Tag: Rich Hoffman

Life on the Moon: The ancient past and modern activity of alien life above our heads

I don’t say things until I’ve considered the evidence intently and one of the reasons I’ve been most insistent to write The Curse of Fort Seven Mile with an emphasis of late is because of a realization that I’ve discovered through quite a lot of research.  These rumors of some type of life on the Moon of our earth have some weight to them.  From the 1976 book written by George Leonard Somebody Else Is on the Moon (linked below) compelling evidence from actual NASA photographs open the topic profoundly.  It’s an expensive book to get, but well worth it.  Additionally I think it is the remarks of the astronauts who have actually walked on the moon, people like Edger Mitchell and Buzz Aldren who have provided such virtuous testimony—some intentionally, some not so much so.  The evidence points more to the fact that there are constructions on the moon that shouldn’t be there and that there is presently, or has been, an alien race active on its surface.  If you can’t afford the old Leonard book feel free to watch these following videos for some supportive evidence to the fact.

http://www.amazon.com/Somebody-Else-Moon-Artifacts-Leonard/dp/1499250797/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462071157&sr=1-2&keywords=ulos+unidentified+lunar+objects

One of my first big memories as a kid was visiting the Neal Armstrong museum at Wapakoneta, Ohio while my family went on a trip to Put-in-Bay—I was around four years old.  Years after that, my class went on a field trip to the museum there while in grade school and I oddly enough remembered  most everything because I had been there before.  I was the kid who always read the literature on the exhibits, so I felt very much at home compared to the other kids who had seen the place for the first time.  Armstrong was a professor at the University of Cincinnati—which was in my hometown and his life occurred very much around me—and I was aware of that growing up.  Aviation was born around me as well, so I’ve always taken some pride in the Wright Brothers and old test pilots like Neal Armstrong who was obviously the first person to walk on the moon—at least that we know of.  What always bothered me about Armstrong was that he had turned inward after the experience.  He wasn’t like Buzz Aldren—Armstrong didn’t relish the celebrity of being the first man on the moon—he had a secret which he avoided talking about and obviously took to his death.

Given Armstrong’s Midwestern roots, I think the guy didn’t like lying to people about what he saw on the moon when NASA switched to a private broadcast while he and Buzz were standing on the surface in July of 1969.  I was one year old at the time and my parents were standing me up in front of the television to see the event.  All I remember of the occurrence was the shape of the ship and the sounds of the transmissions which I recognized at the museum years later in Wapakoneta.  I didn’t understand the context at the time, but the layers of memory solidified it in my thinking for years to come.  While everyone was impressed that mankind was standing on the moon, Armstrong had confirmed much of what NASA wanted to see, which wasn’t filmed with cameras that were made public.  We were not alone—not by a long shot—and it haunted him for the rest of his life—apparently.

I’ve talked about the moon before, there are several things not right with it—it’s a little too perfectly positioned and it is locked in a type of orbit around the earth that never shows its far side.  That is a little weird as well.  And apparently on the far side there are even more strange photographs of things that should not be there if Neil Armstrong was truly the first life form to ever walk on the surface.  This of course has led to a lot of speculation through science fiction but those entries into are rooted in fact.  For me the most compelling evidence is that we have not returned—and neither has any other country.  The technology is clearly available to us now, yet we aren’t going back after those initial Apollo missions.  Some of the astronauts involved in the Apollo missions are now very supportive of alien life in space even if they do preserve their disclosures agreements with NASA which is after all a government agency which thinks it knows best how to preserve the religions and social order of the society it is supposed to serve.

Just a few miles south of where the Wright Brothers ran their bicycle shop which invented aviation the bones of an undocumented giant species of man was found in Miamisburg—one very large skeleton at a gravel quarry near the Great Miami River and the other under a large tree which was uprooted at a farm which bordered the mysterious Miamisburg mound complex.  Strangely enough, Hanger 18 which housed the wreckage of the Roswell crash was also nearby and to prevent proper excavation of the Miamisburg site by archaeologists and anthropologists a nuclear weapon facility was built on the land called Mound Laboratories.  That certainly stopped any real research into the region by credentialed scientists.  I currently live on the banks of the Great Miami River south of that Miamisburg site, so all these conspiracy stories have been with me for my entire life—and nobody wants to give any real answers to the probing questions—which feeds the conspiracies.   My conclusion is that there is much more to the story which is why everyone is so tight lipped.  The authorities in this case would rather not confirm or deny—they’d just prefer to avoid the topic.  But the evidence is rather compelling–it’s is all around us—we just need to look at it.

Given all that evidence, it’s just a matter of time before we have to go to the moon and discover what NASA has been avoiding to tell us.  Private space companies are headed to the moon and within just a few years of now, there will be hotels on the surface—and by then we’ll learn the hard truth—it won’t be a secret any longer.  There is a presence of some life other than our own on the moon right now and they watch us from there for reasons that we’ll discover.  I would propose that it’s a kind of interplanetary base camp and they find our civilization interesting and likely some kind of social experiment that they check up on frequently.  Just yesterday I drove by the Serpent Mound site in eastern, Ohio and scientists are no closer to figuring out the reason for that strange mound than they were twenty years ago.  In fact, they have more questions now than answers.  If our science cannot figure out the meaning of things in our own back yards, then they surely aren’t prepared to deal with what’s on the surface of the moon—an entire celestial body that has not had any of its history covered yet by modern development.  It’s an open text-book of mankind’s past and whoever was a part of helping to shape it from inception.  And it floats there above our heads—all the answers we seek—yet we do not dare to uncover.  Actually, you and I might dear reader—but our governments want to hold onto their power for just a while longer.  The evidence is there for us to investigate and when we do we have a lot of hard questions to answer about ourselves.  Of course the first step will be in returning—and I can’t wait for that to occur.  I’d rather know the truth than live with illusions.

Europeans did not discover America–the giants in the Ohio mounds prove that.  They were in North America before there was ever an Indian or a Christopher Columbus voyage.  And we did not first walk on the moon.  Someone was there before us and they are still there. ………………………………

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Driverless Car Debate: A response to Time Magazine’s article by Matt Vella

As my third grandchild was being born at the West Chester Hospital recently I carefully read Matt Vella’s article in Time magazine on driverless cars and felt it was necessary to offer a few important observations to the debate which will evolve over the next decade.  As a driver, I am fantastic.  If I wasn’t so interested in global mythology, business management, literature, archaeology, and the western arts, I would have been a stunt man for Hollywood movies.  I love driving cars, and I like the role they play in a free society.  They are the center of American culture.  However, I’m not against the driverless car as many conservatives like me might be.  I don’t see them as a globalist’s takeover of our independence—although I’m sure there are treacherous personalities who fall into that category.  I see the driverless car as an evolution of our species, but I don’t wish to see complete domination of non-thinking cars taking over our society.

When it comes to highway driving, I am 100% on board.  If I’m in a car for three to nine hours at a time—I would rather be sleeping, or working on something else instead of wasting my time driving.  In that respect I am quite excited about a driverless car.  As I’ve also said, I enjoy very much the idea of skycars which obviously would have to run automatically—so I fully support cars along the same lines.  Automatic driving is a more useful way to travel because it takes away the dead time in transit.  If I’ve been up all night working and I have a meeting in Chicago at 11 AM, it would be wonderful to leave and take a nap along the way.  I could arrive refreshed and maybe have time to get a review of a proposal finished before the actual meeting which would be a big step in human evolution.

However, companies making driverless cars will likely lobby to get rid of independent driving completely and that would be a mistake.  I would not want to lose the ability to make independent decisions with my car—for instance, to drive off-road or to take evasive action that no computer program could simulate.  There are times that I want to turn off the automated braking systems and take complete control of my vehicle—and I would not want to lose that.  There is something very important in the skills humans have nurtured to drive a car and the decision-making process it evokes is important to our continued development.

The technology should evolve along the lines of convenience for the driver not to protect the insurance industry from collision payouts.  Without question the insurance industry is salivating at the prospect of Vella’s Time article, because it would greatly minimize the accidents that are imposed on insurance companies each year by taking away human error. However, humans need to think and they should not automate their lives to the point where they no longer make decisions to survive.  It’s one thing to make decisions for a career, it’s another to stay sharp enough to make decisions that are life and death and driving a car forces humans to stay close to that ultimate responsibility.  If you make a mistake you could kill people and I think psychologically, that is an important distinction that our species needs for its furtherance.  What good is safety on the roadways if you lose the soul of our species?

