychology, art, religion, economics and all other forms of unnamed human ambition find their way into every created thing on earth.  I grew up for as long as I can remember wanting to be a film director—but not being a very collaborative person—relegated that desire for more inward pursuits.  Because of all that I can say with great provocation that the world is in a severe cultural decline.  America obviously leads the world in culture—even though many academics might dispute it.  The evidence is in our movie houses and our music with great audacious display.  So rather than slide my predilections into the direction of the current pendulum swinging culture of global unification I am focusing much more these days on American westerns as a foundation philosophy that stands in contrast to the world currently presented to us.

I was born in 1968 and a few months after my birth one of the greatest films ever made was released—it was a Sergio Leone western called Once Upon a Time in the West.  Leone was an Italian director interpreting American westerns for a country trying to fight its way back from cultural decay after World War II.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Leone at the time was best known for his “Dollars” trilogy which made Clint Eastwood into a star.  Those films are and have always been fantastic.  But for the director Leone they gained him the opportunity to make the western of his dreams off the success of the previous Eastwood films.  Paramount Pictures tossed the world to him along with a host of first class stars and Sergio Leone along with his musical collaborator Ennio Morricone spun a masterpiece called Once Upon a Time in the West.

Some of my very first television memories were these spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone replaying on Channel 19 in Cincinnati.  My grandfather loved westerns and whenever I was at his farm-house he had them on, so my mother also watched them all the time as well because it reminded her of her dad.  Of them the Sergio Leone westerns reflected my own observations about people even when I was very young—and I soaked them up.  Before I was ever in the kindergarten I was a fan of Once Upon a Time in the West.  I often confused all Leone’s westerns together until I was just shy of ten and it was then when I began to appreciate Once Upon a Time in the West as something of its own.  The Leone films had hard-wired themselves into my consciousness.  My very first time in front of a television camera was when I was sixteen during “tough guy” week on Channel 19.  “Tough guy week” was a ratings grab at Channel 19 so they ran Steve McQueen movies along with a lot of Clint Eastwood to bump up their winter numbers.  At a young age I had evolved into having a “reputation” and I was sitting at the dinner table of a prominent Sharonville judge, his wife and the biggest criminal of Northern Cincinnati at the time.  The event was a Chinese New Year advertisement for a restaurant that I worked at.  One of the owner’s sons was a guy who liked to dip his feet into that type of world where justice sits at dinner tables with known criminals and he used me even at that young age as one of his “heavies.”  I enjoyed the experience because I was essentially living the life of the protagonists in Sergio Leone’s westerns and I discovered by living those characters in real life that one of my favorite film directors was in fact a genius.  As I sat at that table during that day long commercial recording talking to the judge and the crime lord obviously working together with me in the middle and being told by that same judge that when I got into trouble—he’d take care of it–I knew for me there was no going back.  At too young of an age I knew way too much about the way the world worked.  I was then and still am about 60 years ahead of myself and it does really go back to Leone’s westerns and my young introduction to them.  When the commercial aired on television my family was one of the first people back then to have a VCR so I was able to tape it.  My television appearance aired with the judge and the criminal seated on either side of me during a showing of For a Few Dollars More.  During that same Channel 19 “tough guy” week Once Upon a Time in the West was shown again and I was able to see it as a 16-year-old actually doing in real life much of what the Charles Bronson character was doing in that film and I watched it with new understanding for the first time.  It was as real and honest of any motion picture I had ever seen—it was to my eyes much better than The Godfather which was still making cultural waves in that year of 1985.  A month later I was involved in a fight with a bunch of people which led to a tragic situation and if I had not been sitting at that table with that judge on that particular day for that commercial, I’d probably have a much different life than I do now and my freedoms would likely be greatly restricted.

I felt it was important for my wife to be to watch Once Upon a Time in the West to understand more about me, so I tried to show it to her early in our relationship.  At the time she was a country club girl so she wasn’t ready for movies like that—where the opening was so strange and dramatic.  She made fun of it heavily after the first seven minutes and I never tried again to show it to her until January of 2016.  I had meant to show the movie to my children at some point so given all my history with it I felt that they should see the movie.  I bought the cut of the film that had been restored to 165 minutes as opposed to the version I had seen as a kid, the 145 minute version which was a bit more confusing, and relished being able to finally show it to my wife and at least some of my kids.  It was a great experience.  The music from Ennio Morricone was so good in that movie that I have used it often to raise my mind above times of incredible stress.  Even though my wife didn’t like Once Upon a Time in the West at first I still loved it and thought of it often to carry me through tough times.  I was 25-years old and in deep trouble.  I had more legal problems and had law suits directed at me from several directions and I had to tap into that raw, primal civility that I had refined when I was 16, where I could walk into any situation and just take care of things no matter how bad the guys on the other side of the table were—or who hid in the shadows where you parked your car.  I had for the first time a CD collection of Ennio Morricone’s music which featured a scene on the front from Once Upon a Time in the West.  By the 1990s the film was considered an obscure classic and nobody remembered it much except for filmmakers and people who were particularly fascinated with cultural phenomenon.  In the hardest days of my life I listened to the music from Once Upon a Time in the West to serve as my moral compass—and it has always worked for me. I sat in my office back then with the world coming down around me and would listen to those Morricone soundtracks and think of “The Man with the Harmonica”—that haunting melody which spoke of revenge, perseverance, and the growth of a human into an Übermensch (German for “Overman, Overhuman, Above-Human, Superman, Superhuman, Ultraman, Ultrahuman, Beyond-Man”; German pronunciation: [ˈˀyːbɐmɛnʃ]) As readers here know I think a lot of the concept which is from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. In his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (GermanAlso Sprach Zarathustra), Nietzsche has his character Zarathustra posit the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself. It is a work of philosophical allegory, with a structural similarity to the Gathas of Zoroaster/Zarathustra.  I learned later that my love of Sergio Leone had more to do with the concept of the Übermensch than of the westerns themselves—but I can say that there is an honesty in Once Upon a Time in the West that is not present in any other form of art and it should be experienced—especially these days.

Once Upon a Time in the West (ItalianC’era una volta il West) is a 1968 epic Spaghetti Western Technicolor film in Techniscope directed by Sergio Leone. It stars Henry Fonda cast against type as the villain, Charles Bronson as his nemesisClaudia Cardinale as a newly widowed homesteader, and Jason Robards as a bandit. The screenplay was written by Sergio Donati and Leone, from a story by Dario ArgentoBernardo Bertolucci and Leone. The widescreen cinematography was by Tonino Delli Colli, and the acclaimed film score was by Ennio Morricone.

After directing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Leone decided to retire from Westerns and desired to produce his film based on The Hoods, which eventually becameOnce Upon a Time in America. However, Leone accepted an offer from Paramount Pictures to provide access to Henry Fonda and to use a budget to produce another Western film. He recruited Bertolucci and Argento to devise the plot of the film in 1966, researching other Western films in the process. After Clint Eastwood turned down an offer to play the movie’s protagonist, Bronson was offered the role. During production, Leone recruited Donati to rewrite the script due to concerns over time limitations.

The original version by the director was 166 minutes (2 hours and 46 minutes) when it was first released on December 21, 1968. This was the version that was to be shown in European cinemas and was a box office success. For the US release on May 28, 1969, Once Upon a Time in the West was edited down to 145 minutes (2 hours and 25 minutes) by Paramount and was a financial flop. The film is considered by some to be the first installment in Leone’s Once Upon a Time Trilogy, followed by Duck, You Sucker!, called Once Upon a Time… the Revolution in parts of Europe, and Once Upon a Time in America, though the films do not share any characters in common.

The film is now generally acknowledged as a masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made.[3][4] In 2009, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant”.[5]

The film portrays two conflicts that take place around Flagstone, a fictional town in the American Old West: a land battle related to construction of a railroad, and a mission of vengeance against a cold-blooded killer. A struggle exists for Sweetwater, a piece of land near Flagstone containing the region’s only water source. The land was bought by Brett McBain (Frank Wolff), who foresaw that the railroad would have to pass through that area to provide water for the steam locomotives. When crippled railroad tycoon Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti) learns of this, he sends his hired gun Frank (Henry Fonda) to intimidate McBain to move off the land, but Frank instead kills McBain and his three children, planting evidence to frame the bandit Cheyenne (Jason Robards). It appears the land has no owner; however, a former prostitute (Claudia Cardinale) arrives from New Orleans, revealing she is Jill McBain, Brett’s new wife and the owner of the land.

Meanwhile, a mysterious harmonica-playing gunman (Charles Bronson), whom Cheyenne later dubs “Harmonica”, pursues Frank. In the film’s opening scene, Harmonica kills three men sent by Frank to kill him. In a roadhouse on the way to Sweetwater, he informs Cheyenne that the three gunfighters appeared to be posing as Cheyenne’s men.

Back at Sweetwater, construction materials are delivered to build a railroad station and a small town. Harmonica explains that Jill will lose Sweetwater unless the station is built by the time the track’s construction crews reach that point, so Cheyenne puts his men to work building it.

Frank turns against Morton, who wanted to make a deal with Jill; Morton’s disability makes him unable to fight back. After having sex with Jill, Frank forces her to sell the property in an auction. He tries to buy the farm cheaply by intimidating the other bidders, but Harmonica arrives, holding Cheyenne at gunpoint, and makes a much higher bid based on his reward money for delivering Cheyenne to the authorities. Harmonica rebuffs an offer by Frank to buy the farm from him for one dollar more than he paid at the auction. As Cheyenne is placed on a train bound for the Yuma prison, two members of his gang purchase one-way tickets for the train, intending to help him escape.

Frank’s men betray and ambush him, having been paid by Morton to turn against him, but—much to Jill’s outrage—Harmonica helps Frank kill them, intending to kill Frank himself. Frank returns to Morton, only to find that he and the rest of Frank’s men have been killed in a battle with Cheyenne’s gang. Frank then goes to Sweetwater to confront Harmonica. On two occasions, Frank has asked Harmonica who he is, but both times Harmonica refused to answer him. Instead, he mysteriously quoted names of men Frank has murdered. This time, Harmonica says he will reveal who he is “only at the point of dying”. The two men position themselves for a duel, at which point Harmonica’s motive for revenge is revealed in a flashback:

A younger Frank, already a cruel bandit, is forcing a boy to support on his shoulders his older brother, whose neck is in a noose strung from an arch. As the boy struggles to hold his brother’s weight, Frank stuffs a harmonica into the boy’s mouth and tells him to play. The brother curses Frank and kicks his brother away, and dies.

Harmonica draws first and shoots Frank. As he lies dying, Frank again asks who he is, whereupon the harmonica is placed in Frank’s mouth. Frank nods weakly in recognition and dies. Harmonica and Cheyenne say goodbye to Jill, who is supervising construction of the railway station as the track-laying crews reach Sweetwater. Cheyenne collapses, revealing that he had been fatally shot by Morton during the fight with Frank’s gang. The work train arrives, Jill carrying water to the rail workers, while Harmonica rides away with Cheyenne’s body.

