The scum bag old hippies from the labor movement sent me one of their propaganda pieces over the weekend still upset at Scott Walker for successfully making Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Their argument was an implied insult made by Walker during a speech poising himself for a presidential run saying, “If I can take on 100,000 protestors, I can do the same with Islamic terrorists.” The labor unions of Wisconsin and within the Democratic Party felt that the comparison of labor union workers protesting the reforms that Walker was implementing were inaccurately being compared to terrorists as if such a thing was a radical departure from reality. But the truth is, any labor union that uses force, coercion, or fear of any kind to make their point is an act of terror. They may not go to the extra level of killing people to make their point, but they certainly did try to damage Walker politically and personally on several occasions and their motives were to invoke terror upon the governor with the same tactical aims in mind as the terrorists of Islam are seeking to achieve through their actions.
Just because the terrorists in this case aren’t wearing towels on their heads and cutting the throat of so-called infidels on a beach in the Mediterranean, if the intention is to make a point against a rival position by using fear instead of logic—the action is one of terrorism. The labor unions have been conducting themselves in such a manner for years, and they don’t get a free pass just because they are American citizens, or members of the Democratic Party backed by laws created by the Department of Labor. Terrorism is anything that invokes fear to accelerate acceptance of the perpetrator’s point of view.
And while we’re at clarifying definitions, let’s also look at the type of language used by labor unions to describe themselves. In the propaganda piece the labor union described their position as such, “Scott Walker compared Wisconsin workers to terrorists. He wants to be president, STOP HIM.” From there they have a little link you can click that takes you to a petition page so you can sign your name to their plight as if some collective mass of ignorance could stop the reality of their foolishness. Workers in the way that labor unions and members of the Democratic Party machine use it, is a term utilized by the philosophy of Karl Marx in his various articulations on the merits of communism, such as in the Communist Manifesto where he ends the book “workers of the world unite.” In the manner that Marx indicated he was calling for an act of terrorism against the management of labor in capitalist enterprises. When “workers” strike and don’t perform tasks of labor, they are no longer “working” they are denying labor to an employer—so they require a different technical classification. A worker in a capitalist country is someone who conducts productive enterprise. A worker in communist and socialist endeavors is a protestor who uses terrorism to extort money they did not earn through collective bargaining agreements by threatening to destroy productivity or the profit margins of their employer through a strike.
Recently the labor unions of the west coast port workers managed to wrestle a contract negotiation settlement for themselves by slowing down work for a number of months costing many millions of dollars in profit. That was economic terrorism where the employers were forced to take the lesser of two evils, they could not operate their business due to the back log in work the labor union “workers” were imposing on them, or they could agree to the labor demands of their protestors and at least collect enough money to stay in business. With average wages of $147,000 per year the ILWU union deliberately brought the management of the west coast ports to their knees with drag-assing techniques designed to hurt their employer so to wrestle away more money from them. That was and is an act of terrorism.
In my home school district of Lakota in 2013 when they wanted to pass a tax increase which they had been unsuccessful three prior times due to arguments that I posed to the public which they could not overcome, they resorted to terrorism through labor union radicalism. The district wanted to give overpaid government employees more money so they needed a tax increase on property values to do it. They used the recent school shooting at Sandy Hook to swing voters about 5% into their direction as they promised to spend the money on “safety and security.” Lakota as a district was doing what public schools do all across the nation when they want more money for their teacher unions—they make parents afraid that something might happen to their children if something isn’t done in their favor. To help drive the point home just a few days before the election a death threat was found in the girls bathroom promising a shooting spree which of course made all the papers and news outlets. Enough parents were scared to vote in favor of the tax increase and Lakota received their money. They didn’t get the money in a straight up and down vote on logic. Lakota had to utilize some form of terror to provoke people into voting for their cause making it an act of terrorism. Of course they didn’t cross the line to become actual killers like the ISIS terrorists have, but they did use fear to achieve their objectives.
And in Wisconsin, against Scott Walker, there were death threats, political maneuvers designed to invoke fear in the population, threats that the economy of the state would be wrecked if Walker got his way—none of which actually happened. The labor unions were using fear to preserve their grip on the state’s economy and under Walker’s leadership, they failed. So out of all the presidential candidates seeking a run for the office in 2016, Walker is the most experienced in dealing with terrorism. He did successfully battle it among the various labor unions in his state. Those labor unions did sometimes threaten to kill him, but unlike ISIS, they didn’t actually try to carry it out. But the threats were made—and those threats are considered to be terrorism with the same intentions as the ISIS terrorist—to achieve a tactical objective through the means of inflicting some form of terror to move an opponent off their position.
The word “worker” is not sacred in American politics. To people who create work the term indicates the potential for some radicalized protest that will cost money and a huge amount of damage to the public relations of any endeavor. Labor unions don’t get to live under different rules by the shadows of reality just because they are Americans. If they desire to inflict fear because they can’t win an argument through logic, they are in fact a form of terrorist. Any time coercion is utilized to achieve a political objective; it is an act of terrorism. Obama conducted himself as a terrorist when he sent a picture to congress with his pen promising executive orders if they did not do as he demanded. When they refused, such as in the amnesty issue, Obama signed an executive order that ended up as a rider to the Department of Homeland Security bill which is presently being voted upon in the House. Those against the DHS funding bill are upset at Obama’s executive order for amnesty which is really just another way for Democrats to buy votes for future elections. They make up lots of fancy terms for things, but at the heart of the reality, they are behaving as terrorists, because they use fear to drive policy implementation. And of the potential candidates in 2016, Scott Walker has the right kind of mind to deal with the type of domestic terrorism that has so crippled the American economy for years in the labor unions. It’s quite clear that he has the ability to deal with terrorists who don’t even try to hide their actions behind suits and ties—and Washington lobbyists. Walker’s track record and statement was correct. And the labor unions know it—that’s why they’re afraid of him.
As I’ve said before, there is a very good reason I write all these articles, and they are never intended for the masses. I offer them to everyone, but due to their length, and content, the masses will tend to reject them as too difficult. Purposely I present most of my articles at over 1000 words—because people of poor intellect will avoid the contents—leaving a target audience of approximately 1% to read them. That 1% tends to be the social elite, the news makers and shakers of society who aren’t so easily scared off by such lengthy presentations. They require such explanations as they cannot find in typical 400 word pieces because modern problems require more information for their inquiring minds. The Drudge Report has its niche, which is to present many links to several pertinent articles on a daily basis from one location. Other news sites do a good job of reporting daily events, but they only go surface deep not giving the proper depth of an argument that might typically fill a 12 to 22 minute television or radio segment. Being a person with a background in doing a lot of live radio and television I have a pretty good idea what is needed for a typical interview so I present my articles in a way that will settle the mind of the type of people who find themselves in a position to do important things—by means of shaping the social dialogue.
Going through Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom articles a number of them especially from 3 to 4 years ago are routinely at the top of many Google searches because minds seeking that information start inquiring about the topics about a year and a half before they feel comfortable talking about these controversial issues at a social occasion or even more daring—in front of a camera. I am not the only one providing this service, but I do make sure that I provide each topic in a way that would be able to be discussed credibly during a news segment—because I have the unique experience of performing that task myself. One of my most popular articles is the one about Barrack Obama’s mother revealed through nude photographs taken likely by Frank Marshell Davis—the communist and mentor to the current president which at the time seemed very controversial, but presents enough evidence to declare that there is something really wrong with the mind of the man currently sitting in the White House.