We already see the effects on our society now.  My brother is a diver and he had to attend a safety class recently where an orange triangle sinker was thrown into the water.  They were questioned what if there is an active shooter above the water and the orange triangle was to signal the divers to stay underwater for their own safety.  Many of the guys in this class were Special Forces guys and their first reaction was dismay.  Their instinct was to surface then shoot whoever the antagonist was—yet here was some government pin-head trying to dull the instincts of the special forces guys into a safety compliance priority that preserved their life in a physical aspect but slowly destroyed it intellectually.  That is the problem with driverless cars—the life and death aspect of it is actually beneficial to the value we all have for each other as a species.

While turning onto a road in an industrial park this past week there was some road construction and the lanes had been narrowed to just wide enough for a tractor-trailer to drive between.  There was one tractor-trailer trying to turn left and another turning left across the lane of traffic of the other truck.  For about five minutes I watched some of the most amazing driving as the two trucks worked together to navigate to their intended destinations in opposite directions with literally no room to spare.  No computer will ever be invented that could perform that task and we should not have a society which diminishes that skill set.  Outside of those trucks the drivers were probably not very sophisticated people, but behind those big wheels, they were modern Mozarts of driving.  We should not have a society that destroys the skills which makes those types of people.

Safety is not the first priority if it destroys thinking in the process.  The value of a human life is not defined by its years lived, but by the quality that it lives—and driving a car or a truck enhances that quality immensely.  As this technology develops it needs to evolve around the randomness of human error and not the perfection of an automatic society where everyone is passive participants to the machines.  We should not dumb ourselves down to make it easier for Google or Tesla to put their driverless cars on the roads fulfilling the utterances of Matt Vella’s Time article. We should not surrender our liberty to insurance companies who will obviously support that automatic quest offered by the driverless car.  It should be optional not mandatory to drive a car that drives itself.  People should still retain the ability to take over the controls if they so desire.

On a highway I can certainly see the need, but in roads around town, automatic cars would just slow everything down.  Human beings move faster because they can account for the randomness of other human involvement, where machines never can be intuitive enough to compensate for random calculations.  Just last week I had someone come completely over into my lane of traffic.  If I had not jumped over into their original lane it would have been a head on collision at about 50 MPH.  My decision had to be split second and no computer program would have told my car to do the exact opposite in that situation that any logical decision gate would have provided.  Yet I made the decision quickly and as soon as the danger passed I was back in my lane and headed where I was going alive and well.  To celebrate being alive, I stopped by McDonald’s and grabbed a Sausage and Egg McMuffin—that is life in America centered around the car and the independence it offers.  I would rather have that randomness than the safety of automation.  So if it comes down to the machines won’t work unless human randomness is removed from the equation, then I’d say the technology isn’t worth the loss to intellect.  But if the two could work hand in hand—then I’d be a fan.    I would be one of the first to sign up for highway travel.  In that respect, it would be a tremendous benefit.  But giving up that ability to drive on everything but the highway—it would slow our society down too much—and that wouldn’t be worth it just to have the diminished car wrecks that occur as a result.  Such a thing should never be made mandatory—it should remain and evolve around voluntary participation.  And if the technology cannot be kept voluntary—then it shouldn’t become a reality in the first place.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Sexless Exsistence of Reincarnation: Maybe there is hope for ‘Star Wars’ yet

One of the issues that most angered me about the obvious deviation from the Expanded Universe in Star Wars regarding the new movies was the betrayal of some really good science fiction written particularly about the nature of the Force as it was pressed in the gravitational anomalies within the region of space known as the Maw.  It’s not perfect, but there were some high concepts concerning life and death in those novels that were what I’d consider significantly important.  The Force Awakens avoided all that and went in a new direction which as presented was a much more watered down entry.  Jaina Solo was in the books one of the greatest heroines of the saga, and Rey obviously wasn’t her and it just made no sense to me that she was excluded.  I still think it was a huge mistake not to utilize those very good stories as canon.  But, obviously Lucasfilm under Kathy Kennedy with the input of George Lucas felt the stories were getting away from the core Skywalker family lineage so they wanted to make a change in the new movies—and that didn’t seem justified—unless this recent rumor of Rey’s origin turns out to be true, which I am inclined to believe.   The answer is in the link below.  Click on it only if you want to know.  Having the answer isn’t really necessary for what I have to say about it.

http://myinforms.com/en-au/a/31266981-star-wars-episode-8-plot-and-scene-description-leak-online-reys-back-story-and-parents-revealed/

Most religions believe in some form of reincarnation around the world—where the spirit of an entity returns to the world of the living in some other form, whether it’s a dog, cat, or another human being—it is something that is heavily revered around the world.  Even George Patton believed that he was an ancient warrior from days long gone and that he had been on earth before.  One of the things I have always liked most about Star Wars is that they took kid’s topics and wrapped them very carefully into modern religion.  The nature of the “Force” is an unusual concept that combines many world religions into an updated moral grounding that I have always thought was healthy.

Star Wars for me was the gateway to Joseph Campbell’s teachings which I discovered during my college age days.  I was so affected by Joseph Campbell that traditional college lost its meaning and it sent me into a five-year deep dive from about 19 to 24 years of age reading all his books, particularly The Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Masks of God series from his work in Transformations of Myth Through Time.  When I wasn’t reading Joseph Campbell I was listening to him.  I had about twenty hours of lectures by Campbell on tape which I listened to at my various jobs for several years to the point where I knew the material backwards and forward.  For another five years I spent reading all the supplement books which inspired Campbell—books like Finnegan’s Wake and Thus Spoke Zarathustra and studying great artists like James Joyce and Thomas Mann so that I could understand Campbell much better.  I did all this essentially because Star Wars had inspired in me a desire to deep dive the material of myth and how it informed the human mind about the world we live in and the world that exists beyond four-dimensional living.

I probably could have become something of a museum curator or some world traveler doing work in this field of mythic interpretation—but instead I wanted to turn even further inward and read more and think more.  I took jobs that would give me time to read and write yet still take care of my growing family.  For me—for about twenty years—from age 20 to 40 years of age I was in my own version of Luke’s Dagobah—working hard, but intellectually developing myself rather intensely and I loved it.  My mother told me that when I was one and two years old that I said strange things about the world around me as I was learning—as if I had always known certain things.  I don’t think it had anything to do with reincarnation but instead being able to understand what pours forth from the eternal spring of life essence which is at the heart of everything—call it God, call it the “Force” it is beyond human definition.  I’ve described my teenage years as being extremely fearless—because I felt I understood that the universe wanted me to live and I pushed my limits to the extreme to see how forgiving it was—and I turned out to be right—it wanted me to live.  This evoked in me a strong sense about individualism because it takes such people to tap that well.  So this life spent over the subsequent twenty years was designed to figure out the essence of that well the best I could—mostly through literature and artists from the previous 2000 years and a study through Joseph Campbell of comparative religions around the world.  I felt that the Star Wars novels were some of the greatest explorations into the nature of life beyond life that I had come across and they were great contributions to the tapestry of mythology.  The plot lines in some cases could have been better but the explorations into the “Force” were important in my view—and it was a shame to eject all that for some Disney commercial tripe.

However, in my view this revelation about Rey is something I think advances Star Wars properly—let me just say that.  It’s a fairly high concept that will conceivably provoke in many young people hopefully a similar journey as I have been on over most of my life.  I will say that if it turns out to be the case, that I will be impressed—which is likely why the information was leaked in the first place.  I have been very down on Star Wars since The Force Awakens.  Like I said, I haven’t played any video games, or even watched the television show Rebels since seeing The Force Awakens on December 17th 2015.

The mind bender which is pretty important and contrary to our lives is that a soul in whatever configuration that it entails isn’t necessarily the sex it was while it resided in a body during what we might call “life.”  When first thinking about the possible direction of the next Star Wars movie, Episode 8, I thought it was a Disney attempt to appease gay rights advocates.  But, it is deeper than that—and that’s important.  I think it’s so important that I’d consider giving Star Wars another chance because it just might advance the human race—not into the sexual rolls that we play as human beings but into the essence of what we are all made of in the eternal aspect.