Leone’s intent was to take the stock conventions of the American Westerns of John FordHoward Hawks and others, and rework them in an ironic fashion, essentially reversing their intended meaning in their original sources to create a darker connotation.[22] The most obvious example of this is the casting of veteran film good guy Henry Fonda as the villainous Frank, but there are also many other, more subtle reversals throughout the film. According to film critic and historian Christopher Frayling, the film quotes from as many as 30 classic American Westerns.

The major films referenced include:

  • High Noon(1952): The opening sequence is similar to the opening of High Noon, in which three bad guys (Lee Van CleefSheb Wooley and Robert J. Wilke) are shown waiting for the arrival of their leader (named Frank, played by Ian MacDonald) on the noon train. In the opening of Once Upon a Time in the West, three bad guys (Jack Elam, who appeared in a small part in High NoonWoody Strode, and Al Mulock) take over and wait at a train station. However, the period of waiting is depicted in a lengthy ten-minute sequence, the train arrives several hours after noon, and its passenger is one of the film’s heroes (Charles Bronson) rather than its villain. The scene is famous for its use of natural sounds: a squeaky windmill, knuckles cracking, and Jack Elam’s character trying to shoo off a fly. According to rumor, Leone offered the parts of the three gunmen to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly stars Clint EastwoodLee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach.[23]
  • 3:10 to Yuma(1957): This cult Western by Delmer Daves may have had considerable influence on the film. The most obvious reference is a brief exchange between Keenan Wynn‘s Sheriff and Cheyenne, in which they discuss sending the latter to Yuma  In addition, as in West the main villain is played by an actor (Glenn Ford) who normally played good guys. The film also features diegetic music (Ford at one point whistles the film’s theme song just as Harmonica provides music in West). And the scene in which Van Heflin‘s character escorts Ford to the railroad station while avoiding an ambush by his gang may have inspired the ambush of Frank by his own men in Leone’s film.
  • The Comancheros(1961): The names “McBain” and “Sweetwater” may come from this film. (Contrary to popular belief, the name of the town “Sweetwater” was not taken from Victor Sjöström‘s silent epic dramaThe Wind. Bernardo Bertolucci has stated that he looked at a map of the southwestern United States, found the name of the town in Arizona, and decided to incorporate it into the film. However, both “Sweetwater” and a character named “McBain” appeared in The Comancheros, which Leone admired.[24])
  • Johnny Guitar(1954): Jill and Vienna have similar backstories (both are former prostitutes who become saloonkeepers), and Harmonica, like Sterling Hayden‘s title character, is a mysterious, gunslinging outsider known by his musical nickname. Some of West’s central plot (Western settlers vs. the railroad company) may be recycled from Nicholas Ray’s film.[24]

  • The Iron Horse(1924): West may contain several subtle references to this film, including a low angle shot of a shrieking train rushing towards the screen in the opening scene, and the shot of the train pulling into the Sweetwater station at the end.[24]
  • Shane(1953): The massacre scene in West features young Timmy McBain out hunting with his father, just as Joey does in this movie. The funeral of the McBains is borrowed almost shot-for-shot from Shane.[24]
  • Vera Cruz(1954): In both films, Charles Bronson’s character plays a harmonica and is known only by a nickname.
  • The Searchers(1956): Leone admitted that the rustling bushes, the silencing of cicada chirps, and the fluttering pheasants that suggest a menace approaching the farmhouse when the McBain family is massacred were all taken from The Searchers. The ending of the film—where Western nomads Harmonica and Cheyenne move on rather than join modern society—also echoes the famous ending of Ford’s film.[24]
  • Warlock(1959): At the end of this film, Henry Fonda’s character wears clothing very similar to his costume throughout West. In addition, Warlock features a discussion about mothers between Fonda and Dorothy Malone that is similar to those between Cheyenne and Jill in West. Finally, Warlock contains a sequence in which Fonda’s character kicks a crippled man off his crutches, as he does to Mr. Morton in West.
  • The Magnificent Seven(1960): In this film, Charles Bronson’s character whittles a piece of wood. In West, he does the same, although in a different context. The Magnificent Seven was based on Seven Samuraiby Akira Kurosawa, whose film Yojimbo (“The Bodyguard”) was the inspiration (and later, litigation) behind Leone’s A Fistful of Dollars.
  • Winchester ’73(1950): It has been claimed that the scenes in West at the trading post are based on those in Winchester ’73, but the resemblance is slight.[24]
  • The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance(1962): The dusters (long coats) worn by Cheyenne and his gang (and by Frank and his men while impersonating them) resemble those worn by Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) and his henchmen when they are introduced in this film. In addition, the auction scene in West was intended to recall the election scene in Liberty Valance.[24]
  • The Last Sunset(1961): The final duel between Frank and Harmonica is shot almost identically to the duel between Kirk Douglas and Rock Hudson in this film.[24]
  • Duel in the Sun(1946): The character of Morton, the crippled railroad baron in West, was based on the character played by Lionel Barrymore in this film.[24]
  • Sergeant Rutledge(1960): This John Ford Western, featuring Woody Strode as the title character, has a scene in which Constance Towers falls asleep in a chair with a rifle in her lap, just as Jill McBain does in Leone’s film.
  • My Darling Clementine(1946): In the trading post scene, Cheyenne slides Harmonica’s gun down the bar to him, challenging him to shoot – much like Morgan Earp (Ward Bond) sliding his weapon to brother Wyatt (Henry Fonda) in the Ford film when the Earps meet Doc Holliday (Victor Mature) for the first time. Also, a deleted scene in West featured Frank getting a shave with perfume in a barber’s shop, much like Fonda’s Wyatt.

Once Upon a Time in the West was itself explicitly referenced in The Quick and the Dead, when John Herod (Gene Hackman), faces Ellen (Sharon Stone), better known as “The Lady,” in a climactic gunfight. Ellen’s identity is a mystery until the end, when the audience sees Ellen’s flashback to Herod lynching her father, a sheriff. The sadistic Herod gives Ellen (then only a little girl) a chance to save her father by shooting through and breaking the rope wrapped around his neck, but Ellen accidentally kills her father by shooting him in the forehead. As with Frank, Herod yells “Who are you?”, and the only response he receives is an artifact from the earlier lynching—in this case, the sheriff’s badge that Ellen has kept all these years. The Quick and the Dead has another connection to Once Upon a Time in the West: It was the final film for Woody Strode, who died before it could be released.

Many other films have paid tribute to Once Upon a Time in the West over the years: Quentin Tarantino‘s Inglourious Basterds opens with a lengthy sequence entitled Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France (a phrase also used as a tagline for the 2009 film) which introduces the film’s primary villain and features the mass shooting of a family at a farmhouse; Tarantino’s Kill Bill films utilize snatches of Morricone’s harmonica and guitar soundtrack; Back to the Future Part III recreates the station rooftop scene from Once Upon a Time in the WestBaz Luhrmann‘s Australia features several nods to Leone’s film, including a homestead with a squeaky windmill, an almost-identical funeral scene, and an antagonistic relationship between the film’s villains; and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End features a parody of the “Man With a Harmonica” theme on the soundtrack, as the film’s protagonists parley on a sandbar before the final battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_the_West

A lot of people I think have the same reaction my wife had to Once Upon a Time in the West the first time they see it.  Let me tell you that 25 years after she laughed at it the first time, she wasn’t laughing any more.  Nobody is laughing any more, I can say that.  She had grown to appreciate what the film had been saying for decades.  She had learned by middle life what I had known as a 16-year-old, and once you know those types of things there is only one place for your mind to go.  You either become an Übermensch of some kind or you go insane.  There are a lot of characters in the world like Henry Fonda’s “Frank.”  And there is only one way to deal with them and Sergio Leone knew how to capture that conflict on-screen like no other person I’ve ever seen in film.  A lot of film makers have tried to capture the magic of Once Upon a Time in the West, but they never get it all.  Now, nearly five decades later the extremely bright international culture that produced that great film is nearly vanished.  It’s not a great film just because it’s a western—but because of the metaphors presented in the seemingly simplistic tapestry of the western—as it was invented in America.

It doesn’t matter that Sergio Leone took an American hero like Henry Fonda and made him into the villain—it’s that Leone knew how to take the strength of his characters whether it be Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood and turn them into Übermenschs to deal with overwhelming evil captured quite accurately.  I always think of that dinner table during that filming of the Chinese New Year commercial and how it reminded me so much of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  But even more than that it reminded me of Frank from Once Upon a Time in the West.  When Jill gets mad at Harmonica for helping keep Frank alive—it is for the reasons provided that many of the mysteries of our lives go unfulfilled.  And yes I’m talking in a bit of a riddle here, but to get the answer watch the movie and remember the line, “time flies.”  Knowing what to do with an enemy after you’ve identified them as such is what I have always found valuable about westerns.  To understand that you have an enemy is to have a set of values that an enemy fights against and in Once Upon a Time in the West that conflict is poetically displayed in ways that no film has ever mastered as well.  Many have tried but nobody has been able to hit it as well as Sergio Leone.  Time does fly, whether it’s a 16 year old discovering the truth of how a childhood movie favorite applies to the real world of politics and intrigue and how rivers are often polluted with the remains of politics washed off the parking lot after a strong rain—with the personal stamp of approval from a kindly old judge—or a wife who had grown over the years to see something totally different from her young 20-year-old eyes were ready to appreciate.  Some movies reflect culture—others like Sergio Leone’s films make it.  And that is why I think so much of him and his films—particularly, Once Upon a Time in the West.  If you haven’t seen it, you should.  Because “time flies” and so do good ideas—you have to hit them when you get the chance for the motivations only you know about—even if the morality for it only exists outside of time and space in a mythical realm where justice truly does rule—not with blinders—but a six-gun and a lot of tenacity.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Quick Cal on WAAM Radio: The strongest argument in favor of guns

It had been a week of attacks against the Second Amendment, Obama had enacted executive orders against the right to maintain firearms within American society then he held a CNN town hall to justify his imposition.  It was clear to me that Obama was functioning from extreme ignorance—not all of it his fault.  Growing up in Indonesia as a boy, then in Hawaii by communist sympathizing grandparents he didn’t understand guns and how they applied to American Exceptionalism.  Obama doesn’t even believe in American Exceptionalism so he wasn’t close to understanding the role that guns played in maintaining that high measure of quality.  But, most people around the country—especially those who work with guns away from the largely democratically run cities in the United States—understand, and I felt it necessary to teach anti-gun people why they were wrong in their basic thinking—especially the president and his radical city dwelling progressive insurgents.  Since I was hosting for Matt Clark on 1600 WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan over an early weekend in January 2016 I thought it would be a good time to do a show about how guns benefit society and specifically American Exceptionalism.  So I invited on Quick Cal, who is the director of the Cowboy Fast Draw Association and champion shooter of four professional shooting categories and a multiple world record holder to talk about the benefits of firearms training and how it helps nurture an obscure philosophy that is the key to American Exceptionalism called the Cowboy Way.  Listen to that epic broadcast here:

Cal and I told several stories from both of our perspectives regarding our value of the Cowboy Way, which as Cal said is a philosophical definition that is minimalist in nature but  exemplifies the type of decency typically associated with Christian values—civility toward others, honor, hard work—essentially “do onto others as you’d have others do onto you.”  Cal stated that as a young man in the 1960s it was the Cowboy Way that kept him straight and off drugs and alcohol during that turbulent decade and I told a similar story.  I have worn a cowboy hat since I was in the fifth grade or some variation of it. When I was very young I recognized a need to distinguish myself from the rest of the world with some kind of hat that said my values were different from the mainstream of society—which appeared to my juvenile eyes to be headed in the wrong direction.  People always made fun of it and I learned to have a very thick skin about my hats.  Often I would wear a cowboy hat in public knowing and hoping that it would anger the mainstreamers—and I took inward joy at their anger.  Twenty years ago wearing such a hat during the post Reagan years took a lot of confidence especially for a young guy like me.  I wore it around the U.C. campus when I used to live there and would walk right down Vine Street with it on even though it went against the urban culture so prevalent there.  I knew the anger came because unconsciously people knew it symbolized the Cowboy Way which was viewed by progressive society as a backward “unenlightened” approach to living.  By wearing my cowboy hats, it was my public affirmation of values and traditional belief—and it distinguished me from my peers in a way which certainly preserved me to my current age.