When that article was first written I had taken an article from The Blaze discussing the new book The Communist written by Paul Kengor and provided a means for framing the argument by logical, articulate minds. Anyone who has done live interviews knows that before you can articulate fully a statement during a debate, that you have to know the who, what, why, when and where backwards and forwards otherwise you will stumble through the interview sounding foolish. It’s not enough to provide the observation that Obama was trained as a communist—and these are the facts—you have to paint the story in a way that makes sense to the 1% of the population that actually considers things, and tend to be leaders in their own right.
So it gave me great pleasure to watch former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani defend American exceptionalism and lay out essentially the primary topics presented in my article on Obama mentioning specifically the Frank Marshelle Davis connection on the popular Fox News show The Kelly File. It was an explosive interview by a guy who traditionally speaks his mind and hits hard in his positions. But, five years ago, he would not have dared to say any of the things he did on The Kelly File because of the scrutiny it would have provided him as a spokesman for the Republican Party. Back then, Obama’s presidency was still new, and people like me were being viewed as extreme. Now, the facts are in, and those at the back of the train of thought—not always their fault—are seeking answers. In Obama’s case the foundations of his beliefs point back to a childhood developed by socialist leaning grandparents and a number of father figures scooped up by his sexually carefree mother over many years. These men were Islamic and Hindu in their faith and in some cases were communist radicals shaping the mind of the young confused little Barrack Obama in a way that ruined his mind.
I started out my article on the Frank Marshell Davis character with a sensational headline that typically grabs a reader’s attention, but once they see the lengthy contents they turn away. However, there are plenty of who, what, why, when and wheres presented and by the time those readers finish one of my articles, they are well equipped to seek out support information. I even put the link to the very good book by Kengor at the end for people to read for themselves. After they’ve done a bit of personal investigation they can then ask the question how we allowed such a Trojan Horse like Obama into the White House to begin with. That appears to be the path that Giuliani has taken-and it was good to hear him double down on The Kelly File when he was being offered a platform to apologize from. I’ve been in that situation a time or two myself, so I understand and sympathize with what it means, and when Giuliani held his ground, he put himself in a position to lead many others in the proper direction of actually questioning Obama’s intentions in a way that the political left has successfully deterred for six years.
Just because a person is President of the United States it does not mean they love the nation. Glenn Beck actually did a good radio piece about Obama in the wake of the Giuliani comments about love for a country specifically and was spot on in his analysis. Obama does not love America the way we might love America. He was raised away from the mainland in a third world developing country by a sleep-around mother who brought many men to the young man’s life leaving a very confused little boy who communist radicals later befriended to send the fair-skinned community organizer behind the scenes to dismantle the “imperialist” monster. They saw America as something to “transform” not to protect so they went about their business of hiding their insurgent behind the protection of racist accusations. Influential Republicans who often tour the talk show circuits held their tongues because of the volatility of bringing up anything negative about Obama’s past giving him a chance to show what he was really about. When they saw his actions over the last six years, they sought out answers to provide some context to their observations leading them to articles like mine that have been out there a while, but are only just now being accepted as a viable examination into the insurgent mind of America’s current president.
Obama is an American president that we’ve never seen before—and there is a reason. He was raised and developed to be a radical within the White House. He was elected through guilt—accusations of an ancient past that involved slavery cast against the political party that actually freed the slaves. Through their timidity Republican leaders stayed away from the controversy and gave Obama a chance. Now, they are seeing what people like me have been saying all along as the facts have caught up to their positions at the back of the train and they can’t hide from the facts any longer. Of those Giuliani is among the first of the top 1% of party leaders and people of means to speak about these matters in front of a camera instead of at social gatherings under hushed voices and for that he deserves credit for his courage. Now that he’s shown the way, others will follow, and it is at that time that a proper exploration into the real motives of President Obama can be understood.
It takes a while for the contents of these articles to do their job, but it’s the nature of the human mind. If I wanted to appeal to the masses, I would write much smaller, less controversial and far leaning articles. But I’m not. I want people like Giuliani to read these articles from his iPhone in a New York café and consider—what if. I want him to think about it for some time with the reassurance of talk radio, books like Kengor’s and to want to add up the evidence and finally do something about it when they get the opportunity. Because guys like Giuliani get in front of the camera often, they get a chance to really break open a story—even if the information is old. The Frank Marshell Davis story is old at this point, but it never really hit the American consciousness, because it is too complicated and deceitful to consider among a busy public. But that was always the plan to place an insurgent communist type thinker into the White House of the freest country on earth to dismantle its power and influence the world over. It’s one thing to present the evidence, it’s another to stake a reputation on it. And for a man of Giuliani’s reputation, it means a lot that he’s finally willing to make such statements. It’s a sign that the type of people who typically find themselves in a leadership role, are finally able to articulate an argument against the Obama presidency that steps beyond the pageantry of the office itself. And that is the first step in solving the problem. The masses of democracy that Obama appeals to have enabled the insurgent to hide his true colors behind a political office meant to be above scrutiny. It takes that unique 1% to take action against such maniacal schemes. And it is for them that I do all this work.
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted the below video from 1961 by Ayn Rand herself about capitalism and communism. At the time there was a lot of debate about which was better for society. The political class and intelligentsia decided they liked communism whereas the American people still in love with their John Wayne westerns and old-fashioned ideas of westward expansion loved their capitalism. Democrats and labor unions in a partnership with each other decided that they would avoid the name of communism in much the same way that Fidel Castro did during the period that he was trying to convince Cuba to turn toward Marxism by denying that his proposed dictatorship was a party of communists. Of course we know by history that it was a complete lie, just as history will show that in America public schools, colleges, and the federal government itself has fully embraced communism all along—and sought to teach children those “communal” concepts from before even kindergarten. Visit any daycare facility and you will see communism being taught to 3 and 4 year olds in great abundance. In 1961 Ayn Rand was despondent as to how the great America could even conceive of making the mistakes she had just escaped from in her mother Russia. So she made the below recording to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association to contemplate why.
Speaking of management associations and the innovations available to America it is an aspect to my life that I know first hand. I came to know Ayn Rand and the ARI work because I share with them very similar ideals about how business should be conducted and why capitalism is such a vastly superior mechanism in any global marketplace. I never read Ayn Rand until just a few years ago, yet I lived my life nearly in parallel with her character Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. When I finally did read it I wondered how I had traveled through life for over 40 years without running across it—and once I did I understood completely the intentions of the novel.
For me the most powerful part of the book was when Roark refused to be a member of the architectural board for the World’s Fair exhibit because of his strict personal revulsion toward collectivism. I too have been invited and had to decline many such associations and it has cost me likely millions in so doing. For thirty years I have been given many, many, many opportunities to do just as what was offered to Roark in The Fountainhead and I declined for the same reasons so to keep my own integrity intact. I had never heard of anybody doing the things I had been doing and taking the social positions I had until I read The Fountainhead, which was really the first time I had a measure that I was actually right in my instincts—and it was good to hear Ayn Rand from beyond the grave tell me she understood.