However, the roles we play as a culture is important too.  Men are men, and women are women—nobody would think to walk into a Navajo tribe and start telling them to make sand paintings different or to rearrange their culture in some disrespectful way—and nobody should attack traditional American culture in a disrespectful fashion the way that progressives do.  I would argue that only American culture could produce something like Star Wars in this modern age—because it requires freedom and financial resources to extrapolate from the depths of imagination and to put it in front of the masses in such a spectacular fashion where literally the Internet was buzzing around the globe at the leak about Rey’s parentage.  So forcing gay subject matter down the throats of Disney fans is not what I’m talking about.  But a sexless existence that is eternal is something I can get excited about.  If Star Wars is knocking on the door to heavy mythic representations—then I will go in the door behind it.  If not, I’ll be done with it forever.  This news about Rey is encouraging to me.  I could get on board with that.  There may be hope for Star Wars yet.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Kong Skull Island at Universal Studios: At least its monsters and not a bunch of gay Disney propaganda

Needless to say, the timing couldn’t be better for me.  I have traveled a lot and been to many different places—around the world—but I can honestly say that there is no place on earth that I’d rather visit for vacation than Orlando, Florida. If I were given the option to take a $100,000 vacation to the Mediterranean or to have an all expense trip paid to Orlando to visit the several major theme parks there—I’d pick Orlando.  I have said much about my love of those amusement parks in Central Florida and it looks like through competition the great minds designing new attractions at those parks are giving fans everything they could hope and dream of.  I am of course talking about the Skull Island exhibit at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure.  I am absolutely enthralled by the prospect of that ride and attraction because when it comes to movie monsters—King Kong has always been my favorite—followed very closely by Godzilla. So this is exciting news to me.   Then of course is the Star Wars land that is opening at Hollywood Studios over the next couple of years.  I have my concerns about Star Wars—and my hope is that they’ll right their ship before that exhibit is completed—but I at least am hopeful at this time that they’ll do a great job.

It is a shame that Disney as a company has decided to take this exciting period and attempt to shove progressive ideas down the throats of their fans.  When I showed my wife the footage of what Disney did on their ABC television show Once Upon a Time she declared that she would never buy anything from Disney again.  It is one thing to put up with and not discriminate against gay people—but it is quite another to flamboyantly endorse the “lifestyle” and Disney is certainly guilty of that. Uncle Walt would be sick with rage at what his company is doing in regards to gay advocacy.   It’s not at all a family friendly strategy and it’s an insult to those of us who wouldn’t otherwise think twice about spending a $10,000 vacation there to give our families a good—wholesome time.  While at Disney World I don’t want ANY references to sex—especially gay sex.  I want higher concepts and heroic effort—not gayness.  I can tell Disney this—as much as I love Disney World—if they continue on with this gay pride crap—we won’t be spending voluminous amounts of money on their company any more.  My family has been big supporters of the Disney Company over the years—as recently as last week.  We attended a birthday party and it was all about Disney for gifts and balloons.  If Disney doesn’t pull in the gayness—I won’t go to their parks ever again—even though I might want to see their latest inventions.

Universal Studios is not a conservative company—they have their progressive trends as well, but they avoid getting into trouble with it.  Regarding the recent Jurassic World movie the characters were noticeably very traditional within reason.  Chris Pratt was very much an “A” type male who had a clear relationship with women.  If they had decided to muddy the water and have members of the same-sex involved with Chris Pratt from a sexual attraction standpoint—I would have a much different feeling about Jurassic World.  Call it homophobic, call it the acts of a hater—call it whatever you want.  I don’t want to see gayness in my stories.  I don’t want to see it at my vacation destinations.  And I don’t want it around me in public.  Keep it in the bedroom and don’t put it in front of my face.  With all that said, Universal Studios is certainly better at walking the line between social activism and traditional family behavior than Disney is—and their amusement parks currently are doing a better job of providing a safe environment for families.  Maybe that is because the bar is lower for Universal than Disney—as Disney is known for its family friendly material.  But I find myself much more excited right now for Kong: Skull Island than for the new Star Wars land at Hollywood Studios.

I have zero interest in seeing the new Avatar land at Disney’s Animal Kingdom.  Avatar is one of the most progressive films I’ve ever seen and even though up to that point I was a James Cameron fan—he ruined his reputation with me on that project.  Technically, Avatar was a beautiful film—but the anti capitalist message in the movie was just despicable.  Avatar celebrated tribalism and the whole global warming environmental message—and it was just sickening.  It is almost as gross as the gay agenda—the proposal that earth is a living conscience superseding human invention.   Its one thing to appreciate nature—it’s quite another to worship it.  Avatar is about worshiping nature—and I’m not into that.  Mankind should look at nature and think of it as paint for which it can make magnificent art.  Nature is a foundation for thought—not a dominate force against it.  So I may never go to Animal Kingdom to see the Avatar exhibit.  Not the best decision in the world for Disney execs.

But relatively safe from political contention is King Kong and the mythology of Skull Island.  We don’t have to worry about homosexual sex and environmental messages with monsters wanting to kill us—so it makes for a nice comfortable, thrilling adventure that you expect while on vacation.  Nobody wants to be lectured to about progressive politics if they are Midwestern conservatives spending many thousands of dollars on a vacation experience.  And there are a lot more of those Midwestern conservatives than there are progressive homosexuals and urban rap artists.  I understand that these large entertainment companies want to be as inclusive as possible so not to turn away the potential for making a good ol’ dollar, but in cases of politics, they have to pick their poison.  They can’t have it both ways.  Don’t put sexual lifestyles in front of us then expect good conservative Christians seeking strong family values to put up with the intrusion on their life. Nobody wants to spend $235 dollars a night to stay at a Disney hotel to see a bunch of rainbow gay people running around ruining the environment.  At Skull Island, there is no fear of gay themes because it’s all about monsters and destruction, and that is something to look forward to.

So it is just a little exciting to have the prospect of visiting Skull Island at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure—and I hope to see the major improvements to their Jurassic Park section of the part rolled into the mix.  It doesn’t get much better than dinosaurs and giant monsters and I will spend a lot of money to support that kind of thing.  When I’m on vacation I don’t want to see a bunch of fairies, and gay people—and I certainly don’t want to be lectured to about environmentalism.  That is why Universal Studios is pulling out in front of Disney in the theme park business.  Even though Disney is a sentimental favorite—Disney has shot itself in the foot with their progressivism.  Would Harry Potter be as popular as it is if Harry fell in love with a guy as opposed to a girl—of course not?  With such love and fairy tales there is always the promise of happily ever after with children and a continuation of the family name when romance is developed in a story.  But with gay people—it’s just sex—the love goes nowhere and as a plot device—is pointless.  Universal has filled its theme parks with superheroes, robots, and stunning action rides that allow visitors to truly feel like they are getting away from the outside world.  But more and more at Disney are the reminders of their pro-gay protests against state legislation in Georgia and North Carolina.  They are too progressively active to appeal to the American conservative base and it is starting to show.  I know if I feel the way I do about them, then others are not far behind.  With that consideration, Skull Island is looking more appealing than Star Wars right now—because I have a very strong hunch that Disney is about to ruin Star Wars with a gay story line just as they are with their Once Upon a Time television series.

I don’t have to worry about gay plot lines with King Kong and that is wonderful.  But if King Kong suddenly becomes about gay monkey sex—then I’m done with him too.  I don’t care how cool the monsters looks—I’ll be done with King Kong the moment he wants to play with another giant ape’s ding dong.  Because that kind of emotional stuff just isn’t cool.  Monsters that want to kill each other for dominance is—and for that reason I’m really looking forward to Skull Island at Universal Studios, Florida.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Ploys of Communism: Defending Boeing from socialist insurgences stationed in Seattle

The commenter below actually said some decent things, so I’m not going to rake him over the coals.  He is the product of his modern environment shaped by public education, popular entertainment and political necessity.  In fact I agree with him on several issues—his comment is a welcome form of debate—and I like to see people thinking.  However, the context of capitalistic function is off and I will explain why after you’ve had a chance dear reader—to ponder over his words as he left them followed by the link to the 2013 article I wrote which initiated the small banter.  When I wrote that particular article Seattle, Washington had just elected an open socialist onto their city council and it was a sign of things to come.  Of course I was right in all aspects—within three years, we have an open socialist running for president and now they are coming out of the wood work everywhere.  They believe the stigma of socialism has been removed from our social context.  They are talking more openly about the topic which is good—because it allows us to finally deal with the excessive problem that collective based cultures face and how it impacts their national GDP.  Here is the comment as printed.

Paul Brar

Doesn’t Boeing earn a healthy profit every year? If so, why cannot they pay their workers decent wages and provide decent pension options. If a company was not profitable or earning low profits, then your article would be justifiable but when it come to very large corporation who make millions in profit every year, I think the workers should expect decent wages, working hours, good working conditions, etc. Further, please do not confuse Socialism with Communism, they are not interchangeable. For example, Social Democratic countries in Europe are mostly democratic capitalistic countries with social values that protect the workers from exploitation. That is the future and once we keep evolving, we will realize profits are not the main aim for humanity but evolution. Evolve to be able to travel to other planets, advances in medicine so that we can live for 400 – 800 years, where the whole planet is connected and basics needs are free for everyone (i.e. food, housing, clothing, etc.) and profits are made by advances in technology which compete with open source technologies. There is enough on this planet for double or even triple today’s population but greed has led to social/economic inequalities. We have to evolve as we are not much better than animals with basic technology. Reason for life would be to evolve as humanity, not hoard for the next generation.