Once I was invited to a campus rave party in an abandoned house at 2 AM in the morning.  I knew nothing good could come of the experience but a friend of mine wanted me to go with him in case he got into some physical confrontation—so I went along to protect him.   I showed up dressed in my poncho and a cowboy hat looking like I just stepped out of a spaghetti western—which I have always  enjoyed, and I certainly looked strange next to all the “emo” types dressed in black with all the piercings they had before such things were as common as they are today.  I figured if they could dress in public with purple Mohawks and studded black clothing that looked more appropriate for the movie set of The Road Warrior, then I could show up looking like I belonged in For A Few Dollars More.  To say it was difficult to walk into a party atmosphere with blaring Marilyn Manson music arousing the passions of naked women and drug induced idiots as a perfectly straight cowboy hat wearing traditionalist would be an understatement.  But I did it proudly.  Being a partier was never a priority for me and I thought at the time that during the most tempting years of my life if I held to my values that it would be very valuable to me later, when I was older.  That turned out to be the case and I can understand how following the Cowboy Way kept Quick Cal clean and free of imposition in his life during a similar turbulent period where everyone was wearing tie dye shirts and preaching peace through marijuana smoke and socialism.

Our experience is compelling enough to make a more than reasonable argument against the current tide of fashion.  If the trends of our age lead to such destructive living—bad personal conduct, addictive behavior, unreliability as a spouse or parent, and a general menace to society—then why would we accept such a thing as a fact to our reality.  There is nothing negative about the Cowboy Way—even if a person isn’t particularly religious.  The Cowboy Way is all about having values toward individualized accomplishment which is why the hat always symbolized to me that sentiment.  It was hard to go against such tides, but it felt good to survive.  Being popular isn’t the most valuable trait in the world if the people who like you are poor quality people.  If people made fun of my hat, they were not very high quality people and it made it easy for me to see who was who and why they did what they did.  Did they not like the hat because it reminded them of a parental figure they were trying to push out of their head, or had they bought into the commercial advancement of fashion to the extent where their collective ambitions denied individualized thought?  I learned a lot during those early years because of the public reactions to my cowboy hats.

Another aspect to the Cowboy Way that Cal and I discussed was the difference between shooting sports which are individualized in nature and the collective based team sports of football, baseball, and soccer.  Of course public schools are all about collective based identification.  They don’t want people thinking as individuals because their job as designated by the government is to herd people into a particular direction as determined by Beltway desires.  So team sports are emphasized to advance children into a more socially appropriate stature.  However, individualized sports, like Cowboy Fast Draw, and golf, are all about individual achievement, which is why the current trends are against them.  It’s why golf is largely viewed as a sport for the affluent—those who have achieved individualized success.  It’s also why progressives—who are collectivists by their nature, hate shooting sports.  Shooting a gun is a very individualized endeavor.  Golf and the culture of country clubs already have the stigma of being affluent based endeavors that are individualized in their foundations.  There is a social component but the associations are largely groups of affluent people talking to other affluent people without the noise of the outside world.  I will admit that I enjoy that country club culture.  My wife and I enjoy eating at the Elk’s Club Silver Tee restaurant near our home.  It’s always nice and they treat the guests in an exclusive way.  It’s about being with people who have similar values as you do.  You know when you eat there that the booth next to you is a family that are not knuckle draggers.  They are typically well employed and somewhat successful as individuals—and that makes the food taste just a bit better.  I consider shooting sports to be even more individualized because they serve the dual purpose of being useful in the defense of private property—which is another aspect that collectivists seek to demonize—because it goes against their foundation philosophies.

I made a decision about the Cowboy Way when I was very little, well before I knew why.  I knew I liked The Cowboys with John Wayne over the rock group Kiss when I was in the fourth grade.  I knew I liked The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly more than Pink Floyd’s The Wall.  In general, westerns reflected my values innately, and I was fortunate enough to be stubborn in pursuing those values even though it was against the social grain.  I’m glad that I did—now more than ever.  Obviously my rejection was against liberalism which I determined as a four-year old, didn’t work.  My parents didn’t necessarily preach it to me, and nobody else felt as strongly about conservativism as I did—it’s just something that I’ve always had.  It was just something I observed and decided to pursue—not always with clarity, but as a hunch that it was the right thing to do according to my moral compass.  It was only over a great many years that I learned why.  Most children are afraid of falling and of loud noises because their brains are wired to protect themselves from the unknown.  For whatever reason, I knew from a young age that liberalism didn’t work under any circumstance.  To this very day nobody can present a strong case in favor of liberalism rationally.  When I first started wearing my cowboy hat while still in grade school I knew that the only hope for the human race was to step back to a philosophic period before the progressive era—right around 1890—to those values in American culture. Not the racism, or the limitations against women, but the basic foundations of human decency.  The Cowboy Way was the greatest casualty of the progressive era and it is the thing we most need in our modern society.  And it was important for the nation to hear from someone who embodies that Cowboy Way in very emphatic ways. That is why I had Quick Cal on WAAM during an important Saturday afternoon in the long history of the human race.  People needed to hear an alternative to the madness of liberalism that is destroying America.  And they need it fast!

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

The Cinebistro at Liberty Center: Better than a Broadway play, and more comfortable

I have to say something very positive about Cinebistro at Liberty Center, which is a luxury movie theater near my home.  I was at the soft opening for the James Bond film described below in the Channel 12 clip talking about the food selections available, and I have written about my experience with a positive review.  I have been to movie theaters all over the country over many years and I certainly know good from bad.  I also have been in several home theaters and know the benefits to them as well.  So it should carry some weight to know how much I think of the Cinebistro experience at Liberty Center which is the best way I think there is to see a movie.  I have been to that theater several times now and can report that after several months of operating, the theater is actually better now than when it first opened.  It is a grand palace of mythmaking endeavor and it is worthy of the best praise.

My wife and I went to see The Revenant there.  I had just jumped off the air at WAAM radio as I was guest hosting for my friend Matt Clark while he was on vacation.  We hadn’t had anything to eat yet and we had reservations to see the long-awaited movie at 3 PM.  I fully expected that in the middle of the afternoon between lunch and dinner that the Cinebistro wouldn’t be crowded, but was surprised that the theater was nearly sold out when I made my reservations online at 10 AM, before going on the air at 1600 WAAM.  The moment I signed off at the station we literally got into the car and went to Liberty Center because at Cinebistro if you have a movie start time of 3 PM you need to arrive at 2:30 to get seated and have your food order in.

Entry into the theater is just epic; I never get tired of it.  I was in the mood to be pampered; I had worked very hard all week.  I had done a lot of reading and writing that morning before doing an hour of live radio on a Saturday, so I was tired and ready to see a movie I hoped would be great—which it was.  That is what they do best at Cinebistro as opposed to a home theater or anywhere else, they understand people like me—hard working people who come to the movies for an intellectual experience as opposed to just entertainment.  Nothing for me is ever just fun.  Some people argue that’s not a good way to live, I’d argue the opposite.  Everything I do in my life I do well and I put a lot of effort into it.  I never just waste time.  No time in a 24 hour period is spent wasting time.  If I can’t squeeze multiple meanings out of every instance it’s just not worth doing.  So when I go to the movie theater, Cinebistro gets what I expect out of my investment.

Cinebistro does not skimp on their employees, they do not understaff.  There were a small army of people running the theater.  If you counted all the kitchen staff, which makes everything by scratch, and include the runners, servers and ushers, there are at least five times the amount of people who are typically employed by a theater system like Showcase, Rave, or Regal.  As I looked at all the employees through the lobby, at the bars, concessions, etc, it was quite an impressive operation and not every movie is promised to pack the theater house like The Revenant.  Most movies are typically 30% full, so it baffles me how Cinebistro does it.

The proximity to parking in the back lot and entering the Liberty Center complex through the access tunnel by The Funny Bone Comedy Club essentially meant that we parked, our car on a packed Saturday afternoon and were at the ticket counter within about five minutes where I picked up my reserved tickets and we were upstairs and in our seats at precisely 2:31 PM. My wife and I ordered a couple of hamburgers and some popcorn which lasted the entire two and a half hour movie, along with drink refills just like in a good restaurant.  There were a lot of “yes sirs” from the staff and everyone was very respectful—which is something I expect from other people.  I was able to step into the movie world on a pedestal and view the mythic essence of a good movie without distractions.  For the first time I was able to see what a full house at the Cinebistro looked like.  Even on the soft opening for Spectre it was my group and a few other key groups present, so I didn’t get to see how Cinebistro handled a crowd.  The answer was a very pleasant one.  Every seat was full yet I didn’t notice that anybody was around me. The seats are so big that the people nearest to me were a good distance, more than enough for me to stretch out and relax.

It’s not that I’m claustrophobic or can’t handle crowds; it’s just that I don’t enjoy myself in a crowd.  I don’t like the idea of breathing air that people around me immediately exhumed.  The carbon dioxide that comes out of the bodies of other people need time to mix with fresh oxygen molecules and nitrogen along with other elements to produce good quality air to breathe and that just can’t happen if during an entire two-hour movie someone is right next to you.  So space is important to me.  I typically go to movies when other people don’t for that reason.  At Cinebistro I don’t have to worry about them.  Their air circulation system in the ceiling is very good giving the air quality a feeling of constant replenishing.  With the food, service, spacing and air quality all in tip-top shape, I was able to enjoy my movie without any distractions, which I greatly appreciated-especially with something as mind-boggling epic as The Revenant.