I had for years been struggling with the communism so present in American business—everything from Six Sigma concepts to Jack Welch management methods. I was sent to many classes over a great deal of time and on day one I lost interest because essentially what they were teaching was classic communism—not capitalism. It was no wonder that companies struggled with profits and innovation and I had no desire to learn such a stupid thing. I often refer to my years at Cincinnati Milacron as one of those pinnacle moments of understanding. I was sent to a Lean Manufacturing seminar as a hand-picked bright spot in their future only to discover that the company was dying on the first day of class. I lost interest in that company once I realized that they were has-beens and would soon go out of business more or less—which of course they did. My views at the time I couldn’t articulate against the current because everyone essentially thought I was nuts—since I was the lone voice against “consensus” and other focus group derivatives. I knew from experience that I wanted to maintain my individuality because it was within that element that true innovation in thought was brought forth.
I still run into the same opposition—actually every day. But I now have a track record to beat over people’s heads which quiets them. When I was in my 20s and 30s everyone just thought I’d grow out of such thoughts of independence—but instead I just got worse over time the more I saw that my methods worked as opposed to other studies. During the 90s I likely read every management book there was in Barnes and Nobel over a ten-year period, and most of them were so wrong, that they might as well be the equivalent to the latest “quick diet” fad because the methods were built around the same mysticism. Most corporations, and most businesses function like a communist dictatorship which quickly saps the strength of an organization of its most valuable resource—the individuals who actually work for the institution. It isn’t long that a company dies on the vine once a few decades of communist dictatorship ruins them for life. Cincinnati Milacron died in this fashion—as did General Motors. The later was only saved by government bail-outs.
Banking institutions, corporations, political structures—everywhere that there is a hierarchy of a few nameplate administrators who have power over others just by title, communism is found to be at the core philosophy of the leaders within the institution. Many of those tuning in to listen to Ayn Ran only cared about what she had to say about profit—not about the means of obtaining it. Most American businesses in 1961 were already infiltrated with communist ideals through their education institutions. They were already thinking in the wrong manner and were mapping out their own personal destructions even as the leaders built their careers and retirement pensions. Those same individuals might have been paid good money for their leadership—but what they often left in their wake was a declining business, not a flourishing one. I simply refused to play along—and over time it has benefited me and many others because when fresh ideals are needed, they are available because I have not destroyed the means of obtaining them.
As Ayn Rand said, it wasn’t communism that proved to be superior to capitalism. It was that in America capitalism committed suicide because businessmen and women discovered that to be good at capitalism they actually had to be good people to the very core of their being and could not have their egos uselessly massaged by corporate structure. The ability to dictate the lives of others because they held power over their employees’ financial purse strings proved too tempting and they fell in love with the power of communism—the ability to be the center of control of all things distributed to others according to their need. For men, the best way to test this morality is in placing a beautiful young secretary outside of their offices. If they contemplate using their power and influence to bed her—they are not moral enough men for capitalism. For women, if they use their power and position to decorate themselves with excessive sign stimuli and tales of oversea travel not out of necessity—but grandeur for the sake of it—as if to exemplify that they hold a higher title than others and therefore hold the fate of so many in their hands—then they are not moral enough for capitalism and will become seduced by the profiteer communism eventually. Once they do, you can hear the term, “team” uttered from their mouths more and more often as they are always on the search for “communal” exercises intended to achieve consensus. A typical episode of The Office is a good place to start to see this withering, pathetic diatribe of failure manifested through comic relief.
As I write this article my wife and I just bought iPhone 6 mobile devices—which to me is one of the most innovative items on planet earth presently. The company itself is nearly at a $1 trillion market cap valuation, and they’ve done it their way. They are very much as a company the way Howard Roarke conducted his business—vastly independent of other companies. They make the market come to them instead of forming themselves to the market. Many analysts college trained to think like nice little communists wonder why the market evaluation of Apple isn’t already over $1.26 trillion—after all it could be. But Apple does things their way for their own reasons and they are driving the market according to their creative input as a company driven by individuals. Steve Jobs after all was a very informal businessman who didn’t have a college degree, and was actually fired from the company he created. But in the end it was Jobs who made Apple what it is and paved the way for creative minds through an excessive commitment to a capitalism loving culture that made Apple such a successful company. Jobs was one of the first to introduce casual wear to the business place just to break down the top down communist culture of rigid dress codes and oppressive company reminders that the employees served the institution—not the other way around. What Jobs did at Apple he was able to perform because he wasn’t taught in college to hate it capitalism—but to use it to be a creative human being. He was essentially a modern real-life Howard Roarke.
Apple isn’t the only company out there who understands that communism has no place in American business. There are others, but they are definitely on the fringe. I am one of those proud fringe people and I know of several others because like-minded people tend to know each other. But what Ayn Rand said in her lecture to the Presidents Club of the American Management Association was completely accurate. It’s not that communism is superior, or had even won. Communism has seeped into our culture as a profiteer while those who were supposed to protect capitalism were too busy thinking about how powerful they are over their employees, or in banging their secretaries. Instead of conducting themselves in a moral way, they have instead turned toward Apple and tried to copy everything about the company hoping that they will strike gold in the same manner. But they can dress in jeans and follow other similar attributes of Apple, but if they don’t develop a creative—capitalist environment for their employees to prosper in—they will fail leaving the default mode of operation to the mindless communists who will sweep in to save the day with bail-outs, focus groups and the constant reminder that institutions are all about “consensus” building. But they were, and will always be wrong. Successful companies are built by individuals for the sake of creative enterprise and it is there that capitalism shines best and brightest—and for the most people’s benefit. It is what’s missing from our present culture and why everything taught counter to that basic ideal is a waste of time. American business knows how to get there, but they are not willing to act morally to achieve it—which is why Ayn Rand in 1961 was so baffled by the American approach to the long-standing debate. There just weren’t enough defenders of capitalism out there because too many executives were staring at the boobies of their secretaries—instead of on the next great idea and how to free the minds of mankind to unleash the power of capitalism and the ideals that spring forth from such a culture.
After a friend of mine read my latest Cliffhanger installment they informed me of the comparison to a character named Pigman—which at first I thought was an insult. These are interesting days for the intersection of comics and the “clash of civilizations” indeed. The real-life adventures of a former al-Qaeda militant has become a popular comic book in Indonesia – the most populous Muslim nation in the world – chronicling his transformation from enemy to ally in the fight against terrorism. DC Comics, the home of Batman, sent the classic superhero to Paris and replaced sidekick Robin with a French Algerian Muslim known as Nightrunner. “The 99,” is a comic book creation out of the Middle East featuring 99 superheroes, each representing a different aspect of Islamic culture. “The 99” has received the blessing of President Obama and is working with other DC comic heroes as well as becoming an animated TV series. So there is a lot of literary and creative propaganda out there representing many of the real life tensions percolating under the surface of superficial reality.
Then there’s Pigman, the jihadists’ nemesis and the protagonist of Bosch Fawstin’s latest graphic novel “The Infidel,” a story of Muslim twin brothers whose lives veer in polar opposite directions in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. “The Infidel” echoes Fawstin’s own journey from his Albanian Muslim beginnings, to apostate and Ayn Rand devotee—which is quite a swing in reality.