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/the-socialist-kshama-sawant-who-is-she-where-did-she-come-from-and-why-unions-are-bad/

 Here is the problem with what he said, Boeing has one primary objective, it makes airplanes—the best airplanes that it can and their profits are a product of the successful implementation of that objective.  The employees are there to serve the needs of the business so that Boeing can achieve its stated goals.  If Boeing needs to secure its workforce to retain their skills and reduce unneeded employee turnover, then the company needs to pay what they need to in market value to retain those employees—through benefits, work hours, etc.  Boeing does not exist to be a job provider—their primary purpose is not to provide sustainable jobs to the people who work for the company, and the employees are not equal partners in the productive enterprise.  They show up to work, punch the clock, do their task, and they return home to do whatever they desire with their earnings exchanged for their labor.  The mistake that socialists and communists make is that they assume that a job is collectively owned and that they are equal partners in providing labor to a marketplace.  They completely ignore the tendency of free-enterprise for which the founders and ownership of Boeing participate in to assume all the risk of a profitable venture and that any disproportionate rate of pay which might be enjoyed at the top—by CEOs and the board of directors, is that the risk of success or failure is completely on their shoulders so the greatest rewards are garnered by them alone.  In a capitalist society—which is what America is supposed to be—income is directly linked to the amount of risk assumed by an individual.  And by risk it is attributed to the level of responsibility for task completion that a worker possesses.

Under collective bargaining agreements unions have destroyed the value of a good wage because everyone gets it no matter what they bring to the table of productive enterprise or the level of risk assumed by individuals.  The lackluster sloth that only has a passion for video games once they are off work can make as much money as the person who desires to work through all their breaks to achieve more productivity at work and continues to work long after everyone sleeps for the night.  What happens as a result is that you get fewer of the latter and much, much more of the former regarding employee behavior.  If you have ever done business with a French company you get a taste of what I’m talking about.  In France, which is a heavily socialist country, the emphasis isn’t on productive output in most cases; it’s on personal time and vacation periods incurred.   There is very little passion among the French workforce to complete tasks because they take the products for which they manufacture for granted.  They believe they are all equal contributors to output.  As a result, most of their workforces are planning their two months of vacation each year instead of thinking about accomplishing the task of productive enterprise, and their nation suffers as a result.  Human beings are driven by the opportunity to profit and when employees see that they can get ahead in life and that profit is there for them if they do well; they tend to find ways to be productive.  But if they get paid regardless of whether strategic product objectives are fulfilled or not—they tend to perpetually plan for their lunch breaks and vast amounts of vacation time that they incur as a result of their socialist underpinnings.

All this European socialism which emerged from the communist plunge taken early in the last century is derived from Immanuel Kant’s philosophy which has spread like a disease across the world.  While many don’t consider the collectivist theory to be reminiscent of communism, it is a direct byproduct of small “c” communism without the ruthless dictators.  America’s plunge toward socialism is directly the fault of labor unions which have been functioning under communist oriented sentiment for decades and 7 years of a presidency that openly beholds the softer European versions of collective bargaining at the first sign of a sizeable profit margin.

The failure in understanding is that money is a unit of measure and not of actual value.  To fall in love with money or profit and base a philosophy on it is like basing the value of a measurement off a yard stick and not the thing being measured.  By itself a yard stick, a ruler, or anything resembling a measuring instrument has little value until it is used to measure the height and width of something.  In relation to those results, we might say something is bad or good based on the dimensional characteristics.   Profit is a measurement of a company’s’ financial success, it is not a pool of money meant to be equally distributed among a mass workforce.

Collective bargaining has muddied the water of free enterprise and made it so that companies hoard their profit to protect themselves from mass employee insurrections such as layoffs and disproportional yearly increases not rooted in value toward a company’s actual worth.  A line worker does not have equal value to the risk takers at the top.  They may physically work harder as the line worker, but they get to leave at the end of a work day relatively free of responsibility—so the input toward a company’s wealth is not equal.  The executive at the top of a company worries about the health of the company usually 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Sure they play golf with clients, go out to eat and get to travel around the world, but it’s not all fun and games—the stress they endure is not proportionally distributed among those enjoying collective bargaining benefits.  That is why the executive likely earns six figures for a 50 to 60 hour work week while the hourly worker has to work 70 to 80 hours of overtime to receive the same.  However at Boeing, members of their machinist union are easily compensated at the six figure range as seen at the link below—and most of them are not exceptional employees by any measure—they are average and can only achieve such high rates of pay because the health of the company has been able to sustain it without leaving for another country where they can protect their profit margins.  The union and the collective bargaining that the company has to endure due to socialist policies never stops asking for more money and Boeing is at a point where they are seriously balancing out whether or not to out-source all their work because the collective bargaining agreements are too unreasonable—and they are at a tipping point.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=The_Boeing_Company/Hourly_Rate

The concept of collective bargaining is a faulty one; it is a socialist concept that should not be in any American business.  It’s not wrong for a line worker to make six figures if they outwork all their peers—but when all boats are forced to rise together the incentive to be better than the next worker, or to learn and endure more for the productive enterprise of a successful business is taken away, what we get is lackluster performance that ultimately makes that company less competitive.  The only reason that the United States has endured with these socialist policies as long as they have is because most of the world isn’t any better off.  America is still the best option for a company like Boeing because it is close to the end-user of their products and the labor pool is relatively stable for the high-tech jobs they require.  But that doesn’t make it right and at some point in the near future we either have to reject outright the socialist collective bargaining concept for the good of our national GDP, or we will gradually lose more and more manufacturing until only service oriented businesses remain.  And that is where America stands in 2016—dangerously close to the edge of oblivion.

So while the commenter above was right about the tail end of his observations—about the direction of the human race—he isn’t quite there regarding the motivations for getting there.  If we expect entrepreneurs to continue evolving and driving the marketplace forward, we need to take the shackles off them and not expect them to carry all of society forward with little to no profit incentive.  Boeing does not owe its profits to the workers—the workers are compensated based on their value—at least they should be.  The collective bargaining agreements under their labor contracts are excessively burdensome and will eventually destroy the company just as insects acting as parasitic entities on a nice healthy tree will eventually kill it for their own sustenance.  Socialism is a concept that must be rejected at every level—especially at Boeing and the Seattle region in general.  Socialism only benefits the lazy and unproductive and holds back the efforts of the exceptional.  But it is the exceptional that drives mankind forward, and that is a concept that every socialist and student of if ignores—which is why under any name that they call it—collectivism destroys culture—it doesn’t enhance it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

Donald Trump is ‘The Fountainhead’: Individualism is a higher concept over collectivism

 

I thought it was the biggest story of the week, and I wouldn’t be completely forthcoming if I didn’t know why he said what he did—specifically.  (CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY) But what a bold proclamation it was for Donald Trump to be interviewed by the very liberal Kristen Powers of USA Today and for him to mention that he liked Ayn Rand and specifically, The Fountainhead and the hero of the story Howard Roark.  We know that Paul Ryan likes Atlas Shrugged, and that Ted Cruz is a fan of Rand’s work—not just that he likes it, but that he is inspired by it.  Yet only Donald Trump could say the things he did about Ayn Rand and have it not be the story of the week by the political left.  Here are just a few of the articles talking about Trump’s Rand comments.  It might be remembered that I’ve been on the radio with the guy who wrote The Federalist article and it was rather hilarious to see how bent out of shape he was over the Powers story.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/12/donald-trump-is-an-ayn-rand-villain/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/donald-trump-interview-elections-2016-ayn-rand-vp-pick-politics-column/82899566/

When I wrote my article about Donald Trump being quite a lot like the famous Ayn Rand hero of The Fountainhead way back in August there was a considerable amount of scorn about it from friends I have in the “Objectivist” community.  They couldn’t believe I said such a thing—because to them, Trump was a progressive—a statist—a tyrant in the making.  They couldn’t think of him as a Howard Roark or even attribute to him the kind of intelligence that would be most at home with Ayn Rand’s heroes.  But with Trump, that was all I could see and that he was the best opportunity to take the United States to a level of philosophic understanding that could only so far be found in an Ayn Rand novel.

Everybody thinks they are an expert—yet they get caught all too often in the superficial elements of Donald Trump’s personality.  I see in Trump a man who has paintings on his Trump Tower ceiling and has an apartment, and private airplane covered in real gold.  I see a guy who has a stunningly beautiful wife and a wonderful family and can notice a fingerprint on something he cares about from twenty feet away and it drives him crazy.  I hear in him a guy that says he is his only foreign policy advisor, and that he consults……himself—and I see a guy so much like Howard Roark that no other character in all of literary history comes close to describing the real Donald Trump—the guy who sleeps in Trump Tower and likes to put pictures of himself on the wall of his office.  Trump loves himself and is all about the “Pronoun I,” and to me that is extremely appealing.  CLICK HERE TO REFER TO A PAST ARTICLE ABOUT THIS VERY SITUATION AND THE NEED FOR IT IN POLITICS. 