Typically at the end of any film I watch if it was any good, I always stay until the end of the credits.  I read who did what, and where the filming locations were—and any other information that strikes my interest—like how many stuntmen did the film take, who were the visual effect companies, essentially how many jobs were created by the production of the film—because those types of things are also important to me.  I also just like to listen to the music and let the movie slowly roll through my mind.  So it really irritates me when other people sitting next to me want to get up as soon as the picture is done and head for their cars.  You always have to stand up a bit and let them pass in front of you and once they do you can just imagine that they are passing gas and that they likely have full bladders from sitting for so long and that they need to use the restroom.  I don’t enjoy knowing that those kinds of things are so close in proximity to my face, so until the theater empties, it stresses me out and is hard to enjoy the credits.  It’s even worse in regular theaters because teenagers are often present and they almost always stink—they smell like adolescents and cigarette smoke.  They just feel slimy when they bump into your leg.  Typically, you expect it when you go into a public place and I just endure it.  But at Cinebristo I never have to worry about it.  When the movie let out my wife and I could remain in our seats with our chairs reclined and our entire aisle was able to empty without a single person bumping into my feet. I didn’t have to move a muscle to let anybody get up and leave.

When the last of the credits finally ended I was a little surprised to see that the place looked like an entire restaurant had just got up at the same time and left.  It didn’t look bad, but it would take a lot of table clearing to remove all the plates and glasses that were on every table in the theater.  That’s another thing specific to Cinebisto.  Everything they do is restaurant quality including the utensils.  All the soft drinks are actual glasses and there are lots of wine glasses.  There are no paper cups and popcorn bags.  Everything is something that has to be washed in the kitchen.  They do not go cheap on anything, which they could easily justify at only $12 dollars per seat on films before 4 PM.  Night seats are only $14 dollars, not much more than a typical local theater chain.  I couldn’t help but think that nobody was doing any cleaning yet and that it was going to take a while to get the place ready for another showing.  Most of the people had long left and the last people had left several minutes before we did.  We were clearly the last ones out of our seats.  As we walked back out of the theater a manager was there with a little tray of mints which he offered to us with a smile and some polite banter.  I thought that was a nice touch and I told him I appreciated it.  Then we stepped out into the hall and saw about 15 employees ready to enter the theater to clean it.   The manager had made them stand in the hall and wait for us to leave.  I knew they had to be angry at us for staying so long, but the manager refused to let the employees enter to disrupt our movie experience.  That is the kind of place the Cinebistro is.  It’s not going out of its way to be snobby.  They just make a point to elevate the human experience of going to the movies.

So thank you Cinebistro for doing such a great job for one entire business quarter—I hope that everything continues as it has.  It was wonderful to leave that theater and have so many people tell me to have a good day as I passed them back into the large vaulted lobby of the Cobb Theater system. It was also nice to see that the sun had went down and the streets of Liberty Center were lit up nicely completing a nice day for my wife and me.  I was able to see a movie I really wanted to without having to compromise my comfort and standards, and for that I really appreciated it.  The whole experience was what you expect from a luxury theater system and it has lived up to those standards now over several visits which is a great compliment to the hard work obviously on display and in full commitment of the management of Cinebistro.  Going to the movies at Cinebistro has the feel of attending a play at the Aronoff Center or on Broadway—only without the tight seating and the crowded streets of a big city.  It is a unique experience and I’m proud to have one at Liberty Center.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Hillary the Communist: Admitting the truth, even when it hurts

I’ve been saying it for a long time; socialism is the basic philosophy of the Democratic Party.  People used to think I was being an extremist when I stated that teacher unions expected socialism from voters and school boards essentially teaching it to students in public education.  Most labor unions are functioning socialist enterprises which of course leads directly to small “c” communism.  Worse than socialists are “progressives” who have a strong belief in communism as a foundation principle to their style of governing.  Most progressives will deny it, but if you placed their belief system on a social scale next to the Bolsheviks of 1919 they would be indistinguishable from each other.  There is a reason that progressives and other liberals don’t want people to read Ayn Rand, who as an American novelist wrote quite passionately about communism in her very good book, We the Living.  I have known this for a very long time because I am an avid reader, and I understand history so I have been able to function from a position of knowledge and not just the marketing of ideas proposed in what people think is modern times.  That’s why it was so ridiculously stupid of Hillary Clinton when pressed by Chris Mathews—who is a fan of the Democratic candidate for president, to declare that she was a progressive Democrat.   That is equivalent to saying about herself under a proper definition that she’s a communist socialist.

This isn’t the first time this year that Chris Mathews on the very “progressive” MSNBC cable channel has asked someone of great importance within the Democratic Party what the difference between a socialist and a Democrat is.  But this one had more bite because Hillary had no idea how to answer the question even though she knew the question was coming at some point, because he had asked it before.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She couldn’t answer the question because there isn’t any difference.  Democrats today in 2016 are essentially the communists and socialists of the last century—the only real difference is that they changed the name.  Their essential philosophy is the same.

I don’t have much patience for stupid people—I’ll have to be honest.  When I had this education debate years ago within the media, at school boards, in education reform groups—and with other politicians I thought people close to the situation already knew what I was saying, that the essential product of public schools was socialism.  I had known it for years, so I assumed that we could have a conversation from a reasonable vantage point.  But the mad mothers and fathers angry at me for proposing to take away their tax money for essentially a day time socialist training center—which is what every public school is—provoked a lot of anger which I had no tolerance for.   Those idiots thought they would harass me online, come to my house, and attack me through social networks with all the socialist flair utilized in that novel, We the Living and that for some reason I’d just take it.  No, that’s not how things work.

I have always known that socialists and Democrats were essentially the same because I have always worked hard to have the answers to things—even if those answers were inconvenient.  For instance, everyone knows I have written a lot about Star Wars.  It could be said that I’ve been a mega fan.  I know Star Wars better than most people know their own families.  However, I do not like the new films by Disney and I will not read the books or buy into their product any longer in a post George Lucas era.  I see clearly in Star Wars now massive progressive influences and I will reject it—because I know better.  When something lets me down, I drop it like a rock in less than a second.  I went though a similar thought process with public education, our legal system, environmentalism, even family members who have not behaved properly.  It really didn’t matter what or who they were, I have dropped them at the first sign that they do not comply with my ethics and values.  And when the question comes as to who am I to judge—the reply is simple—an individual who works hard to be that way.  When I said that socialism was embedded deep in our culture I was able to do that because I was able to emotionally divorce myself from attachments that might skew my vision from the reality of knowledge.  So even when many were writing newspapers and television stations protesting my coverage by them because of my “extremist” language I never recanted or backed off because to do so would be to lie.  To lie would be wrong because it would force a new definition for the things I knew to be true—and that wasn’t going to happen.

This charade has went on for a long time largely because members of the media, like Chris Mathews accepted the revisionist definitions of a party he obviously supports—the Democrats whom he probably believes is still the party of JFK or LBJ.  The truth however is that Republicans like Jeb Bush and John Kasich are the new Democrats by proper definitions because the political lens of perception has been moved so far to the political left.  So it appears that Chris Mathews and others like him are having a real debate within themselves about the differences between socialists and Democrats or even communists and progressives.  The answer has always been there no matter how painful it might have been, or inconvenient.

I said it during many public education debates that if people wanted socialism and voted for it, then so be it—but they better know what it was they were voting for.  It’s really not a firm indication of public sentiment if Democrats avoid the proper definition for what they are doing just to win support of the public hoping slowly to cook the American public from capitalism to communism with changed terminology.  Democrats and progressives have arrived at this political climate by deceit, not by actually selling who and what they are.  What provokes the debate even now is that Bernie Sanders as a president is openly calling himself a socialist which then forces Hillary Clinton to name the difference.  Which of course she can, so she did the worst thing she could have done—she called herself worse—essentially a communist.  But she hoped that nobody understood the definitions and would bother to look.  Of course that doesn’t fly with me.

Hundreds of thousands of people read this blog site every year from countries all over the globe.  Most of those people disagree with me about one thing or another.  Sometimes they get so angry they call me names which always starts a small war of words.  Over the course of the last six years that I have been writing at this site—every single day in voluminous amounts—nobody has been able to dispute my claims factually.  Even the worst of the teacher’s union radicals within the state of Ohio could dispute it when I called them all socialists—sometimes quite publicly.  I have talked about it on the radio and written about socialism in public schools and most government offices extensively, and nobody at any academic level has been able to dispute it under any circumstance.  And believe me, the radical loser professors who call me an anti-education radical gun-nut would love to beat me intellectually if they could—but they can’t.  The reason they can’t is for the same reason that Hillary Clinton couldn’t provide a different definition of socialism in comparison to a typical member of the Democratic Party.  When the Party’s top voices cannot give a single instance of how Democrats are different from socialists, the truth is staring you right in the face dear reader.  And I have been telling you that for a very long time.  Once again, people should have listened.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Guns are the Key to American Exceptionalism: Why a crying President Obama hates them and western capitalist culture

 

I have to thank Brownells for their service over the Holidays of 2015.  I was able to perform a “trigger job” on my Ruger Vaquero largely by the fine offerings that Brownells provided and I can say that I had one of the best holiday off-periods I can ever remember having.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW WHO BROWNELLS IS.  It was quite nice to stand at my workbench and perform the job which ran into complications until the very small hours of the morning.  Once completed I was able to test fire the gun from the same location and it was very nice to be able to do so as the clock on my garage wall indicated it was 2:30 in the morning.  As Obama unleashed his pathetic gun control executive orders shortly after the New Year crying like a an epic wimp of magnanimous proportions in front of millions of people, I couldn’t help but think what an alien concept guns were to the little kid from Indonesia’s foreign raised mind.  The idea of guns in a private residence is just something he can’t fathom because he has been taught incorrectly to his very core.  To say he’s an idiot is to curse him from the benefit of not being raised to be an American.  To be fair, he just doesn’t understand American culture and what an imposition he proposes as an inner city Chicago activist and lawyer to the freedom loving people lucky enough to be born and raised in the United States.  However, with that said and disclaimer given—he’s still an idiot.

To me Obama is an idiot because he refuses to see the superiority of American culture in relation to the rest of the world and how guns are at the center of that proper mentality which advances American Excpetionalism.  If he were smart, he’d see the writing on the wall and acknowledge cultural values appropriately.  Instead, he has bought into the progressive notion of “fairness” and “equality” without considering the root cause of either.  The gun makes the world fairer and more equal and Obama’s desire for executive orders puts too much responsibility on government management than individual effort.  If a person was smart, in spite of where they were born or raised, they should acknowledge a superior approach philosophically to politics and ethics and adjust their foundation beliefs accordingly.  Instead, Obama signed executive orders against the Second Amendment that even the AP news service thought was alarming.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s do-it-himself plan for keeping guns away from those who shouldn’t have them falls far short of what he’d hoped to accomplish through legislation after a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School shook the country in 2012.

Yet even the more modest steps Obama will announce Tuesday rely on murky interpretations of existing law that could be easily reversed by his successor.