Fawstin is a cartoonist who scored an Eisner Award nomination – the comics industry equivalent of an Oscar nod – for his debut graphic novel, “Table For One.” He’s also a FrontPage contributing artist and the author/illustrator of ProPIGanda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a collection of images and essays that serve as a companion piece to “The Infidel.”
When I first looked up Pigman I thought it was a reference to the 1968 novel—and I couldn’t see how that would be applicable to my Cliffhanger character. This same friend for quite a while has been uttering that Cliffhanger should be a graphic novel, but my argument has been that I need the literary structure to tell my story. A picture is not always worth a thousand words if each of your words represents a thousand ideals. So a well written novel or literary story still has a power that I don’t think graphic novels and even movies can fully utilize. When the focus on an image is the premier concern—something usually gets lost in the translation as a compromise. In literature compromise isn’t needed, and readers are free to paint their own pictures in their minds. However, that’s not to say that is the case with Pigman.
In a time such as we live in now where any language against jihadist activity is considered radical and an invitation to personal destruction—I have to admire Bosch Fawstin for having the testicular fortitude to take the approach he has. He’s talented enough to work for any major comic house, but he has taken the independent path and built a character that is opposed to the political structure currently in place. In that respect he and I are in the same situation. He knows that any work he does for the industry will have to come from himself—because nobody is going to hire him due to his strong beliefs now that he’s shown them in the Pigman character.
The crime that Fawstin has committed which orthodox media and politics have deemed so terrifying—is that he clearly has identified the jihadist activity from Muslim religion as a vile evil and he doesn’t stray away from the designation. In a world where everyone seems indecisive on Islamic radicalism—especially in a creative capacity, Fawstin has drawn a clear line in the sand for all his readers to observe. Islam based on his experience with the Koran is evil and he uses his character of Pigman to become the worst nightmare of the jihadists inflicting terror upon humanity. For that reason, I LOVE PIGMAN!
So I can see why my friend drew such a parallel between Pigman and Cliffhanger. Fawstin and I are doing similar things for similar reasons. It is up to creative people like us to see evil where it is hiding and root it out through our mechanisms so it is easy for others to see. That is clearly what Pigman is all about. For a change there is a superhero for those in the current freedom movement doing the kind of work that might not be appreciated for another half century. It might not be readily acceptable in our current mainstream culture, but 50 years from now I have a strong feeling that Fawstin will become a cult classic and will go a long way into shaping the kind of culture that young people will be looking for in the aftermath of our current tribulations.
Traditional comic heroes like Batman, Superman and many of the others have had artists handling them over the last couple of years steering them in a progressive direction. Superman a few years ago gave up his American citizenship to fight for the United Nations, and of course Batman had the little Muslim guy Nightrunner as a viable—more global sidekick in an effort to push the cape crusader into a wider market. The Green Lantern re-launched as a gay hero—attempting to take such radical ideas into the mainstream. So it is certainly worthy for a talented guy like Fawstin to make Pigman as a conservative argument against the progressive tide and to let history determine the victor. In the end, the trend will show that the progressive attempts will fail, because generally people don’t respect those types of approaches. Most people by default are more comfortable with conservative ideals when they can get them, because society in general when stripped away from political motivations is right of center in value. So it is likely that Pigman will have a longer shelf life than someone like The Green Lantern or even Superman if that United Nations crime fighter trend continues away from the traditional, truth, justice, and American way approach. Pigman is not about political correctness—which comics have traditionally stood against. When comics start pandering to the political establishment, they are suddenly, “uncool.” And they won’t last when there is competition like Pigman out there that more appropriately articulates the concerns of modern audiences.
After watching the severed heads, and brutal murders of late from the ISIS insurgents in the Middle East and how weak Obama’s political approach has been in reaction, I know I personally want to see someone punished for the evil inflicted. We aren’t getting that satisfaction in reality, but in our minds, at least we are not broken as a people. Bosch Fawstin is proof that the minds of Americans are not yet destroyed by the insurgent application of terror from continued social stress and political policy directly applied through mainstream culture. Comics live and breathe beyond the mainstream and the more orthodox they become—such as in the latest movie adaptations, the more need there is for characters like Bosch Fawstin’s Pigman. So I consider it a privilege to receive such a comparison. It’s a tough fight out there—and it is good to see another valiant character taking care of a market sector that is desperately in need of a strong opinion. And Bosh Fawstin is not short on opinion—which is the greatest gift a comic book artist can provide to the world.
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction. I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done. I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience. For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values. One of their reasons for asking for more money was to make the school safer because of the recent school shootings—like the Sandy Hook incident. Conveniently a shooting spree threat was found a few days before the election in the girl’s bathroom of the high school inciting panic throughout the district. CLICK TO REVIEW. The tax was won in favor of the increase by approximately a 1% swing. Likely a radicalized teacher union member left the note, but nobody will ever be able to prove it even though there were cameras and witnesses—the investigation never turned up an arrest of any kind. After the election, the issue was just dropped and within a few weeks—everyone forgot about it. That would be an instance of a likely false flag operation by an organization that needed to swing votes in their favor for a collective cause.
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes. Below is a list of several that are now far enough into the past that they can be looked at honestly. Many modern false flags still have too much political weight to them, so any analysis is still decades off—and likely history will view our current time as being filled with them. False flags are natural by-products of collectivism and such philosophy is taught in our public schools so groups of people as Nietzsche said—are quick to lend their support. In the following list, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to their part in a false flag endeavor, either orally or in writing. Pay close attention and then consider if any such action is likely in the modern context.
Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .
A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.
Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers). (I don’t completely agree with the cause, but there was certainly foul play involved)
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
Very interesting isn’t it? Now—after watching Brian Williams fall from grace and knowing what you do now dear reader—how many false flags can you name in your neighborhood? I bet you can find enough to fill a lengthy list. Now, imagine how many there are at the state and federal level. Think about that the next time you vote—and before you fall for the contents of the next sappy news story.
I personally don’t see any difference between the minds of men and women. Women have done great things in history and are quite capable intellectually of anything that needs to be done at any level. I have raised two daughters to believe that they can do anything and that no obstacle is too great and that there is no such thing as social victimization. Yet there is a difference between men and women and that is their roles in sexuality. Sex is a function of human bodies, like eating, breathing, or physical activity of any kind. The mind often drives the body, but the vehicle that hosts the mind is different. So it becomes very confusing to society when politics and philosophy have focused incorrectly on the bodily function of the sexes so to gain leverage in the great games of life—whether it was men trying to keep women from voting, or women using sex to gain advantage in a marriage or other relationships. Such perilous activity is the key topic point to my new installment to the Cliffhanger series Latté Sipping Prostitutes.
Currently the intellectual capacity of our modern society isn’t very astute. We are a consumer based species heavily focused on sign stimuli which drives our commercial activity to the point where intelligence has been frowned upon. The Go Daddy commercials are good examples of this—they offer an easy product that virtually anybody can perform—but they use sex to sell their product placement and convince people to turn off their minds to the fact. Most aspects of commercial society function with this intellectual weakness-Go Daddy is just an example. The important aspect is that sex is used to place product importance into the minds of the consumer class. Well, the very same tactic is used in politics, and it is a serious situation that needs to be explored which again is why I wrote Latte Sipping Prostitutes.