I have spent millions and millions of words on these pages talking about how stupid collective assimilation is in anything—that the biggest mystery and key to success in most things is individually led leadership.  My favorite part of the novel, The Fountainhead was when Howard Roark declined to be on the architectural board for the World’s Fair.  He insisted that he contribute his designs as a solitary figure, not as a part of a collective board.  Ayn Rand was onto something very important there pertinent to the American economy and it was unique to her.  Liberals and the public in general think wrong on this matter—and it starts in public school and our churches.  The assumption is that two heads are better than one, and that fifty heads are even better yet is one of the biggest mistakes the human race has made so far in our written history.  I have yet to see a company that functions well under this philosophy.  Many movie production companies and many Silicone Valley operations believe in collective enterprise—but what they are presenting is an illusion—because most of their successful projects are still led by very strong individuals who are clever about the way they extract the individual effort out of their teams.  But it isn’t the collective mass of a board of directors or the worker bees of a project that lead to its success—like the striking fools at Verizon believe in their union behavior—it’s the solitary efforts of individuals.

I know exactly what Trump is doing with other people because I by default utilize many of his same strategies—so it’s easy for me to see the man behind the façade.  I do see in Trump a man who loves art, who enjoys the fine things in life as an individual and certainly marches to the beat of his own drum—but he has learned to pull other people into his vision with the opportunity to share with him greatness.  Most of what he does is utilize raw leadership tactics—which is why he’s popular to begin with and has a level of celebrity that is bullet proof—because his skills are so highly specialized and beyond the mechanisms our society has established to suppress challenges to its static system.

The world is burning with socialism—once you leave the shores of the United States, socialism is literally everywhere.  Collectivism is the mode of conduct that the world uses to establish its morality—and it’s wrong.  Nobody is more important than you dear reader.  However, you best serve others by serving yourself—and if you truly love others you seek to preserve them because it would hurt you to see them in demise.  I read just last night a comment about Republicans and Democrats that went something like this—“if the elephant and the donkey have let you down, turn to the lamb.”  It was a religious argument about politics essentially saying that Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, and that a person should turn toward the church—the sacrificial lamb.  Well, that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time—nobody should surrender their life to the whims of the galaxy or even the universe.  Jobs are made by individuals for other individuals to build their lives around, decisions are made by individuals for the impact that they might have on the world around them—humans are thinking creatures who make magnificent structures by thought alone and Donald Trump is one of the least apologetic yet most successful among us to utilize this essential function.  We have to stop this whole sacrificial notion—its barbaric.

When I hear Trump say that he’d like to marry his daughter and see that he uses the beauty of his wife Melania to club rivals over the head, I don’t see or hear a self-centered maniac who is selfishly dangerous in his sexual promiscuity—I see a guy who as an individual appreciates the beauty of a fine women as a work of art and loves how it inspires the individual in him to do better and work harder each day so that he can be near them—and I don’t think it’s a sexual thing.  When I hear him say that as a 70 year old man that he will be the healthiest specimen to ever hold the White House and that his big hands are evidence of a large penis that can bag and tag fine women and leave them happy about it—and that those same hands can drive a golf ball over 300 yards—I hear a man who won’t back down from any world leader for the sake of collective assimilation.   I hear a guy who will walk into the United Nations and say as Howard Roark did in The Fountainhead—you either do it my way, or I’m out.  To the consensus builders who think this approach is appalling, they’d be right from their point of view.  But their way has cost the United States everything and everyone else in the world very little—because they brought nothing to the table to begin with.  The battle of our day is literally over the benefits of collectivism and Individualism—and how the two are not compatible.  Trump stands by individualism vehemently and that is something that we’ve never seen attempt to enter the White House and I think we either find those traits in ourselves once again—if not for the very first time—or we perish into oblivion.  There is no middle ground and this philosophic argument is all about absolutes.

While progressives contemplate a world managed by a few elite academics who distribute fairness across civilization like butter on a piece of bread—Trump is nothing like any of them.  Yet he can sit down with the very liberal Kristen Powers and give USA Today an interview on Ayn Rand and the world didn’t melt into a whirlwind because honestly they haven’t caught up to the events of his previous day—or the things he does and says tomorrow.  Yet there it is, and I’m proud of him for saying it.  And it is my sincere dream that Donald Trump could step into the White House and treat it like Howard Roark—bringing to not only America, but the world, the values of The Fountainhead.  If there was ever a time for it—it is now.  If not now, then perhaps never again.  I don’t think we’ll get another shot before socialism destroys our civilization—globally.  As a I watch modern artists like James Cameron talk about his new hippie driven movies like Avatar and Disney make Star Wars into a much more progressive mythology—it is obvious that they are missing the secret ingredient that Ayn Rand so eloquently brought to life in her American novels—individuals trump collectivism.  The first Star Wars films were about this idea and even Cameron’s Titanic was about this issue—and ultimately the love between Jack and Rose was very Randian. 

Why did Jack let Rose lay on the door at the end of the movie essentially sacrificing himself—he did it because he loved her and to preserve that love he had to save her.  He didn’t do it to benefit society—he did it to save his love for her.  Ayn Rand called this the Virtue of Selfishness—which many people misinterpret—but it is the ultimate driver for how we work as a human species.  And nobody running for office understands that love better than Donald Trump.  Most modern artists get this delicate interpretation wrong—because they value the sacrificial lamb concept established by religions to falsely place value in the collective whole of society. But they miss the point of living entirely.  For there is only one reason that childbirth is such a traumatic experience, and an epic journey that launches us into existence—it’s because our individual lives mean something and we each can contribute something to the work of art that is “life.”  There are very few people who really understand such a delicate balance—and clearly Donald Trump is one of them.  We are in new territory philosophically with this election—and hopefully it’s not too late.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The Guilt of Sean Payton: Murder, bounties, and the NFL hiding behind gun control

I don’t like Sean Payton, the head coach of the New Orleans Saints football team, mostly because I’m a Tampa Bay Buccaneer fan. I think he runs a dirty organization as was the evidence of his one year suspension a few seasons ago, and I think he leads a team of thugs.  That could be said of many NFL teams, but when a coach like Payton exploits that thug culture to squeeze out a few more wins for his own personal advancement I think he opens himself up to an extra level of scrutiny when something goes wrong.  And when an ex-star player of his, Will Smith was gunned down in the street on April 9th 2016 Payton didn’t blame the football players involved for their very bad behavior leading up to the tragedy—he blamed guns and took a progressive position socially to camouflage the failure of a culture which he has helped create—and that makes him a scum bag.

Former Saints DE Will Smith and his wife were out for a night dining with friends.  One of those friends just happened to be a cop who was involved in a shooting of the father of Smith’s future murderer—later that evening—ironically.    Smith had friends in law enforcement and he was a star football player and Super Bowl champion—so he had a sense of entitlement based on his behavior.  He was doing good things with his life and looked to be a good family man.  He had celebrity friends and was the star of whatever event he attended.  All was well until he started driving home and accidentally bumped into the very expensive Hummer driven by Cardell Hayes.

After Cardell Hayes lost his father to a police shooting the city of New Orleans paid the minor league football player a hefty sum of money for which he purchased a bright red Hummer.  It didn’t sit well with the football player to be rear ended on a late night Saturday while stopped in the road.  Hayes moved toward the sidewalk to get out of the way of traffic and settle the matter with the driver who hit him.  But instead of pulling up behind to exchange insurance information, like what was supposed to happen by law, and call the police to file a report, the car driven by Smith ran off invoking a hit and run incident.  Well, being a young football player who has had to scrap for everything on every play to get what he needs in life, watching that car run from the scene of the accident was apparently too much for Hayes who gunned off in pursuit of the fleeing vehicle.  It was unlikely known at the time that it was the famous Will Smith who had hit him and whom Hayes was chasing.  All Hayes knew was that someone had committed a crime against him and he was going to get the guy.  What Hayes should have done was write down the license plate number.  He would have had his justice and everyone would still be alive.  But instead Hayes torpedoed his car into Smith at a traffic light several blocks up the road and the two drivers met on the street for an angry brawl. One thing led to another and before anybody realized how serious the situation was, Hayes shot Smith in the chest six times killing the New Orleans football star.

Hayes stayed on the scene and admitted what he had done to police and everything was cleaned up and looked to be a pretty straight forward case of road rage. But it was in the aftermath that Sean Payton obviously missing his friend and speaking with a heart rooted in tragedy said that he hated guns, and that New Orleans was like the wild, wild, west.  Payton used the death of his friend to advance a progressive anti-gun stance without addressing the behavior that actually caused the violence in the first place, and that was disgraceful.  It made Payton an even worse person than I already thought he was and he appeared to think as Smith did that his level of celebrity could free him of the burden of judgment.  For instance, if Smith was as smart as news reports obviously wanted to portray him in this tragedy, why did he participate in a hit and run?  Was he counting on making a call to his friends on the police force to resolve the issue and to ensure that he was above justice because of his celebrity?  It certainly looked that way.  Payton seems to think that he can make reckless progressive statements because the people of Louisiana want another Super Bowl win so he calculated that they would just put up with his banter without question.