Obama’s package of executive actions aims to curb what he’s described as a scourge of gun violence in the U.S., punctuated by appalling mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; and Tucson, Arizona, among many others. After Newtown, Obama sought far-reaching, bipartisan legislation that went beyond background checks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-initiative-on-gun-control-shows-limits-of-acting-alone/ar-AAgnxGd?ocid=spartandhp

I understand the situation clearly, and it is always made more tangible when I get to do gun jobs like the modification to my Vaquero, guns are about more than shooting other people.  In my case, I am working on Cowboy Fast Draw which is a relatively new sport born out of necessity that makes reducing the trigger pull and hammer strength a need just to be competitive.  It was very soothing to me to work on that gun, reload my ammunition, and troubleshoot my issues late at night when other people were sleeping.  I had on talk radio and was able to hear stimulating conversation and work with specialized tools to perform the task.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  The last thing in the world I was thinking about was shooting somebody with my gun.  I was thinking of making it work faster and being more accurate so that I could hit a target under pressure faster than a competitor in friendly all American competition.  There was no malice or ill intention in working on my gun that night and I felt more joy out of doing it than most anything I’ve done for many years.  It was craftsmanship that was specific to our American culture.

One of my son-in-laws is from Europe as I’ve stated before.  My daughter and he just returned recently from Iceland where they vacationed, and I get from them lots of fine stories of family and friends who are shocked by their American love of guns.  In England, where he’s from, it is unfathomable that any family would own one gun, let alone many.  They have been conditioned as a culture to put their trust completely in others for their own survival, and we’re talking about a culture that was nearly taken over by the Nazis during World War II.  Many grandparents there still remember airplanes being shot down in their towns and farmlands.  In spite of those near dangers and long history of war with rival European countries, the monarchy of England seldom showed their people that they trusted them with their own firearms.  So there is always a sense that Europeans are still the subjects of an aristocratic elite, which is still very common in all European countries.  My son-in-law came to America to essentially get away from that restriction.  He shoots somewhere several weekends a month and has quite a nice collection of firearms.  Most of the people in our family do as well, and nobody we know personally are hillbilly tobacco chewing drunks—which is the stereotype that Hollywood likes to place on our Midwest culture within the United States.  Everyone is affluent and well-educated.  And everyone is armed—well armed.

There is a measure of security of having so many firearms that puts in the American mind the knowledge that nobody will barge in on our homes in the middle of the night unfettered.  It is nice to know that we can defend ourselves. But owning guns is a lot more than that.  It’s about the craftsmanship of owning them, cleaning them, shooting them into small little targets that have a majority of the appeal.  Sports like Cowboy Fast Draw are emerging with roots in war and carnage—but so is football, and soccer.  The trigger job that I performed was all about specialization and achievement.  I ran into trouble when reassembling the Vaquero which drove me nuts for quite a long time.  After replacing all my springs with the lighter ones from Brownells I found that the gun would not cock while pointed down into my holster.  When I withdrew it and pointed it up it would then work properly.  That made no reasonable sense to me whatsoever.  After taking the gun apart several times and putting it back together trying to pin point the problem, I eventually figured it out.  I thought I had lost some kind of gravity activated spring that would cause such a condition but eventually figured out that the base pin spring was not pushing up against the transfer bar properly causing it to get caught under the firing pin.  Once that situation was rectified, everything worked wonderfully, and the new springs had really sped up the cocking mechanism.

It was New Years’ Eve by the time I got the gun working right and was enjoying shooting it over and over again to make sure there were no lingering problems.  It felt great to work through a problem that seemed really hard at first, but to overcome it with logic and craftsmanship.  In a lot of ways it defined the essence of the gun debate.  People who have similar stories to tell such as mine understand the magic of gun ownership.  People who have not found a way to leave Europe to the Dark Ages, or other places in the world who have not yet discovered such a hobby do not understand.  They are the ones who seek gun control because they have not yet fully embraced being an American.  Obama is not an American because he has trouble with his birth certificate, or because he was raised in Indonesia by a second father trying to tame a restless wife.   He’s un-America because he has not embraced the art and values of the culture within the United States.  Instead, he’s always trying to change it through radicalism and executive orders.  That is why I say that he’s an idiot.  Rather than learn about the value and success of our culture, he wants to change it into something the Europeans understand which is really stupid.  CLICK HERE FOR WHY.  The type of people who most want to change America are those who still look at Europe as the dominate culture and they are in our military, our politics, and just about every high level office in corporate and entertainment America.  They typically reject American Exceptionalism because they can’t bring themselves to the truth, that other countries essentially suck, and that is largely because they don’t allow their people to own firearms—which entrusts in them the ability to act freely and with responsibility.  In Europe, even to this day—most people are considered “subjects” to an aristocracy and that is just a foreign concept in America.

At that late hour with my gun fixed, talk radio broadcasting interesting debate, I felt wonderful not just for repair job successfully performed, but because the gun as a hobby was a reminder that in America I don’t have to worship at the feet of any aristocrat or noble character of any kind.  If the President walked up to my home at that moment there wouldn’t be any bowing or pandering going on.  I’d simply look at him like some little girl selling Girl Scout cookies—since he likes to cry so much.  I’d listen to what he wanted then decide to help him or not.  But I wouldn’t be compelled to do anything—and it is the gun that gives me that freedom and keeps us sanctimonious even as radical politicians create executive orders to make America into something they are more comfortable with—because they were essentially too lazy to embrace our culture and do the work themselves of adopting its values into their lives.  That is why Obama’s executive orders are such an insult and why Brownells continues to be one of my favorite companies on planet earth.  I just love those guys!

http://www.brownells.com/

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Columbus Did Not Discover America: Indians are not “Native Americans”–understanding the infancy of archaeology

I’ve said it before, George Lucas has left his mark on the world not as a great filmmaker and creator of franchises like Star Wars and Indiana Jones—but on the world of archaeology and anthropology—which is what he originally wanted to be when he grew up.  Archaeology as a science is a very young profession.  It’s only just over a hundred years old as one of the big academic platforms of most universities.  I myself originally wanted to be an archaeologist—but pulled away from it when I realized that the women weren’t very attractive, the money was too  infrequent, and that most of the job was digging up junk in bad regions of the world then being restricted by university politics on what you could say about them.

   And for me, archaeology didn’t allow for guns to be fired while on the job—so I stepped away.   But many thousands of people didn’t essentially because they wanted to grow up and be like Indiana Jones.  This has allowed for some really good minds to enter the field and for money to find its way into excavations and television programming that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.  So it shouldn’t be shocking to many to hear broadcasts like this one below where lots of archaeological evidence is presented showing quite clearly that Minoans had settlements in the middle of a Tennessee region several thousand years ago—like up to eight thousand B.C.  Watch this!

It was really immature, and scientifically stupid to take the young field of archaeology and declare that everything discovered in the first half of the 20th Century guided largely by the Smithsonian would declare the history of the world for all time.   There just wasn’t enough evidence in the young field and not enough people doing the investigations.  To take a few finds from Howard Carter and declare for all time that “The West” understood the history of the world and that the case was closed to protect religious politics and university prestige from further discoveries was just a mistake.  There is a lot more to archaeology than that and our history as a human race.  The evidence is abundant that no history book is 100% correct.  It is really only because of George Lucas that further questions have been asked and thousands of Indiana Jones fans are running around the world uncovering that hidden past even when the politics of our societies is attempting to castigate them for doing so.

For instance, in the case of the above video, where it is quite clear that the Minoans were in America during a time well before Aristotle was having debates about individuality over collective Republicanism with Plato cultures were rising and falling in America many thousands of years before Columbus ever found a map of the ocean routes to what he thought was China from black market vendors in Calcutta that found itself hidden from the public in Portugal.  That’s a story I’ve told before, and is only relevant here because it points to the tip of an iceberg of basic archaeological foundations that are deservedly being tossed out the window as the evidence dictates.  Columbus didn’t discover America.  He only rediscovered it for Europe and the Roman Catholic Church—the rest of the world already knew about the “New World” and had been traveling there for a long time.

The first sign of evidence is that there are accents to Cherokee Indian speech that reflect regional infusion from the eastern Mediterranean cultures.  I often talk about the giants found in American mounds—people standing eight feet to nine feet tall who were in North America well before all the known Indian tribes now documented.  I have also written quite extensively of my disgust that the Miamisburg Mound near my home has been virtually untouched by modern science and had a massive government project set up around it preventing proper excavation techniques.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  I have also written about my extreme disgust about what happened to the Nework Mound complex just east of Columbus, Ohio.  Of course Columbus is named after Christopher and was established to preserve the European version of historical discovery.  So the way early settlers around Columbus dealt with the strange mounds at Newark was to put a housing development right thought the middle of it, and then put a golf course right through the northern octagon.  The Newark sight is a massive archaeological site that has been mostly destroyed by the third major culture to inhabit its terrestrial placement.   I say third because the European migrants only  recently replaced the Hopewell and Adena cultures that had been second-handers to the primary culture that built the mounds and had artifacts that were clearly from the same region as the archaeology found in the Tennessee Valley.

I have even went so far to show in great detail how the entire city of Lexington, Kentucky was built on top of an ancient city that would have been much more at home in the Tigris and Euphrates, area than what is typically associated with the American Indian.   I have covered the mysterious archaeological evidence found inside a major mound for which the center of downtown Cincinnati was built on top of, and is presently found in the nearby museum—mysteriously placed but completely unidentifiable by current scientific understanding.   A very good argument that the current highway system of I-75 is one of the most mysterious lines of road built anywhere in the world could be made.  Not only did it give us Kentucky Fried Chicken during its construction but it shows an almost human memory of a trade route that used to connect all these archaeological regions across a vast span of American frontier thousands of years before known history has attributed anything logical occurring before the nomad culture of the Indians were discovered in North America from 1492 to 1850.

A study of Indian myths and legends are all that’s left of an obvious advanced culture that spanned the entire world before the philosophy of Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality in China during 551 – 479 BC.  There were cultures in America referred to only in the Bible’s missing Book of Enoch that had been around for many millennia and had risen and fallen following the Vico cycle.  The Indians were obviously part of that cycle and were capturing that earlier period through their mythologies, which they interpreted the best they could as a second-handed society of nomads.

So there is a lot of work to do, and without George Lucas, I don’t think there would be so much independent investigation which is uncovering all these marvelous revelations occurring outside of academia.  I’m not against academia, they are most poised to do the work, but they have not been open to the evidence pouring in from finds all over the world, and they have too much of a relationship with government censorship obviously motivated to preserve their version of history—likely to protect the religious foundations of their societies, whether that be European pride, or American Christianity.  Many of the most important archaeological sites around the world are off-limits because they exists in war-torn areas always brimming with political mismanagement that often looks to be to be deliberate.  Whether it’s the ISIS destruction of ancient cities in the Middle East, or the communism which has hidden Cambodia from legitimate investigation by a sex trade industry that flourishes to keep legitimate investigators away from the vile horror often associated with Phnom Penh.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/12/world/cambodia-child-sex-trade/

Communism is a big part of the problem; try getting a dig permit in China where there is a lot of untouched archaeological research that needs to be conducted—which looks to reflect much of what has been found in North America.  Look at Central and South America where poverty from socialism has destroyed those economies leaving people desperate to make a basic living for themselves.   Only really seasoned travelers like Josh Gates—whom I think is a wonderful person often seen on the Travel Channel, can go to such places and resist the temptation to embark on the debauchery of a people who would sell their entire futures in exchange for a piece of bread—then stay for years studying archaeological evidence that no university in the civilized world wants to publish, for fear of it tarnishing their relationships with the British Museum, the Louvre, or the Smithsonian.  In the United States we can’t even get a reasonable excavation of the Miamisburg Mound by nearby University of Dayton, or the Great Serpent Mound by Ohio University, Athens, or the University of Cincinnati—let alone why no legitimate research into Shambhala in the Himalayas is taking place.