Progressive institutions like public education and media outlets have further distorted the contradiction by speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they have in a recent Hollywood Reporter article regarding the new Fifty Shades of Grey film being released on Valentines Day 2015 weekend to capitalize on the romantic event. The book itself is simply a work of erotic fiction. It is pornography that has been sold as mainstream literature in outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and was featured on day time talk shows like Ellen as if it were a work of pornography finally aimed at females often referred to as “mommy porn.” Men feeling like they needed to show support of women–after all they have the annual Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition that comes out in February along with other milder forms of pornography intended specifically for them–just went along to get along. The book itself and the film that is following is seen as empowering women—so the mainstream bought into the effort and made E.L. James a multimillionaire. Yet the story itself is all about the fantasy of women being dominated by a strong “ultimate” man. In this case it is a young billionaire who is drastically handsome and has just enough of a broken psyche that the story’s protagonist can love back to health—which leads to the bondage subplot and the 1/5 of the upcoming film dealing strictly with nudity and sadomasochistic sex. This has left men very confused because for three decades now they were told that women didn’t want those kinds of men. They wanted big softies who cried and shared their feelings. That is not the kind of man who is the object of love in Fifty Shades of Grey and the subsequent novels. So to sum up the problem progressive society wishes literally to have their cake and eat it too—they instructed men to be less manly and controlling—to be more open and expressive—then promoted a movie that is supposed to empower women which is all about the lust of women for controlling—dominating men. Then to top it off, the articles leading up to the film’s release–the pre-sales articles bragged about the parts of the country showing the strongest sales numbers and guess what states they were—they were strong southern states still leaning politically and culturally toward traditional values. The not so subtle message from progressive organizations like The Hollywood Reporter shown below is that women in the south are repressed and desire liberation. Read for yourself.
The highly anticipated big-screen version of EL James’ best-selling erotic novel is selling more advance tickets than average in many Southern and Midwestern states, according to Fandango. In particular, presales for Fifty Shades are nearly four times better than average pre sales in Mississippi, the online ticket retailer added. Sales are, similarly, at least two times better than expected in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.
Fifty Shades, which hits theaters on Feb. 13, is already the fastest-selling R-rated title in Fandango history. The company analyzed the state-by-state advance sales patterns, comparing Fifty Shades presales against the average and finding surprisingly high numbers for the Universal/Focus Features title.
Fandango is also reporting that hundreds of opening-weekend screenings of Fifty Shades are already sold out in cities like Tupelo, Mississippi; Florence, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Diego; Houston; Las Vegas; L.A. and New York.
The sales pattern for Fifty Shades of Grey will be that the film will do between $80 million to $60 million on opening weekend but will drop quickly once the build-up audience sees the movie. It will be lucky to make $160 million domestically which will make money on a budget that is reasonably low—and will be considered a success. But it will not be on par culturally with something like American Sniper which speaks to the typical “Red State” voter. Progressive institutions are trying to build a case for their viewpoints of expanded feminism by attacking typical red states and purple states such as Kentucky.
Of a particular interest Florence, Kentucky was mentioned which is a southern suburb of Cincinnati. I know from personal experience a lot about that demographic which is typically very affluent. There are a lot of professional couples living in that region where the husband travels a lot in their job and the women are independently building their own lives under a shared roof under very progressive conditions. When you get a few miles away from this specific region of Kentucky the demographics move back toward Bible Belt traditional roles where women still are encouraged to wear skirts on Sundays and to stay home to raise their babies if it’s even a remote option with a marriage partner. Yet the Hollywood Reporter took the pre-sales numbers from the Rave in Florence as an indication of the Bible Belt south as having women crawling all over themselves to see Fifty Shades of Grey.
Obviously the motive of the reports were political and agenda driven. When the reality comes to pass and the film isn’t a blockbuster on par with films like American Sniper—everyone will forget about the build-up. But they will remember that women in the south felt repressed and that they desire fulfillment they aren’t getting from their traditional lifestyles meaning they need to support more Barack Obama wealth redistribution programs, Hillary Clinton for upcoming president, and Elizabeth Warren as a viable progressive voice in Washington. Men through their guilt will just throw up their arms and say nothing as their wives vote for Hillary and they vote for whoever the Republican is leaving the minority voting population as the pivot vote. See how it works? But all along the scam is clear—Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t empower women at all—it just exploits secretly the stereotype that was always there—that women in a sexual sense desire to be in possession of a man who conducts their life with sheer confidence and strength. It has nothing to do with a woman’s mind or ability to conduct a hard task like becoming a scientist traveling to Mars or a technical wizard in a laboratory—but with their desires for sexual roles that they are biologically inclined to. To fill those roles they want strong men—not weak crybabies. So it is in this way that feminism has confused the hell out of everyone with the strategic objective to advance progressivism.
It’s a complicated story and my narrative Latté Sipping Prostitutes means to specifically break down this issue in a way that provides context. An example is often helpful because society speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. And it takes a great understanding of human nature to see through the haze. That understanding will not come from the Hollywood Reporter. They are simply trying to make a point that will recruit more progressive voters in the future from states that typically vote the way their husbands do—because men tend to pay more attention to political aspects of society as women tend to focus more on social aspects. In most honest marriages men leave the social engagements to their wives while the men read about local and state politics in the paper and the two typically trust in each other the result. There is much more at work behind the Hollywood Reporter article that goes back to the training of progressives from their institutions of learning which taught them to think in such ways. But it’s hard to see, which is why it is good to have tools which enable the curious to see those tricks played so openly upon the political and social landscape using the sexes to hide the truth.
It is obvious that the world is losing it’s understanding of the root cause behind innovation as isolated factions are continuing to perform such miracles, but society at large is lost as to what to do about them. As the current of world civilization desires to move toward the Vico model of four stages where presently anarchy is giving way toward theocracy it is clearly a mistake to my eyes. So I have decided to do something about it which begins with philosophy and ends with the preservation and continuation of innovation. (CLICK HERE TO REVIEW THE VICO METHOD)
One of the greatest restrictions to modern innovation is the diabolical menace of failed philosophies. Without a correct way of thinking, new ideas created by human minds cannot ignite into their true potential. So I am resurrecting an idea from my past—something I started a long time ago which can be seen at the new website of Cliffhanger Research and Development below. At Cliffhanger Research and Development the products produced must then not be technology itself, but in correcting the failed philosophies that are currently restricting the proper development of innovation. So contained within the written works produced by Cliffhanger Research and Development are examples of real technology and historical records that are true – but are suppressed behind a veil of static social systems intent to carry civilization through democratic anxieties backwards instead of toward innovation. The plot lines of these works are never-the-less exciting, and action oriented, but the underlining expectation is to make readers aware of these emerging technologies and put them into a context that can be understood as a whole instead of fragmented efforts by well-intentioned inventors. Some of the topics explored are:
The conflict in such stories is always the struggle to introduce a new dynamic force of such emerging technologies against the static patterns of conformist orthodox. To put it more conventionally, the desire to carry society toward the merry-go-round of the Vico method which is a case of continuously rising and falling civilizations that are only measured in history books—is a cycle that needs to be broken with thought so that action can take place. To fight such battles, new heroes are needed which are featured in the collected works by Cliffhanger Research and Development seen at the link below.