Most of the people I know in my neighborhood have guns and they often carry them.  Yet we never shoot each other—even when we get into traffic accidents.  It was only a few months ago that a lady hit me on my motorcycle nearly injuring me badly.  I was literally a half-inch away from losing my right leg.  We were both armed with guys, yet even in such a crises it never occurred to either one of us to shoot each other.  I simply yelled at her, and then once I saw how sorry she was, we quickly went to the business of settling the accident.  It was a very civil way to settle a tragedy.  It certainly didn’t devolve into the kind of violence that killed Will Smith.  That is because the problem isn’t guns, its behavioral science.  The football culture that Will Smith and Cardell Hayes lived within is built on primal valor and coaches like Sean Payton exploit that pent-up energy to win football games. For young people like Smith and Hayes—who often grow up fatherless, but find social redemption in popular gladiator sports the ethics on a football field often depend on an eye for an eye mentality.  There is a lot that goes on during a football game psychologically that never shows up on a television screen for which Smith and Hayes have made their livings and it’s not easy to turn all that off for civilian life.  Many football players have a hard time with that adjustment.  Will Smith was apparently attempting to do that and he was mostly successful.  But when you play a game where the alpha male rules the field and that an entire team depends on your ability to assert that dominance over other alpha males—the nature of the game doesn’t just leave the mind on the football field.  It sometimes carries over into the streets of whatever communities they live in.

Will Smith abused his rights as a private citizen when he attempted to roll away from the accident.  When he was challenged by another alpha male for attempting to flee likely they said things to each other that required in their minds an ultimate statement on who was the alpha male.  Hayes not having any other intellectual resources to guide his actions went for his gun and the rest his history.  But it wasn’t the gun that was the problem or that people carry them.  It is that we have a society that doesn’t understand how important alpha males are and how hungry young people are to either become them, or yield to them.  And for coaches like Payton who build alpha males for the benefit of football victories so that the people of New Orleans can feel good about themselves on a Sunday afternoon—he should have known better than to say the stupid things he did about guns.  In a lot of ways Payton was just as guilty of what happened in that murder as the gun was.  He breed and exploited the circumstances for which the violence was provoked in a road rage incident and like a coward—he deflected the blame to an inanimate object—instead of the behavior of the participants.  For a coach that paid players on his defensive teams, which Smith was a part from 2009 to 2011—to physically harm other players to take them out of a game, the morality of gun violence doesn’t hold much water when Payton helped create a culture that inspired violence against others.   

How guilty was Payton, well, for the NFL they came down on him hard—a $500,000 fine and a year suspension.  Considering the problems the NFL has had and how much they’ve let go over the years—Payton must have been pretty guilty.  If Payton had been a better coach and mentor, it is highly unlikely that Will Smith would have run away from a hit and run accident, or ran his mouth when cornered down the road by the victim.  We are all products of our environment and in the world of professional football; the head coach is the judge, jury and executioner of environmental influence.  Will Smith was a product of Sean Payton’s professional football teams and that product showed itself most when he crashed into Cardell Hayes then left the accident scene expecting to be relieved of the guilt.  Why shouldn’t Smith have expected to not be punished when he watched so many of his friends and fans forgive his head coach and push behind justice just so they could witness one more win in New Orleans on any given Sunday? The answer is, Smith didn’t know better and that was the fault of a culture who made him that way—and the guilt for most of what shaped that culture for Will Smith led right into the office of Sean Payton.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/03/sean-peyton-suspended-saints-fined-for-bounty-program/1#.Vw-3Wo-cHIU

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/new-details-from-police-help-shed-light-on-smiths-shooting/ar-BBrHtMU?ocid=ansmsnsports11

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The #NEVERTRUMP Geeks: A Party of Republicans who forgot why they exist

You can tell when I’m really angry about something because I usually prefer to talk about entertainment events– that topic is usually good non-emotional neutral territory discussion.  As probably was noted, I have spent the last three days talking about various entertainment observations as opposed to the hottest topic of the day, the betrayal of the GOP and their voters.  I do the same thing in one on one discussions, when people who know me observe that I start talking about entertainment—it is because I either find the politics of the person I’m talking to revolting and I’m looking for common ground to keep from wanting to snap their neck like a twig, or I have blown them off as irrelevant losers not worthy of any intellectual input other than entertainment appeasement.  And appalling is the word of the day for what has been happening.  (For the record, notice how I predicted this too, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.)  Now several weeks later, many others are coming to exactly the same place that I have been—willing to quite the Republican Party after a lifetime commitment because of the evident corruption that has been exposed as a direct result of the Trump candidacy.  I have been feeling precisely like this old Colorado voter who burned up his registration for the Republican Party after a betraying visit to Colorado Springs.

Trump was wrong when he declared that the process which robbed him of all the Colorado’s delegates without a single vote cast was not very democratic.  He’s right about the democratic process, but America has never been a democracy—which is just a stepping stone toward open socialism.  America is a constitutional republic which should be better but in this case isn’t.  The voting process which was intended to select those representatives were sold to the public as being acquired through a democratic process—but in this case it was cut short and was sabotaged by the Republican Party.  That revelation has only served to substantiate the intense level of anger that has intensified during the primary campaign season.  Yes, the system is rigged, it always has been, and we all knew it.  But we didn’t know what the cost was to us because we had never seen another viable alternative that had gotten so far in the process other than Ross Perot many years ago.  Trump by his popular successes has forced the party leaders to outwardly show their protections for the first time to people who are learning about this whole process as it develops in front of them.  We should have learned all this in our public schools, but instead kids learned to riot and vote for socialism—so people are shocked by what they are seeing.

Among the #NEVERTRUMP clan, there is a feel of superiority over Trump and his supporters because those constitutional geeks work really hard to understand the Constitution and are legitimate nerds in a lot of ways.  They are like Star Wars fans who argue over little specifics of the movies because they know everything while the common viewer only see a fraction of what they do in casual viewings.  The #NEVERTRUMPs like the rules of the system because they worked really hard to learn that system—it gives them a feeling of superiority over everyone else—they are specialists on that topic and they secretly want to protect that specialty.  I know several of them personally.  So it gives them quite a charge to see that Trump is furious at losing delegates to Cruz.  They would argue that if Trump wanted to play the game, then he should have learned the rules.  But, what those #NEVERTRUMP geeks have forgotten is that Trump’s candidacy represents a large faction of the American population that have no desire to learn the rules of the game—because they hate the game—and the Republican Party has just solidified that sentiment epically.  They want a change in the rules, they want to play a different game, and they sure don’t have any desire to learn the old rules.

This notion that the Republican Party can do whatever it wants—that they can nominate anybody they care to is preposterous.  Sure they have their little club and they seem obsessed with controlling who is in it with them and where they stand in the peaking order in relation to others.  No question many of the party leaders want to be king makers deciding who county commissioners are, governors, and presidents—but that’s not the way it was supposed to be.  What they want to control is ultimately representatives of “the people” who elect them into a representative republic.  The Republican Party for instance isn’t bigger to me than myself, or my family, or my community.  It’s just a group of people who I either agree with or don’t.  I am not beholden to a sacrificial relationship with them in any way. So if they show themselves as philosophically deficient—as they are clearly in the run for presidency in 2016—I have a right, and obligation to reject them.  The “Party” does not have authority over “me” and is not empowered to provide “me” with a representative vetted by them for their own purposes.  Clearly the Republican Party interprets their role as such—but I along with many others completely reject that premise.  I will not vote for Paul Ryan for anything.  He screwed up in 2012 and he won’t get another chance by me.  I will not vote for John Kasich.  He is the governor of my state, and he has let me down—he’s turned out to be an idiot.  I will not vote for Mitt Romney—he has been a failure.  I will not vote for Ted Cruz—he’s just another attorney running for office.  I don’t want any more legal geeks messing with laws any more. I’m tired of the same old mess offered by the Republican Party and they either want to represent my philosophic conservatism, or they don’t.  If they don’t, I am not beholden to them to take whatever piece of crap they offer.

The Republican Party arrogantly believes that it is the end all of American politics—as if the matter has been settled long ago after the Civil War turned out in their favor.  They’d be incorrect, each age has its own challenges and the party leaders are either aligned with those challenges, or they will fail to lead their party to a position where it can be beneficial to the constitutional republic for which we are all a part.  That republic was always founded on the merits of individualism, not collective assimilation—and that is precisely where the Republican Party is going wrong—in assuming that the “party” is too big for any one individual.