  The Dalai Lama can’t even have an afterlife without the Chinese Communist Party demanding that he reincarnate by their direction.  (Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up).  So having a legitimate scientific investigation into Shambhala is off-limits because of the communism of China and its impact on the surrounding countries.  The communist Chinese do not want to know what happened in their culture 8 to 10 thousand years ago.  They are more worried about the Dalai Lama’s afterlife.  Not even the great Ohio State can tell us Hebrew-like artifacts were found at Newark, which is only a 45 minutes drive to the east in a pretty nice part of town relative to the rest of the world’s archaeology.  There’s even a Wendy’s restaurant at the front door to the historic site.  But Ohio State can tell us how they plan to win another national football championship.  No really serious investigation occurs there but to attribute the site to the Hopewell Indians descending from the Archaic period.

http://www.joshuagates.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/asia/chinas-tensions-with-dalai-lama-spill-into-the-afterlife.html?_r=0]

Do I believe that it was Minoans who were in America during that Archaic period?  I think there is lots of evidence that shows that they, or a culture that either spawned them, or the other way around was directly involved in trade between China, North America, and the Middle East likely 10,000 years ago and many of the cultures of that period have either been built over by successors or remain hidden by years of erosion.  They are right in front of our faces, but we do not see it because of modern religion and government vice.  The cause for instance of Cambodian sex trafficking is their authoritarian rule and history with communism.  As a French colony—which is a first world socialist utopia in Europe—the people were conquered and left to communism, which crushed their economy leaving families to sell their children to the sex trade.  The West keeps it going because they want access to the young virgin children which prevents any real science from occurring there by guilt of association.  Anybody with a trip to Phnom Penh on their passport feels they have to explain to people at a museum fundraiser that they were only there for “work” not sex with children. So no legitimate scientist wants to spend years studying Ankor Wat, but for the occasional photographer who goes there to get the fantastic pictures of a culture long gone and mysteriously sophisticated. The ones who do don’t get much of a voice on the world stage of academia—by design.  We are led to believe that such societies were not connected to places like Cahokia on the Mississippi River in North America, or the Tigres in the Middle East—but was a standalone culture that was a self-contained Hindu religion shut off from the world by terrain.

The lesson here of course is that one century of archaeology was not enough.  We really can’t formulate the history of the human race with just a few decades of a young scientific field.  Thanks to George Lucas, he pulled the restrictor plate off the science through imagination and now there are a lot of people like Josh Gates exploring the world living out their internal fantasies of being like Indiana Jones.  And that’s a great thing—because we deserve to understand who were are and where we are going.  But one thing is certain, Christopher Columbus did not discover the “New World” and the Indians were not “Native Americans.”  They came from someplace else as well and took over sites from a culture that had risen and fallen in the United States well before they built their first mythology for Tirawa—The One Above from the Pawnee Indian tribe.  Following the Vico cycle, the Pawnee like all the others were second-handers to a culture that had receded into a primitive state only to become nomads once again leaving a culture to clamor at the truth only through myths and legends.  But our true history is still being uncovered—and established archaeology is only just now getting started.  The history books will not be complete for several thousand years going forward—that is if we can avoid the Vico cycle ourselves.  That is the challenge of our present states.  Hopefully we can learn from that hidden history before it’s too late for us as well and we are reduced to a fragmented regional memory of a future country who thinks they understand the human race because they uncovered a copy of Star Wars under 50 feet of soil and reported to the government then that they have it all figured out.

To substantiate what I have said, click all the links in the text above and you will find dear reader enough free information to fill several books.  Then watch all the videos and you will discover enough evidence to last a lifetime, and it will change how you see everything.  I promise–all you have to do is look and read for yourself.  The evidence is more than abundant.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Bullies of the Beltway: Standing with Trump and Arpaio to do the right thing

 

To further illustrate the level of the fight we are facing in 2016 have a look at this 2011 video of the White House Correspondence dinner.  The first video is of Barack Obama roasting Donald Trump and the second is of Seth Myers from Saturday Night Live doing the same.  The issue of tension was that Trump had been the one to push for Obama to release his birth certificate—which forced the White House to finally do it after stonewalling for over three years.  It was quite a mystery and gave rise to the “birther movement.”  Trump after a lot of persistence pushed, and pushed, and pushed until a document was produced leading to the victory lap in front of the media at the special 2011 engagement roasting Trump who was forced to sit stone faced in the middle of the action and take it.

But that wasn’t the end of the story.  Sheriff Arpaio from Arizona put together an independent group of people to analyze the released birth certificate and what they discovered was that the document Obama’s people released was a fake created recently, and not in the year of the president’s birth.   All of this was reported of course reported by me, CLICK HERE to review.  The rest of the media relegated the material as “conspiracy theory.”  For some reason, they didn’t want to know, as a collective entity—they wanted to believe that Obama was something that he wasn’t.  And when he was caught lying, only a few really held his feet to the fire making them easy targets like Trump was at that White House Correspondence dinner in 2011.  The purpose of that roasting was to show others what happens to people who dare to take on the Bullies of the Beltway.

All that seems like ancient history now—Obama won his election in 2012, and Trump decided not to run for president that year against him.  It seemed for a long time that only Trump and Arpaio were the only legitimate voices willing to yell against the tide that something was really wrong with President Obama.   Shortly after the 2012 election, we had the IRS scandal with Lois Lerner involving the White House, and then we had Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearings featuring her poor decisions leading to that disaster.  Then we had the destruction of Hillary’s emails on her private server so the scandals and stories mounted up to such a degree that everyone forgot about the birth certificate issue being a forgery.  The White House had produced a forged document and passed it off in a way that was more concerning than all the mysterious reasons that Obama refused to release it in the first place—which was always troubling.   I mean if you and I signed up for a new job, they will demand that you produce a driver’s license and/or a birth certificate to satisfy their screening criteria.  Becoming president of the United States is a pretty important job, so at least a birth certificate should have always been a high priority.  Yet it wasn’t and the president avoided it, and when pressed by Trump—day after day after day for several years, the White House finally managed to produce a document that could only have been created in the modern age—certainly not in the early 1960s when such technology wasn’t even invented yet to produce a computer generated layered document instead of a scanned replicate of an original.  If you and I were to scan our birth certificate into a computer program such as Adobe, you’d get a single flat layer of imagery.  There would be no way to separate the fields of what we scanned because the computer would have recognized only the image scanned from the source.  In short, if the document had been scanned into a computer like it was claimed, there would be no way to manipulate the various fields within the document presented by the White House.  The Obama birth certificate was a fake produced under great pressure by Trump.  In spite of all that evidence, Trump was laughed at by just about everyone.  Trump being a guy who saw a fight and the depth of that conflict knew what he had to do to clear his name—and that was to run for President in 2016 so that he could work from the top position to solve some of these diabolical problems.  And that brings us to the present where Trump is way ahead in the polls and poised to be the Republican nominee in 2016 to run directly against Hillary Clinton.  The people who presented that forged document among other scandalous cover-ups are terrified of Trump in the White House, because it’s obvious that he’ll expose everyone for everything to prove his point.

I took a lot of flak for supporting Trump for president so quickly in July of 2015—I do occasionally cover conspiracies and strange phenomena, but I’m not a conspiracy theorist.  When I say something it holds up—and a review of the many things I’ve covered will show that to be the case.  I know that something is very wrong with our political class—which extends over directly into our entertainment culture.  We have real criminals in very powerful positions and they need to be removed.  Yet congress showed no desire to take on the Obama birth certificate and most in the media completely ignored the issue.  Even people like Glenn Beck stayed away from the “birther” issue no matter how justified it was.  This left Trump and  Arpaio to hang out on a limb with all their hard-fought evidence as the media proclaimed, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was there to hear it—it didn’t happen.  The media collectively refused to hear the tree fall on the Obama birth certificate leaving Obama to rake Trump over the coals at that 2011 correspondence dinner.  Trump fuming to do the right thing at his first opportunity.  I believe that Trump made his decision hell or high water to capture the White House after that roast.

Arpaio was sued by the Holder Justice Department soon after the birth certificate report and Trump stopped short of running for president so that he could solidify his position.  If he was going to do it he’d do so from a position of strength.  Trump spent the following three years doing just that.  Knowing all this, that’s why I was so quick to join Trump for his White House run.  He’s doing what I’d do myself if I were in such a position, and that is to treat the whole thing as a war that had to be won.  When Trump said he viewed running against Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton as a war for the White House, this is what he’s talking about—an establishment that seeks completely to control everything political with the banter of school yard bullies who determine the trends of the day with raw force and mass persuasion.  These people who have been occupying the White House for a number of years, people like the Bush family and the Clintons have the whole system rigged in their favor and the press eats out of their hands.  Obama is associated with that culture by default.  The same system that ignored his birth certificate problems allowed Lois Lerner to get by with IRS abuse and a massive cover-up of the top-secret emails destroyed and utilized on Hillary Clinton’s private server.  I know how Trump feels to be the only one speaking out for what’s right.

But here’s the secret dear reader, these are bullies who are running our country right now—it’s not Trump who is the bad guy—as much as they’d like to make him appear that way.  Just like in grade school when you stand up to them, they have nothing to throw back at you.  They can threaten to beat you up with IRS audits, they can harass you at work, through the media, and they can follow around your loved ones and harass them if it doesn’t work on you.  They can intimidate and harass you until you do as they are doing—comply with the orders of the collective.   Well, I’ve had everything mentioned above done to me and my family and I have done just what I did when I was in grade school, which is the basic mentality of most people working in government—they are still 15-year-old kids looking for a date to the homecoming dance.   The entire Beltway culture is made up of those types of intellects and they have only one game plan—harass individuals who flock away from the herd.   Well, when I was in grade school, there are plenty of stories of what I did to bullies and I never yielded to them.  As an adult, I dealt with bullies in the same fashion.  When they came after me—which they did for over 15 years—during my entire 20s up until I was about 35 and had essentially outlasted them—I fought them the way Arpaio and Trump did over the birther issue.  What’s right is right—not what the masses accept as right.  Right has to be the priority in every circumstance, especially when it’s obvious that there is a massive cover-up going on.  Somebody has to be willing to stand up to fight for what’s right, even at great personal risk—because the real bullies have to be stood up against.