For instance, in my novel Tail of the Dragon, the content of the story is one of emotional conflict, car chases, legal entanglements and non stop action. But it is clear that the star of the show is technology—in this case a 700 HP engine that runs on vegetable oil. During the car chase the police confiscate all the fuel stations along the chase route leaving the fleeing bandits with no place to refuel so that eventually they will run out of gas since the police and military were unable to stop the armored car being used in the chase. So the unusual feature of this particular car which the protagonists drive allows the car to be refueled at fast food restaurants with used fryer oil making for some interesting chapters. As the author my point in such stories is not to just introduce a plot device that had never been used before, but to make readers aware that such a technology exists so that action can be taken to embrace it when they are told by the governments of the world that there are limited options to their rising gas prices at the fuel pump. Or those politicians who wish to attack “big oil” with the new religion of environmental concerns with the subtly hidden desire to carry society back to a theocratic culture driven by earth worship can be challenged with options not before considered. The United States produces a lot of that vegetable oil as waste from its fast food industry and if the waste were captured, it would certainly have an impact on fuel costs and the dependence on foreign markets. The Tail of the Dragon story is meant to bring these unique technologies to the minds of readers in ways they wouldn’t have otherwise considered.
In the Cliffhanger series The Curse of Fort Seven Mile, I am presenting a large contingent of very controversial proposals within the context of a classic action adventure story. My first love in life has always been philosophy, but my actions have always been mechanical. I’ve always been good at identifying things that are broken mechanically, or intellectually—and fixing those items quickly. So I started off in life as an inventor. That’s how Cliffhanger Research and Development began in the first place. So the plot behind The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is more fact than fiction as Cliffhanger Research and Development is featured prominently as a company involved in all the above technology. What is preventing that technology from emerging into the human realm is the static patterns of modern political systems which need to be broken so that marvelous inventions like the ones featured can emerge and bring with them fulfillment. Ultimately to perform that task it requires a divorce of the Vico method which is something the human race has never achieved. It has pushed against it a time or two—the latest being the creation of the United States—but politics driven by insufficient aristocratic human desire for social titles always pulls mankind back to the precipice of Vico.
The protagonist in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is a vigilante by the name of Cliffhanger who has found that the world was not ready for the inventions of genius, so he sets out to bring justice to the unfortunate in the classic way that a good guy punishes bad guys, but there is a deep analysis as to what makes bad guys really bad. It’s not enough for me to just say that so and so is an antagonist and that they deserve to be punished so that good people can flourish—I feel I need to show the depths and causes of such villainy, so that readers can recognize it in their own lives and take action against it. But Cliffhanger isn’t just about saving damsels in distress and unfortunate victims of ruthlessness. Cliffhanger is a hero dedicated to breaking the cycle of Vico and unleashing the hidden potential behind human innovation on a mass scale that will bring to the world a renaissance of thought followed by action.
I was inspired to this effort ironically because of my admiration for H.P. Lovecraft while playing the very involved game, Arkham Horror. It took a century for readers to begin embracing Lovecraft’s ideas—which have just now taken root. He has a similar style and approach to his subject matter as I do, so it is clear by the Lovecraft roadmap that it sometimes takes a long time for a set of ideas to take hold, but once they do, they have a major impact on the thinking of society—which is what I’m most concerned with. Unlike Lovecraft who was haunted by terrible nightmares and a sickly body all his life until his early death living week to week in poverty—I am individually quite successful and resistant to various forms of offense conducted toward those opposing Vico’s cycle. So I can write and commit myself to this Cliffhanger Research and Development project without concern of hiding myself as a ghost writer the way Lovecraft had to—or bending my work around the criteria of a New York small press publisher. Knowing that it will take a while to sink in—I am free to tell the stories that need to be told without caring for their immediate reception. My target audience is not the masses at this time—but those who are capable of innovation. I’m looking for the unique individuals out there who understand the foundations of leadership. I want to provide them with a virtue that they can get no place else. For now it starts in these stories, but as time rolls on and away from Vico—it will find its way into education processes, laboratories, and the precipice of space as mankind for the first time breaks the shackles to anarchy and the chains trying to drag it back to theocracy.
Of course this is no small attempt—but then again, I understand that with all the good things I do on a daily basis—it will be Cliffhanger Research and Development that will be remembered. As a beginning endeavor it is just a seed now, but with the nurturing that will be provided, it will grow into a rather large force with deep roots able to withstand the tests of time. And it all starts with the click of a mouse.
It’s OK to hate evil, in spite of any Christian sensibilities toward turning the other cheek. Sometimes its far worse to turn away from evil than in not loving thy neighbor as thy self. Evil is evil and it must be recognized and dealt with. For far, far too long Americans have been reluctant to pass judgment on evil for fear of appearing as “judgmental imperialists” to the rest of the world—and that has been a mistake. To see evil in all its gruesome antagonism and to understand what the Iraq War and Afghanistan War have always been about watch the video below. I can’t guarantee that the video will still be up when you have the chance to see it dear reader—but for those who catch it before it’s taken down, it is horrible to look at. What is in the video is a row of prisoners under the control of ISIS. The terrorist group is behind the row with firearms waiting for the approval to fire. Once they get it, they unleash their violence into the heads of each prisoner one by one before unloading their magazines into the helpless bodies. While watching, ask yourself what any of those people could have done to possibly justify this horrendous action. Nothing comes to my mind and I can think of a lot of things. The only proper designation is that the act is pure evil by an evil group of people and it deserves answers from a just people in a just nation. Warning, the video is very violent.
I was happy to find that Glenn Beck the day after a Jordanian pilot was burned to death inside a cage by ISIS terrorists had a similar reaction as I did. Even Beck is tired of pussy-footing around with terrorists as he showed the pictures on his Blaze website. The video was even worse than the still photographs. I think it was in many ways worse than the above assassination of the prisoners because it was just so cruel. The video was cut together with very cartoonish music and was done with the type of theatrics that might have been seen in the worst James Bond villain. Glenn Beck put up the pictures below.
In the movie American Sniper many opponents to the Iraq War have come out against the United States premise of occupation and have said that Chris Kyle and others were not heroes in that war-torn land. As much as I sympathize with the debacle that was the Sykes-Pikot agreement which ultimately broke up the Middle East into French and English territories after World War I what has been the result of that entire region with the exception of Israel, has become like a giant inner city in America. The good intentions of bringing civilization to the Arabs have resulted in a theocratic society rolling in poverty, aggressive religions, and communism in their core economic beliefs. They are now a very dangerous people in the Middle East because of their belief systems and that has left them vulnerable to the most aggressive, and repressive of their kind to emerge as global bullies.
George W. Bush knew of the complexity in the Middle East and took it upon himself to find a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power—to complete what his father had started. The so-called WMD’s in Iraq were moved across the border and hidden in Syria to be used later by Hussein knowing that U.N. inspectors would be looking for them. Of course the United Nations never found the weapons, but America went to war anyway—basically to punish evil. However, Bush didn’t do a very good job of explaining the reasons behind the Iraq War and once Americans discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They thought that Bush had lied just to provoke a conflict. The intelligence from the region indicated to Bush the kind of violence being conducted similar to what we are seeing today from ISIS. So off flimsy intelligence, and a moving target scuttling the WMD’s across the border, George Bush went on a Christian crusade into the heart of the Middle East to punish evil as he saw it. Likely he felt the way we do now in seeing prisoners burnt in cages and shot in the head one too many times to turn away. When you have the United States military as a weapon to use, he did—and I can’t blame him.