Trump represents a public need to establish a return to individual association.  He is the ultimate pronoun “I” and that is what the people who vote for him want to see emerge in this year’s election cycle and obviously the Republican Party has a problem with that declaration.  That leaves Trump and his supporters without a party—which of course will give rise to a competing party to rival the Republicans and Democrats.  If 30% of the voting public doesn’t have a political party which represents them—or seeks to—then what are they to do?  Surrendering their beliefs to one of the two other options isn’t viable as individuals.  Yet the Republican Party seems inclined to insist on such a thing.  As Ted Cruz gloated about his legalese victories around the west, particularly Colorado—and the use of the party machine in Wisconsin to goad Donald Trump into throwing a fit because people weren’t voting for him—he is assuming that the masses are on his side.  Show me one time that Ted Cruz can fill a stadium with supporters like Trump does.  All Cruz has on his side are the political geeks, not the average people who make up our Republic.  They aren’t–wait until Cruz gets to New York, and Pennsylvania.  The masses are speaking, and they haven’t been picking Ted Cruz.  Cruz has been playing the legal game, but not winning the hearts of the masses.  When Kasich says that it’s the delegates that matter, he’s right from his perspective within the game of politics—but the party for which he belongs is supposed to serve the conservative interests of the republic and instead they serve a collective notion of consensus building which I would argue is un-American.  Want to see a national consensus established by the will of the people where they generally agree—go to a Trump rally.  Trump voters, me included, reject that collectivist philosophic position and the party should be listening, instead of working to hold society to a set of rules designed to protect a system they have learned to profit off of as public servants.

When the smoke clears, Trump will have won many more votes in the primary effort—yet the political party seeking to maintain their control of that system will attempt to ignore that fact and offer up the same old garbage as they have before.  And now that many of us have had a taste of what could be, we aren’t going to swallow that pill again—because it leads nowhere and we’ve learned.  It is not the voting public that has to learn a lesson here—it’s the Republicans.  They either get with the program, or they will be replaced.  It is they who are in the weakened position—the public holds all the cards because ultimately the “party” either serves the interests of the public—the conservative public—or they don’t.  And given their behavior against the popular front-runner Trump—it is obvious where all this is going.  When it gets there I’ll be joining that old man from Colorado.  I’m not going to hold my nose and vote for another Republican loser.  They either start winning—or I’m done too with them. And victories are measured by the popular vote in this primary race, not the legal gymnastics of lawyers and political geeks.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/colorado-gop-leader-disgruntled/

I’m at a point where I don’t think I could support Republicans even if they did get behind Trump all of a sudden. I think the process is so broken and the philosophies so displaced that there is no mending it.  As the link above describes the Colorado situation from the point of the of the GOP, the issue remains that the party leaders have made a system that ultimately they control, because it is rule heavy and requires a full-time staff to learn all those rules.  It puts the power of candidacy in pin-heads and political addicts instead of the best and most viable candidates and is the root cause for why the Republican Party has been so grossly ineffective for such a long time.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

‘Star Wars: Rogue One’: Hope and perhaps a second chance

I was not a fan of The Force Awakens.  I still think it was a rip-off fan film and it wasn’t very good.  It’s obvious to me that Star Wars saw its best days under the control of George Lucas and that it will forever be in a declined state.  I was a tremendous fan of Star Wars because under Lucas they had established a nice storyline that embodied several video games, novels, comics and of course the movies themselves into on giant mythology—and that mythology had a conservative lean to it—rooted in Ayn Rand oriented individualism.  Now it is clear that when Lucasfilm under Kathy Kennedy released The Star Wars comic series about two years before the release of The Force Awakens that they were telegraphing what they were going to do with the many novels that had been written after The Return of the Jedi in 1983—they were going to rip them off and retell many of the stories because they thought they needed to be more Huffington Post oriented progressive stories instead of Ayn Ran.   In that comic series Lucasfilm took George Lucas’ original screenplay and turned into a comic to show how rough the story had been compared to what ended up on screen—as a ploy to justify what they were about to do to the Extended Universe.  Well, that’s all water under the bridge and Star Wars is forever ruined for me—because I had stayed with them through many years—and they let me down.  Now that I know that, I can at least appreciate what telling some of those old stories from the books to cinematic vision can do for a new generation desperate for some positive mythology and after seeing the trailer for the new Rogue One film by Garth Edwards, I am encouraged.  Lucasfilm might earn back a little respect with it because it looks nicely done.

The sad thing about that movie and premise is that it is essentially a retelling of the story of the video game Dark Forces and the name of the female lead is essentially a take on Kyle Katarn’s trusted ship captain.  Dark Forces was the first video game I ever played with my oldest daughter and it was a special story for us, and now Lucasfilm is going to screw that up too—but I think Edwards will do the story justice.  I suppose the sad thing for me is that there won’t be any new ideas coming out of Star Wars.  But the value of what has been told is important and to a new generation that is seeing some of this stuff for the first time—these movies are good for them.  This is consistent with the Disney Company that has taken stories told over time and put a modern take to them for their movies.  There is value in retelling a story, so to that extent I’m glad to see Star Wars doing what it’s doing.

It gives me hope that the future stand alone films featuring Han Solo and Boba Fett will be very good and dramatic—even though the topics have been covered in the novels of the past.  It is still fun to see these things put into a movie even if the story is better in the original novelizations.  Let’s face it, not many people read any more, so at least these stories will get told.   Rogue One, I would say will arguably in that case will be better than the original story of Dark Forces.  So if that’s what Disney is going to do, I suppose it’s better than nothing.  I see Star Wars as just another remake the way that Godzilla was recently retold with an updated spin on a classic story.  I am looking forward to Rogue One because it tips the hat toward the spirit of the original trilogy and I trust that director to do a good job.  It will be fun to visit that universe again by someone who obviously loved the original film as much as I did—if not more.

Still, I can’t help but think how special Star Wars could have been if they had stuck to the carefully planned books.  But Hollywood in general has lost its creative impulse—very few filmmakers these days have any imagination and those that do can’t get funded for their projects because backers are caught in a static pattern that is dangerous to their own industry.  All of Hollywood is stuck in this creative vacuum of copying off old books and comics to update stories for a more visual format.  I had the benefit of seeing Star Wars when everything was truly new and original and I wanted that freshness for this new generation.  But it can still be good.  Just not as good.

Since The Force Awakens I have been pretty staunchly anti-Star Wars.  My brother and kids have been a little sad that I can’t share my enthusiasm for it as I once did.  To me the death of Han Solo was essentially the death of Star Wars.  It will never mean the same to me, especially with the progressive direction that they are going.  I don’t care about the minority roles or the strong female characters—but the collectivism push is something I just can’t get into—stories where the individuals take a backseat for the collective benefit of everyone.  With Han Solo, everything was better, his selfishness epitomized Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy wonderfully.  It may have been unintentional by George Lucas, but it was very pro capitalist leaving A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back the best two movies likely to ever be made for the Star Wars saga.  It was exciting to see images of costumes, ships, sounds, and other elements of those two movies in the Rogue One preview—so I’m sure it will be enjoyable.  I may not enjoy it as much as I otherwise would, but Lucasfilm has a chance to win me back just a little.

To put things in perspective, since I was like 10 years old I bought every single video game that was ever released for Star Wars the first week it came out.  I loved every one of them, particularly the Dark Forces games, Force Unleashed, and Rebel Assault.  That lasted until essentially The Force Awakens.  I dropped Star Wars like a rock and pushed it out of my mind completely.  It was so bad that when we finally bought a Playstation 4, I had the option of buying one with the Star Wars: Battlefront option, or with the Call of Duty bundle—I picked Call of Duty.  I don’t want to play that game because I don’t want to play as a bad guy—because they force you to if you want to play online.  And I refuse to play any game that makes me shoot at the Millennium Falcon or Han Solo flying it.  So Battlefront is the first Star Wars video game that I haven’t bought.  I’ve even bought game systems to play specific Star Wars games.  I would love to play Battlefront as the rebellion.  But I have absolutely no interest in playing as the Empire.  To my mind, George Lucas was treading on shaking ground when he attempted to humanize the bad guys in his prequels.  But I thought there were good points to make, and I personally liked Obi-Wan enough to hang with Lucas through those stories.  But without a good guy to hang morality onto, Star Wars falls apart and becomes just another average story.