I’ve been called a bully myself.  In fact I hear it more now than I ever did.  I have more expression in the English language and natural verbal ability to sidestep the bully accusation than many people who are similar in personality to me, but are functioning without as many tools in the intellectual tool box.  But what I want, I get, and Trump is made of the same stuff.  When he is called a bully, it’s because the real bullies have been denied the ability to beat people up without mercy, to impose on them the imposition of collective sentiment.  But that’s where serious crimes are hidden—behind the “Bullies of the Beltway.”  They only make fun of Trump because they have no other means to exact their will.  The secret to beating them is to be tougher, and rougher than they are.  Because they are liars, they are scum bags, and they are maniacal fools fit for defeat and only that.  They deserve to have their asses kicked.  They deserve to be pushed and to have the tables turned on them, because it’s the only way that we get our country back in the hands of the competent.  We have to start by getting the liars and Bullies of the Beltway out of our White House and into the gutters where they truly belong.

You can’t appease a bully.  You can only kick the shit out of them when they challenge you.  They might cry about it, but they put themselves in that position to begin with.  When they do come, that’s the only way.   That is why I support Trump.  He has a long history of doing the right thing even when it costs him to do it.  Because he’s learned how to deal with bullies-you do it directly and with great fanfare.  And you outlast them because in the end, they have to hide from the public and that is their true weakness.  When it comes to beating Hillary Clinton, the only way to capture the White House for Republicans is to expose Democrats one great weakness—their necessity to manipulate the public from their true intentions.  And in the fight for what’s right, that is what I look forward most in 2016.  For that reason, it is a Happy New Year.  The best thing we can do is support those who are willing to fight the Bullies of the Beltway because in that way, you are making a decision to not be pushed around any longer.  When Bush says that Trump is not a serious candidate, he is talking about playing the Beltway game of surrendering to extortion by those bullies in power.  But its time for a new game.   For the evidence, just watch the above videos completely, and you’ll understand the enormity of the problem before us and the very nature of the elections of 2016.  We won’t get a second chance any time soon.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Corporation of Disney Versus Sole Proprietorship of George Lucas: Why the new Star Wars is so terrible

With all the accolades given to the new Star Wars film The Force Awakens I take a bit of pride in being one of the very few to point out the obvious problems with it, and the gross neglect it represents on not only American culture, but international civilization.  Star Wars has a responsibility provided to it by its half century long quest to play that part with the human race, so when it takes that role for granted, it is the job of people like me to point it out.  Anybody can do such a thing after others have already jumped on the bandwagon.  Presently, The Force Awakens is the fastest movie to hit $1 billion in global sales and it’s still moving along at a respectable rate.  By every box-office measure, The Force Awakens is a glorious success.  Yet I’m saying that it’s not successful, which to some may appear baffling.  Here’s why, Star Wars surrendered what it was to become something that it isn’t and that deduction can be reduced to a very simple social understanding of how things work outside of a mother’s womb.  To get the gist of what’s wrong with The Force Awakens watch the very interesting reviews shown below. Watch them all, they tell the whole story.  I’ll go a step further in my explanation, but it’s a good place to begin.

One of the most difficult things a job creator can do is make decisions to eliminate the jobs of the people who count on you.  It is excessively hard—I think it’s one of the hardest things a human mind does in a capitalist society—because a means to a living is the sustenance used to survive from day-to-day.  George Lucas wanted to retire at 70 years old but he had all these employees that he felt responsible for, so he went looking for a way to keep them all busy so that he could retire in good conscience feeling he did what was right by them.  He sold his company to Disney hoping that it was the closest company to his own methods that would respect his former property and do well for an entirely new generation.   I was a supporter of it, until I saw the results. It would have done more people more good to just leave Star Wars alone and laid-off all the Lucasfilm employees.  Laying off 2000 Lucasfilm employees would have been painful, but the results have been worse.  Because in destroying Star Wars, it has taken away the good meaning it has possessed to literally hundreds of millions of people who now consider it something of a religion.

When the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney took place, many proclaimed that it was a sale to the dark side, but they said so without really understanding why.  Corporations have a tendency to be viewed as evil, while individuals are given great latitude for forgiveness.  This is the heart of the problem.  As a fan of unlimited capitalism, I should be very supportive of corporations—which I am in that they provide jobs and great products to a free marketplace.  But, they are often very socialist in their nature and their employees bring that mentality with them to the voting booth. For instance, a worker at P&G or GE works in an environment that does not promote personal growth and individuality—they work in very team oriented environments where the greater good of the company is often the focus.  This is a standard in most corporations—so when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton expresses the values of socialism most voters are already receptive to it because they live that life within the corporate world.  Corporations are collective based organizations that are often top-heavy and loaded with too much management at the back of the train defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Not enough people at the front providing leadership, and too many in the back which slows down the train from true productivity.  To hide this problem, corporations hire lobbyists to work K-Street in Washington on their behalf to prevent competition, so that the corporation can stay alive longer at the expense of more capitalist invention.

I’m not a fan of corporations, but I am a fan of the people who lead them, individuals like George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the original Walt Disney—among many others.  To me, once those strong leaders leave their corporations, everyone who follows are second handers.  This is why I am a fan of people like Carl Icahn who is the original corporate raider—who defined the term, “hostile takeover” by purchasing the stock of failing corporations and inserting new management with real leadership to make a sizable profit.  The introduction of competition to the corporate world makes everyone better and more honest and is needed in a capitalist society.  Without that behavior, you only get degrees of socialism which is terrible because it forces people to behave as collective entities proving detrimental to individual integrity.

Star Wars was always about the power of the individual, Luke Skywalker being the only hope for the Force to overthrow the emperor, Han Solo to always be functioning just outside the organized systems of the rebellion long enough to save everyone, and Obi-Wan residing in a desert all alone as the last of his kind to preserve goodness for a new generation.  Even the robot Artoo Detoo functions as a rogue individualist often breaking protocol to do what he thinks is right as C3PO representing the corporate world of doing as programmed berates him for comic relief.  In The Empire Strikes Back when Luke senses that Han and Leia are being tortured on Cloud City Yoda tells the young Jedi that he must stay and not be lured into a trap if he honors what they fight for.  The designation is clear, the relief of collective pain is not more important than the value of an individual who alone has the power to save the galaxy.  That is powerful stuff and why I along with millions of others have been a fan of Star Wars for over three decades.

The Force Awakens is a corporate movie made by the second handers of George Lucas and Walt Disney.  They are corporate minds who think in terms of sacrifice and the greater good before individual integrity, just as any corporation resents the individualist–those who do what they want in the corner cubical, and does not socialize during lunch with others and doesn’t follow orders from their superiors.  Rey the strong female who is obviously Jaina Solo from the Expanded Universe miraculously knows how to do everything which is a problem that many people have with the film upon viewing.  Many are willing to suspend their disbelief because the female hero is such a strong and compelling character that viewers are willing to overlook the problem initially.  The dilemma is that the characters in The Force Awakens are just along for the ride.  The Force is the hero of this movie and all the characters are subservient to it.  Rey is the victim of the sword that finds her, not because she finds it—her role is a passive participation in the adventure which is a direct violation of the “Hero’s Journey” that all Star Wars movies embody to some degree.  The Force uses her to get through impossible situations like flying the Falcon and fighting Kylo Ren at the end of the film.  She doesn’t survive them because she is an active participant.   She’s just “going with the flow,” and yielding to a mysterious Force that is guiding her actions.  Those are aspects of Star Wars that have always been weak, easily overshadowed by the efforts of Han Solo.

In the original films The Force was something to be listened to, but according to Obi-Wan, it also obeyed your commands—as an individual.  In The Force Awakens The Force is doing all the heavy lifting which is a corporate view of what Obi-Wan said in the film A New Hope, “there is no such thing as luck.”  This indicates that all the heroics of Han Solo in the past movies were not because of his skill as an individual pilot, or a decision that was made at a key time, but was due to The Force working through him.  This cheapens Star Wars considerably into a religion instead of a myth building tool to encourage people to follow their personal bliss.  It is the difference between a company run by a strong individual, and a corporation ran by a board of directors and a CEO as their representative.  One is an individual enterprise; the other is a collective based entity.

In time, once the fun of a new Star Wars movie fades, the impact that the films had will fade considerably as they will lose their meaning due to this corporate interpretation of The Force as opposed to the one that George Lucas nurtured.  The corporation puts up memos on a bulletin board and expects everyone to be appeased and to serve the needs of the collective entity—no matter who it is.  A company ran by a strong individual personally speaks to everyone and gives them guidance in developing their own individuality for the good of the company. It is a slight distinction that makes all the difference in the world regarding the end result.  Clearly George Lucas understands that distinction, and Disney as an organization collectively based, does not.  That is why The Force Awakens is a failure even though on paper immediately it appears successful.  Its mythology has been tampered with and is now changed forever—for the worse.  The message is one now of collectivism as opposed to individuality and that makes it very dangerous—and vile.

Now you should understand dear reader why you felt that The Force Awakens was a bad movie, but didn’t quite know how or why. It looked like Star Wars, sounded like Star Wars, had the same characters as the original Star Wars—but it wasn’t Star Wars.  It turned the overall message away from the rebellion of freedom fighters fighting for an individualized galactic republic and put the emphasis on collectivism and the reach and authority of corporations and the eventual tenacity to grind away everything that stands in their way.  And there isn’t much anybody can do about it but wait for some unseen Force to tell us what to do.  To those broken by corporate socialism into waiting for permission to use the rest room or get their vacations approved by a superior, they love Rey in the film because it’s all they can hope for in their lives after being beaten by collectivism for many years into no other option but to hope that they’ll win the lottery or gain an inheritance to earn their freedom from the grind.  But for hard-core Star Wars fans, Han Solo was the self-determined individual who functioned heroically not due to special powers or hooky religions—but by his own actions.  And in The Force Awakens, they killed off that character—for the “greater good.”  The message couldn’t have been clearer from the corporation known as Disney.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

Why Disney Destroyed Han Solo: Progressive activism and attacking “white, American, family men”

I knew there was trouble on June 3rd 2015 when Marvel comics announced that Han Solo had an ex-wife in its comic #6 issue.  I didn’t want to believe it, but after later seeing The Force Awakens, I am 100% sure that what I was watching Disney do was on the scale of the old medieval churches in Europe re-writing history with their printing of Bibles to control the mass population through religion.  Star Wars was becoming something of a religion around the world, and now that the Disney Corporation had paid 4 billion dollars for it they were taking great liberties with very important characters in an attempt to change their original meaning to the overall story.   They didn’t have to, because the property had already been developed by George Lucas over three decades into a positive household name with no signs of abating.  Even more alarming was that Han’s revisionist wife was a black woman named Sana Solo proving that Disney was more interested in establishing progressive values in their ownership of Star Wars instead of just continuing the story that so many loved.   Disney was deliberately smearing the market impression that Han Solo had on the Star Wars stories and they were doing it not to be more successful, but because they wanted to change the meaning and mythic impact of the overall story arc.  That is why if you were listening to WAAM today at 1 PM in the afternoon, you would have heard Matt Clark and I dismantling Disney’s ownership of the Star Wars franchise.  If you missed it, you can hear it again here and above this paragraph in two parts:

http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2015/06/03/meet-sana-solo-han-solos-wife-star-wars-6/

I am quite a believer that the Bible has been revised to such an extent by political forces over the years that it has lost much of its original meaning—so I don’t trust it.  One fine example is the missing Book of Enoch which would have been an important part of Genesis.  It is not considered by Jews and many other Christian groups to be part of the Biblical “canon” and knowing that one can only wonder what else has been left out, or added to the stories that have made three of the world’s religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims.  Like it or not, Star Wars has become something of a religion.  Another few hundred years and it will likely have more influence over mass populations than Christianity does today—and that all starts with these seemingly simple stories being shown in our lifetime.  So it concerned me greatly when Han Solo was introduced in Marvel #6 with a black wife—which I didn’t believe at the time.  My wife and I talked about it a bit, I was then involved in a large motorcycle accident which soaked up a lot of time and attention.  I was also involved in a massive international project that was taking a lot of time.  But my concern was so great that I stopped buying Star Wars merchandise at that moment.  I had been reading the books and comics to alleviate the daily pressure associated with my life.  But upon the release of Star Wars #6 under Marvel Comics, I stopped, immediately.