President Obama did similar acts for different reasons. He seems to enjoy the caliphate of Islamic extremism going on around the Mediterranean. Just like Bush before him Obama has used his power to assist those he identified with. Who does anybody think the rebels were in Libya who toppled Gaddafi? Obama made the decision to act alone without Congressional approval to basically assassinate Gaddafi, arm the rebels and topple that dictator so to make way for the caliphate to strengthen in the power vacuum. He supported similar actions in Egypt, and if anybody has forgotten the Benghazi situation—clearly some of the same work was at play there as well. Remember when Bahar al-Assad was accused of using chemical weapons against his own people in Syria and Obama empowered him with inaction choosing instead to arm the rebels. Well, where does anybody think ISIS came from? Where did they get their weapons—who gave them all the weapons of terror to use for a push back into Iraq after Obama announced that he was pulling out all American ground troops? ISIS didn’t get the weapons out of a Cracker Jack box, and they certainly didn’t make them. The weapons used by ISIS are a combination of Soviet tanks, and large advanced U.S. made systems acquired through direct raids, rebels who have joined ISIS, and black market purchases stocked by weapons floating around the Middle East from the Libya deal, and Syrian debacle. So the Middle East is now a mess. On one hand George Bush punished the radicals in Iraq with war. Then Obama sought to undo all the gains made by that advancement—right or wrong—by pulling back the troops and funding those rebels who wanted to form an Islamic caliphate. So look what happened, ISIS wanting to take back Iraq from the American occupation used American weapons to retake the region and now they are on a killing spree—and it is grotesque.
ISIS not even grateful to Obama for giving them all those weapons threatened just a few weeks ago to cut off the president’s head in the White House so to inspire further fear. Yet the president did nothing to step up aggression against such a rival, baffling critics. The whole modern trouble with ISIS is just another Fast and Furious scam gone terribly wrong on a massive scale and now torturous thugs are armed with American weapons giving them superiority over the innocent—and America isn’t there to help this time—and have no plans to do so—because the same president who empowered them, refuses to raise a hand against them—even when they threaten his life as well.
There is no way to step back and not have an opinion on the matter. America like it or not is all over the issue which was originally started by the English and French. Yet even when France was attacked recently by ISIS terrorists—Obama didn’t go with all the other world leaders to march with them in solidarity against ISIS in Paris. If the event had been a global warming conference, or a sick turtle caught in some mud pit in Florida Obama would have attended—but in a show of solidarity against ISIS—Obama didn’t show up against the radicals even though he loves his European allies. Why?
Evil is all around us and it is acting against our sensibilities at every level. The Middle East is now beyond hope. Good people are being killed there every day violently by terribly bad people, and those bad people are going unpunished. Leftists in America have empowered that evil with their passive actions—and literal actions—and the responsibility is now on the United States to correct the situation. That responsibility won’t just go away because it’s inconvenient. That Jordanian pilot was helping with Obama’s bombing campaign against ISIS, so we have an obligation to set things straight. The killings of these innocent people in the Middle East has to stop and before that can happen people need to understand what evil is and make a judgment to act against it. The intelligentsia class from American and European society are wrong about leaving the Middle East alone. George Bush, with all his faults had it right. Evil cannot go unpunished and under Obama, it is. Inaction in the Middle East is helping evil spread like a wildfire upon dry grass under a heavy wind. Unfortunately the wind in this case has come from the White House—and that is a question that needs to be answered only through the prism of proper identification of evil itself. The situation is very, very serious.
Iraq had evil in it before America “invaded.” The war was about stopping that evil. It wasn’t about oil. It was about beating evil. An evil that provoked a do-gooding president to do something about it—and another president to feed it like a pet.
What happens when you take a former drug abuser and put them in the White House and ask them to come up with a budget? Well, you get the 2015 budget proposal by president Obama who brought out his budget this week with great fanfare only to essentially reveal it as a word for word utterance of the preposterousness shown in the recent Greek election. In Greece the communists are now in control of the economy which swore to reject the austerity measures there. In the United States, Obama declared the same with an insane budget against austerity as reported by USA Today:
WASHINGTON — President Obama submitted his $4 trillion budget wish-list to a Republican Congress Monday, calling for a return to increased domestic and military spending to be paid for in part by higher taxes on the wealthy.
The plan includes a $478 billion public works infrastructure program for roads, bridges, and transit systems, to be financed by taxes on overseas earnings. The budget calls for new tax credits and other initiatives devoted to education, child care, paid leave, and infrastructure, with tax hikes resulting from the closure of tax loopholes. The president also wants to put an end to the automatic across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration, calling for a 7% increase in spending over the budget levels he agreed to in a 2011 compromise with Republicans.
“I want to work with Congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security. “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward. It would be bad for our security, and bad for our growth.”
For those who don’t know, austerity by definition is a severity of discipline, regime, expression, or design—a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxury. Obama instead of austerity applied to an out-of-control government suggested even more debt, spending, and taxation. It really is amazing that he even could conceive of such a proposal as to actually put it in printed form, because in reality, it amounts to the blithering of an intoxicated drug addict. It is amazing that this kind of nonsense even gets print in USA Today without a complete castigation for the mere proposal. Who is going to pay for all this stuff—the “rich?” That’s the plan, just increase taxes on people who create wealth? He’s kidding right?
Well, apparently taxing the rich and bitching about austerity is the essence of Obama’s entire budget proposal which is as ignorant as giving the keys of a nice new car to a slithering drunk barely conscious. It’s not even in the realm of viable possibilities, let alone considered seriousness. Yet Obama put out the proposal and the media covered it as if it were a legitimate attempt which was only laughable to those who can actually read.
Obama is an embarrassment to the United States and is a functioning communist based on the type of values he expresses. “Laughable austerity” means he doesn’t think there should be financial restrictions that are confined to a budget at all—his world view is simply beyond consideration of any legitimacy. It is as loony as the slap stick Greeks believing that their debts can be forgiven without payment and that the social spending they are all addicted to can continue forever. One might expect such stupidity in a country like Greece, or some Middle Eastern armpit of a world where economic activity is traded in goats—but in America—such budgets as Obama’s 2015 anti-austerity proposal doesn’t even count. Congress should have stopped the delivery of the proposal right at the door without even wasting further time—and sent them back to the White House unopened. Unless the President’s budget included budget cuts—and a reduced deficit plan—there isn’t any worth to it. It was disrespectful to the American people to even print such foolishness on actual paper.
Corporate taxes are already too high, yet Obama proposed a 14% one-time tax on overseas profits. He proposed $478 billion over six years for roads and bridges and he suggested a $38 billion dollar increase in defense spending over sequestration levels due to his mismanagement of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Obama’s numbers don’t even come close to balancing out; he expects to increase the national debt to 26.2 trillion dollars by 2025. That is insane!