Fortunately, it looks like Garth Edwards understands what makes Star Wars good, so I am encouraged, and will likely see the new Star Wars film when it comes out in December.  I’ll give it a second chance to win my respect.  I think it was pathetic that The Force Awakens only made a bit over 2 billion dollars—it could have made more.  I’m sure Disney executives are happy, but they are obviously unaware of their short-sightedness.  So we’ll see.  We were so serious about Star Wars that my family had been planning to go to London this upcoming summer to attend the Star Wars Celebration there in 2016.  Those plans changed after Force Awakens quickly.  We’re not going.   It remains to be seen how good Rogue One turns out to be.  If it is respectful to Dark Forces, then I might be able to like it.  If it craps all over it, then that will likely be it for me.  My opinion is pending successful implementation.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

The rediculous ‘House of Cards’ Gay Agenda: Being a lion among sheep

Do you remember several weeks ago when I stated that my wife and I were done with watching the Netflix series, House of Cards because of the gratuitous sex—particularly the three-way at the end of season two which featured some gay sex by Frank Underwood and his secret service agent shared by his wife?  Well, we decided to give it a second chance because I was interested in the politics part of it and was relieved to find that season three seemed to put less emphasis on the sex.   After all, Frank Underwood had become the President of the United States and there wasn’t much time for power climbing and the sex that is often used to serve as rungs on that ladder.  However, there had been, and continued throughout all of season three a gay subplot to the new President—a soft side that craved the love of men.  This utterly made me sick because it was so misplaced as a human emotion that it left me feeling like the whole point of the House of Cards series wasn’t to convey politics, but to serve as a Trojan Horse of gay advocacy by presenting those types of plot points to a confused society hoping to advance the rainbow sentiments of guys who like to stick parts of themselves into a dirty ass.  By the end of season three, Frank Underwood was having a touching moment with his biographer and the two were holding hands like a couple of girls and my wife and I burst out laughing because of house stupid the scene was. The gay agenda was clear and House of Cards was attempting to normalize it—and it wasn’t working with us.

I’ve been saying it for a long time, when a motion picture company thinks that it will make one of its heroes gay, or Disney thinks that it will put out some musical featuring a gay couple that will make the kind of box office money that Frozen did—those executives should be fired for putting their companies at risk—because those movies will bomb in a theater.  Regarding House of Cards, it’s free—so it’s not much skin off my back to turn the show off.  It’s part of my subscription fee and I’m free to watch anything on Netflix—so I can literally vote in favor of the many other decisions.  But to drop good money on a movie or song that features gay sex as the driver—it’s just not going to happen no matter how much artists like Bruce Springsteen attempt to normalize it.  Gay sex isn’t normal—particularly with men.  I can see women having non sexual touchy relationships with other women, but desiring intercourse just doesn’t make biological sense and has to be evolved along the lines of some abnormality rooted in psychosis.  I can even understand when good friends have close relationships where sex isn’t even a factor of their relationship and they prefer each other’s company.  But the premise that closeness to another human being leads directly to sex is just a preposterous thing—and it’s simply not true.

Now we know emphatically why public schools and other social networks have been attempting to emasculate men for several decades now.  Now we know why men have been told that it’s OK to cry, and to share their emotions—because society established by an aristocratic political class of global micromanagers had fantasies of population control using gay rights as a means to manipulate the masses to stay focused on very primal instincts so that populations would be easier to control.  By changing the role of the sexes, progressives could then take the women out of the home and away from their children allowing the “state” to raise the following generations gradually.  It has always been the long plan of communism brewing for over a century in America to make everyone equal and in the House of Cards sexually, everyone is.  Frank Underwood was introduced as an open marriage womanizer which was fine with his wife so long as there was some tactical objective to the sex.  But then there was some affair that Frank had while attending the Citadel in South Carolina—where he had a gay lover—LOL.  This gay lover is in the background and the series kind of danced around the issue until it came back up again with full hand holding and finger caressing by the end of season three with Frank’s biographer.  There was no kissing in that scene but it was still radically foreign to me and was uncomfortable—it totally ruined the premise of the entire series.  My wife felt the same way.  It wasn’t “homophobia” that was driving that discomfort, it was fact that neither one of us has ever had any gay urges and the whole thing seemed comical to us.  I can honestly say that I’ve never seen some other male and thought, hmmmm, I’d like to “touch” that person to be closer to them.  It’s just not part of our human experience and it was strange.

Sex exists for one reason—biologically, and that is to procreate and continue the human race.  The point of all the emotions and the elements that the different sexes like in each other point toward that ultimate goal.  Sex is not necessarily a byproduct of a decent and healthy relationship.  You can have a close friend if you are mentally healthy and not want to have intercourse with them—which is something that House of Cards completely ignores—which is why the gay agenda is so ridiculous.  Gay sex is a primal behavior that requires a lack of sophistication to endure.  Intellectuals tend not to waste much time on sex because the very act itself—the whole mating game just takes too much time—and smart people tend not to waste time.  This whole notion of equality among the sexes is just a part of their communist agenda to put in people’s minds an eventuality of “state” control where sexual fulfillment is not rooted in procreation—because population control of such a “state-run” society is highly desired for resource management.  But it’s not natural, gay sex requires some mental deficiency to be successful.  That mental deficiency might be deep insecurities placed upon a mind at a young age, or abuse from a trusted family member—or it could be that a child was intellectually born broken—by no fault of its own.  But it’s not “normal.”  That doesn’t mean we treat them badly—but that doesn’t mean that we normalize our entire society for them either.

There is an old Joseph Campbell story that he used to tell in his lectures about “the lion and the sheep” that covered this difficult topic very nicely.  A young lion was abandoned by his family at birth and left alone in the wildness to survive on its own.  It comes along to a pack of sheep that it sees grazing and conjugating near a watering hole so it joins them.  The sheep of course are scared at first because lions eat sheep as carnivorous biological entities.  But when they realize that the lion is only a baby, they quickly warm up to the threat—because they are stupid sheep—collective masses of grazers.  Well, the little lion grows up among the sheep and thinks of itself as one of them.  It grazes like they do and drinks from the same watering hole and behaves like them.  Well, one day a magnificent lion—a strong male with a full mane of hair attacks the herd to hunt and in so doing spots the fellow lion.  He goes up to the creature and asks him what he’s doing.  Of course the young lion now grown up and living among the sheep can only reply, BaaaAAAaaaaaaAAAaa.  It doesn’t know any other term because it’s been raised by sheep and the little thing had been having a hard time because obviously it has a body that craves carnivorous substance to survive, so it’s become a sickly creature.  The old lion says to the young one, “Hey, you aren’t one of them; you should be hunting with me.  Look in the watering hole at your reflection and you’ll see it for yourself.  So the young lion does so and realizes that it was true, he wasn’t like the sheep, and that he was in fact a lion.  Of course the old lion slaughtered a few sheep and brought some meat to the confused young lion and said, “eat this, you’ll feel better.”  The young lion did and as soon as his system had meat in its body it began to make a difference, he immediately felt better, stronger, and less inclined to follow the others around in a herd.  Before long the young lion was able to let out a nice roar and to begin hunting like other lions and to take his rightful place as king of the pecking order within the food chain.

Young males in our society currently are like that little lion, they have been told by their school teachers, their media culture, and even their governments that gay sex is perfectly alright.  They were lied to.  Like the lion growing up among the sheep the reason society told them that was to make it easier to lead them to the slaughter-house eventually and control those free spirits by behaving in a herd.  Once males embarrass themselves with something, they are much easier to control socially by those who desire such things.  But gayness isn’t natural, it’s a learned behavior designed to manipulate mankind into a kind of herd animal that is far easier to manage than a bunch of roaming testosterone driven ego maniacs.  But I’m here to tell you people, look in the water, realize what you are, and turn your life back toward your biological impulses.  Don’t act like a sheep if you are a human being, be a lion.  If you are a man, be a man—don’t sit around crying or hugging other guys.  If you are a woman—be a woman—play the role and enjoy it.  Be what you are and don’t let political philosophies manipulate you into being a herd animal for their benefit.

House of Cards is ridiculous.  The kind of sex they portray in the show is not normal.  It’s an invented creation designed to advance a collectivist oriented social agenda.  But men, real men, do not behave like Frank Underwood.  They don’t seek to hold the hand of other men and they don’t do all that gay singing either.  Only broken people who were taught from an early age to be sheep—we can have sympathy for such people, but we can’t destroy our species to relieve them of guilt either—seem inclined to gayness.  We are not all in this together—all for one, and one for all.  We are in this game to win, and to be the top of the food chain—and to be human.  In the game of life we even can eat the lions because we are smart enough to invent tools to kill them if we so desire.  So we should be smart enough to think above sexual impulses and to behave as our sexes dictate—and those established biological rules dictate that men just don’t show emotion to other men in a way that weakens other aspects of their relationships with one another.  If you are a man and you want to show another man that you like them, punch them in the arm.  But don’t stroke their finger like Frank Underwood did in House of Cards at the end of season three.  That was just stupid—forced—and biologically improbable.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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