When Marvel took over the comics which were supposedly Pablo Hidalgo approved from the Star Wars story group six months earlier from Dark Horse I was curious that they didn’t show a desire to connect the story material between the two publishing conglomerates.  I didn’t let that bother me too much because comics I don’t consider to be as important as novels—especially the New York Times bestselling books that had taken over the Star Wars canon for two decades in a really positive way.  But under Disney’s ownership of Marvel they had introduced a black woman to be Han Solo’s wife in an effect to emphasize negative character traits of one of the most popular characters in Star Wars Solo was a white guy superman type of character, so I wondered if Disney’s direction was a political one.  Later when I saw The Force Awakens, it clarified it emphatically.   Disney had revised the Star Wars canon personally created by George Lucas to make the stories more progressive politically.  They were essentially destroying a major character for the sake of editing the impact the character had on established mythology.  This was equivalent to the way that progressives have attacked Thomas Jefferson as a real historic figure with the Sally Hemings allegations, or to attack Jesus and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, the prostitute in the Bible who traveled with Jesus and was there at his execution.  We have witnessed revised history taking place in our public schools and colleges for the purpose of erasing history and now it was happening in Star Wars—an entertainment property that was just supposed to be for fun.  Yet Disney was purposely destroying the character of Han Solo because of the impact he had on so many fans as being a very strong, and reliable character. My suspicions were confirmed at the beginning of September when a gay character was included in the new Star Wars novel Aftermath, which I reported a warning to Disney upon release.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. 

I’m not against black characters in Star Wars, or even alternative sexual types.  However, Star Wars has always been an updated western, a space opera intended to communicate mythic stories that propelled our society with foundation philosophies.  Until Star Wars comic #6, then the novel Aftermath followed by the confirmation of all my concerns with the movie The Force Awakens, I felt I could trust Lucasfilm with a story canon that was personally managed by George Lucas.   I could read a story in a book or comic and believe that it had meaning to the overall collection of stories that had been canon until the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm from George Lucas.  Now in a very short time, Disney didn’t even try to cover their intentions with subtlety.   They disrespected the long-time fans so much that they counted on sheer numbers to justify their collective activism of taking a deeply traditional story like Star Wars and turning it into a progressive mess.  Disney was showing itself to be much more interested in selling the politics of the Obama White House than in just telling a story set in a galaxy far far away.   Disney was promoting gay sex and interracial marriages over protecting the value of what made Star Wars successful to begin with.  So for me, the only Star Wars canon is the one that took place before Disney took over.  The last official book in the Star Wars canon under the guidance of George Lucas was the very good book The Crucible.  It takes place 45 years after the Battle of Yavin in the film A New Hope  After watching A Force Awakens, which takes place around 15 years earlier I had thought that there was some time travel going on that gave the Star Wars story group an out if things went wrong with their progressive activism, but I’m now convinced that it’s too late.  Disney executives have made progressive concepts their priority which has ruined Star Wars forever, they can’t go back now—they are too committed.  Here is how The Crucible went and is officially the way that Han Solo and the other characters of the George Lucas canon rode off into the sunset of storytelling. 

http://www.starwarstimeline.net/

When Han and Leia Solo arrive at Lando Calrissian’s Outer Rim mining operation to help him thwart a hostile takeover, their aim is just to even up the odds and lay down the law. Then monstrous aliens arrive with a message, and mere threats escalate into violent sabotage with mass fatalities. When the dust settles, what began as corporate warfare becomes a battle with much higher stakes–and far deadlier consequences.

Now Han, Leia, and Luke team up once again in a quest to defeat a dangerous adversary bent on galaxy-wide domination. Only this time, the Empire is not the enemy. It is a pair of ruthless geniuses with a lethal ally and a lifelong vendetta against Han Solo. And when the murderous duo gets the drop on Han, he finds himself outgunned in the fight of his life. To save him, and the galaxy, Luke and Leia must brave a gauntlet of treachery, terrorism, and the untold power of an enigmatic artifact capable of bending space, time, and even the Force itself into an apocalyptic nightmare.

I have praised George Lucas often because I think he’s a great filmmaker.   He is too liberal for me, but I respect him greatly.  He does have a black wife, which I don’t think is a big deal and he supports Obama.  I gave high praise for his film Red Tails because it was an important story that needed to be told.   When he sold Star Wars to Disney he did it because he was 70 and wanted to retire—but he had a massive company with over 2000 employees.  It would have been better for Star Wars if Lucas would have just maintained control of his property, but then he couldn’t just let his employees rot—at least in his mind.  So he sold Star Wars to a corporation he thought might preserve it, and washed his hands of the responsibility of being a major employer.  I can understand all that.  I thought it was a good move so long as Disney respected what George Lucas had built.

There is a lot more of George Lucas in Han Solo than in any other character I think.  I’m sure George would say that he’s Artoo Detoo, or Yoda and that Star Wars is all about Luke Skywalker.  But Han Solo is the old drag racer that Lucas used to be—and in many ways still is.  I have read hundreds of Star Wars novels, most of them have Han Solo in the stories so I know the character very well—and he’s what George Lucas wanted to be.  And let me say, Han Solo would have never had a wife during A New Hope.  He had a long time girlfriend who was a drug addict prior to meeting Princess Leia, but he was not a sleep around.  He wanted to be as far away from attachments as possible to protect himself from the obligation of maintaining those relationships and violating his opportunities for freedom.  He wanted nothing more to limit his loyalties to his Wookie friend Chewbacca and to travel the galaxy in his hot rod Millennium Falcon.  Much of his gruffness toward others was an act, just as he deliberately kept the Millennium Falcon looking like a wreck to disguise the power within it—the ship was the embodiment of Han Solo himself.  Solo would have never had a wife, and once he did, he would have never left her. Han Solo is not the kind of character who gets drunk on Nar Shaddaa and wakes up with a wife.  Han Solo was the embodiment of all the cowboys that George Lucas grew up loving as a kid, and he created a character that modern kids could look up to.  That’s why he was always my favorite character, so it was very easy for me to see the revisionist history that Disney was attempting to perform without getting caught.  Only, they got caught.  I know too much about all this stuff not to see it.  I know Star Wars not just from the surface but the structure of it—where it all started from the perspective of the Joseph Campbell Foundation.  I was a member way back when George Lucas was on the Board with Campbell’s wife Jean running things.  I’m not just a fan boy who didn’t want to see Han Solo killed in The Force Awakens.  I’ve studied history and I know the impact of mythology, and why politics seeks to capture stories to control mass populations.  That’s what Disney is doing with Han Solo, destroying him so that they can rebuild him in a progressive way to satisfy their political activism.

Star Wars fans really want to like The Force Awakens.  I’m one of them.  My opinions as of now are in the extreme minority.  Just like a religion, when people find out something is wrong with a mythic device that contains all their foundation thoughts, people tend to get defensive—and some of that could be heard on the broadcast I did with Matt Clark on WAAM radio.  But being in the minority does not make me wrong.  A million fools cannot erase a truth and what Disney is doing will bite them in the ass—because they are changing essential portions of the Star Wars mythology to satisfy current political concerns.  But those concerns will change over the next 60 years and these gay subplots will seem silly to future readers—especially when they seek out the original stories under George Lucas and compare the activism that occurred under Disney.  Disney could have made a lot of money and done something really good by just leaving Star Wars alone and letting the profits from the endeavor follow.  But they chose to be activists politically—for progressive reasons.  Executives at Lucasfilm and Disney looked at Han Solo and noticed that he was a strong, traditional white male, and they wanted to dirty him up.  So they gave him a wife that he was cheating on, and she was a woman of color to make her more of a victim.  Then they had Han leave Leia in A Force Awakens to return to smuggling as if that was all Han Solo was ever good for without his marriage to a woman of stature and prestige.  They purposely muddied up the character to make a point and create more social diversity because that is their value system.  And that is why the Star Wars stories for me ended with The Crucible, a New York Times bestseller that has as much value to me as the novel Lord of the Rings, or The Bridges of Madison County.  Disney by corporate design to elevate minorities, gays, and women in their stories to appear more diverse, politically, took the strongest character in the Star Wars mythology and erased his essence with a revised canon that makes him into a scumbag more relatable to modern audiences.  We are living in an age where a lot of children cannot relate to a Han Solo type, a man who stays with his wife and is loyal to a fault. So Disney tried to weaken the character to appeal to younger audiences—but all they did was cause trouble for themselves.  I’m not the only fan who will reject their product.  Many others over the years to come will follow and Disney will only have themselves to blame.

For me this whole exercise has provided proof of something I’ve long suspected, that mythologies over time are radically redesigned by politics in all cultures to justify the failures of social mismanagement.   The Bible has certainly been altered over the years to reflect the values of the Roman Empire, and the churches of Europe who wanted to use religion as a natural extension of that imperial control.  Modern progressives are trying constantly to re-write history from the vantage point of the conquered Indian to erase the merits of cowboy capitalism in the West.  And China prohibits proper archaeological study of their many pyramid-shaped mounds to suppress the real history of their ancient culture.  Those are just a few examples.  And right in front of our faces we have watched Disney revise something in our lifetimes in spite of the many witnesses.  I read just the other day a defense of the movie A Force Awakens straying from the original plots created in the Expanded Universe by declaring that Solo had a wife in the EU.  No, Solo did not have a wife under the EU.  That plot device was created six months before the release of the 2015 Disney film to justify why Solo left Princess Leia after Return of the Jedi to become a typical white, American male—a Homer Simpson loser who can’t keep his pants on, and is unreliable to family life.  In Disney’s desire to make Star Wars more accessible to women, and minorities, they have deliberately tampered with what made Han Solo one of the most popular characters in the saga—and they did it out of political activism, not intellectual necessity.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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