Look, if someone put such an insult on my desk I would have likely blasted them out of a canon in less than a second. So I have no personal tolerance for that kind of thing. Congress should deal with this recklessness appropriately and set an example that future losers in the White House will never forget. Because if they don’t, more attempts like this one will be tried—and its about time that Americans learn the hard truth about our economy rather than through politicians who are obviously mentally deficient and seek to hide it by giving away other people’s stuff. Obama is a spending addict—just as he needs to chew gum to keep from smoking cigarettes, covering up his drug abusing past, and his Marxist teachers who made him the person he is today. He has an addictive personality. He needs an encounter group to help him with his various addictions. He doesn’t need more enablers in his life. He needs to hear the word “NO” much more often and to be treated like the louse that he truly is. Obama is a reckless loser who happened to talk himself into winning elections by giving things away to those too lazy to work. It doesn’t make him capable of putting together a budget—obviously. So his proposal deserves the ridicule measurable to the insult of even trying.
One of the great miracles of our day is that communication is now easy for the world, and global commerce is now an assumption. That is good for people who have lived far away from capitalism for far too long stuck to the old village mentality of communism which has plagued most land masses around the world into poverty. For as much as modern politicians hope to relieve the poor of their misery, by standards compared to the rest of the world, even the dead broke in America are far better off than they are most anywhere else. So it is hard to explain to people generations taught into the follies of collective endeavor why American concepts of good living should be adopted elsewhere in the world.
I am certainly not one to impose my culture on others. I have a generally live and let die attitude toward the rest planet earth except in my writing where it is obvious that I care a great deal for the success of every living human being. So for that success to work certain conditions have to be in place to allow the human race to flourish. The general rule is that the more authoritarian the government whether it be a business or a country—the less creative input that citizens have toward the fulfillment of national GDP. For instance, in America, creative companies like Apple, Pixar, Lego, Microsoft, and the Hollywood studios produce more personal wealth and opportunity than most GDP economic purchasing power in most countries, such as Iraq, Iran, India and everywhere else where theocratic religion and communist philosophy are holding back the intellectual power of the people inhabiting those economies.
There is a reason that creativity and personal freedom are utilized in those flourishing American companies because the intention of that strategy is to allow minds to think without the pretense of authoritarian concerns. The end result is a much more robust workforce that directly contributes to the wealth creation of any given enterprise. The more restrictive that minds find their society—the less innovation and wealth that will be created there. It is a very simple formula really. Even in the United States where freedom of thought is taken for granted, not all companies understand this concept, and many still attempt an old approach to job creation that embodied the top down approach so common when America was much more theocratic.
But with the communication barrier down due to the Internet, people from those far corners of the world are able to read the things I say, and they have been up in arms in anger at me in India recently—because of my articles against Obama’s fundamental third world country upbringing and obvious view of humanity that was shaped in that region. The primary reason that President Obama is so messed up intellectually is that he wants to turn America into the type of people he was raised around in Malaysia which means a theocratic society mixed with Hindu and Muslim influence along with small “C” communism so common in most third world economies.
To measure success, which has only recently been readily available to the world because of social media—web sites like this one for instance—much can be learned by looking at how other cultures live. Their lifestyles are directly applicable to their fundamental beliefs. For instance, take Dallas, Texas as an example. When landing at an airport there vast spans of wealthy homes can be seen from a West to East approach complete with swimming pools and large yards. Oil fields are also seen as well as sprawling industry and much economic activity. The highways below are orderly, and speedy—because people have places to get to quickly and without bringing harm to their vehicles. The airport itself is a sprawling complex with four basic terminals spread over a great distance. The only way to get around from one to another is with a tram system because the terminals are not connected all together to allow room for all the planes coming and going to maneuver. In Dallas to deal with all the economic activity, the airport is spread out to handle all the business there.
Now do the same in Mumbai, India, the wealthiest city in that theocratic country. For centuries the Indians blamed the English for their imperial grip on the people there and thought their freedom gained in 1947 would cast them onto the world stage, but like China and the city of Hong Kong—also a British territory—the best things economically related to Mumbai were put there by the “invading” country. These days landing in that city involves miles and miles of slum neighborhoods that look like children building forts out of cardboard boxes and the economic activity looks like the blood stream of a patient dying on an operating table—its chaos and dysfunction. The traffic patterns are random and impulsive assuming that nobody is more important than anyone else in the mass collectivism of that ancient civilization still struggling to climb out of the Stone Age intellectually without the capitalism attempted by the British.
The highways have lines on them separating traffic, but nobody follows the rules. Some drivers drive right down the middle of a lane that might be four wide, yet there are six lanes of traffic crammed into it—with everyone going their own way. In the city it is even worse as seen in these accompanied videos. There is no order in their approach to traffic, just like their rudderless economies. Without help from the capitalist West, India would slide back into the pre-deluge days of Biblical apocalypse. However, the Indians reading my statements about their country have become angry and have taken insult blaming Americans for having a third world view of their country by looking down our noses at them. Well, it is a third world country that is currently restricted by collectivist oriented religions and political philosophy. Sure I like Indian food, and I like their history—but as for having a dominating economic force—they are sadly behind the times and are a world liability to growth throughout the planet.
It is not enough to surrender modern life to the gods of theocracy then complain when other cultures out-perform them with sheer economic power. In Mumbai they can pray to Mumbadevi all they want, but it won’t fix their nation. Only by accepting the success of the West and putting their own spin on it can they hope to do that, because to date America is the most successful country on the planet taken as a whole, as to culture, racial dissemination, and raw GDP. And the lesson for Americans is to stop apologizing to the world for being so good. It would be excellent to help India become more American, but it would be bad to ask people in the United States to become more like those in India. That would be morally reprehensible.
The traffic patterns in India tell the whole story. Yes, they ride tricycles, motorcycles, small little cars and even animals that can keep up on the highways of India and they don’t crash into each other as much as you would think. But they don’t get where they need to go in a hurry either. This system works just well enough for the Indians because they are a society functioning from collectivism in their religions and political systems. Thus, they carry the same limits to their businesses. This is the primary flaw in their thinking. They can be angry that somebody points it out to them, but it doesn’t make them better by default if they eliminate a superior culture to their eyes and ears. The fact remains that compared to the West, India does not produce enough GDP on their own to care for their people and that is a major tragedy—which then feeds the theocratic nature of their entire national consciousness.
The key to any endeavor whether it is a small business, or a massive national economy with one of the world’s largest populations—is that freedom of individual thought provokes positive economic growth. This basic psychological emphasis can be seen in the traffic patterns of any society. In India, its chaos and slow, In America it’s orderly, and quick. It’s quick in America not because we’re all godless heathens, but because we have things to do and buy. Theocratic cultures might state that such consumerism is false material worship, but then again, look at the living conditions between the freedom driven culture and the theocratic one–then declare such a thing to be a sin. American standards are only demonized because the rest of the world can’t compete based on their false ideologies which limit economic activity. And now that the world is so small, and those in India can now see how people think in the West—they of course will feel bad. The question is, what do they plan to do about it? Will they just bow down and pray to the Koli goddess Mumadevi, or to the almighty dollar. They all have value in the eye of the beholder—but which one makes lives better, and which one worse? The answer is easy—but the admission is not for the culture that is failing.
