Tag: Rich Hoffman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

The Control of Net Neutrality: Third Way economics reinvented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rich Hoffman

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

 

Obamacare is the Cause of Longshore Worker Stoppage: An American embarassment

 I spoke months ago about the embarrassment of the Longshore workers on the West Coast with their deliberate slowdown of work to force contract talks with their employer.  Because of the amount of cargo moving to and from their ports, their work slow down is embarrassing to American productivity.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  I am embarrassed that they are Americans representing to the world the merit and speed of the American workforce.   Because of their actions, they should all be let go and replaced with newer—less expensive workers who will show the world the enterprising speed of Americans.  Instead they have been drag-assing for months upset that they have not received a new union contract forcing valuable product to sit idle until the workers get to it.  This entire workload backup has forced numerous weeks of consecutive weekend overtime which has cost millions of dollars in lost profitability.  That was always their union strategy.   Not only did they waste time during the week forcing trucks and ships to wait on their weak effort at productivity—but they have done the same under premium pay on the weekends compounding the insult.

Then to make matters worse to any investigator with an inquisitive eye toward reality, one comes to realize how much these union workers make as a salary—which proves how out of touch they really are.  When the union leaders were upset that their employers just shut down the weekends because they are now so dreadfully behind schedule it is no longer worth the premium money to spend to move units—the audacity of the Longshore workers unions become very clear.  What follows are a collection of articles that explains more deeply the situation:

Longshore workers, according to a contract that expired in July, can earn $25.71 to $35.68 — or annual salaries of $53,476 to $74,214— depending on seniority. Workers get more money for special skills and experience, plus overtime.

According to the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the employers, the average salary is $147,000, which combines the earnings for registered longshoremen, clerks, walking bosses and foremen who have worked 2,000 or more hours.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20150202/longshore-workers-deal-with-no-night-shifts-vie-for-day-jobs-amid-contract-dispute

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Companies that handle billions of dollars of cargo at West Coast seaports said Friday they will hire far fewer workers this weekend, the latest escalation in a contract dispute with dockworkers that threatens to shut down a vital link in U.S.-Asia trade.

The association representing port terminal operators announced its members would not hire crane drivers to move containers on and off massive ocean-going ships. Instead, employers could order smaller crews to clear already-unloaded containers from congested dockside yards.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/west-coast-port-employers-to-cut-weekend-shifts-amid-contract-dispute-with-dockworkers-union-291119461.html

The slow-roll implementation of Obamacare threatens to close U.S. commercial ports on the West Coast. The 29 ports, which handle 70 percent of maritime imports from Asia, were closed over the weekend after months of contentious contract negotiations. The ports reopened Monday, but 20,000 longshoremen are still threatening to strike over a new Obamacare tax.

Obamacare imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits deemed too generous by the government. Health benefits exceeding $10,200 a year in value for individuals or $27,500 for families are defined as “Cadillac” plans and are subject to the tax. Health benefits for longshoremen exceed $40,000 per employee, meaning the union would be served an enormous tax bill when the penalty is imposed in 2018.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/10/obamacare-tax-threatens-to-close-west-coast-ports/

Well, how about that, Obamacare penalizes health care plans that are too luxurious so to ensure that everyone is the same no matter their personal effort or worth—and the Longshore workers don’t like it.  The situation is so serious that it should require the involvement of the President of the United States to step in and keep American productivity flowing.  But he hasn’t because Obama is aligned with such radicals as they think the same way.  Yet even in this case even the union workers are to the political right of Obama—because it is Obamacare that is the largest sticking point in obtaining a new contact.  The Longshore workers already make too much money to be worth the effort—now with Obamacare pressing down on the port employers they simply have reached their breaking point and are giving up.

For Obama, this is one of the biggest issues of his presidency.  When President Bush was faced with the same type of work stoppage in 2002 after only a ten-day lockout by the same union he invoked the Taft-Hartley Act as reported by the World Socialist Web Site:

On Tuesday a federal judge in San Francisco granted the Bush administration’s request for a temporary injunction lifting a ten-day lockout and sending West Coast longshoremen back to work. The court order was a prelude to the declaration of an 80-day “cooling off” period under the provisions of the anti-union Taft-Hartley law.

The lockout had shut down 29 West Coast ports. The judge issued his order barely three hours after attorneys from the Justice Department presented a fact-finding report drawn up by a special Board of Inquiry. George W. Bush had announced the formation of the panel the day before, setting into motion the legal process leading to the declaration of a national emergency and the implementation of the Taft-Hartley Act

The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents the West Coast shipping companies, reopened the ports on Wednesday for the 6 p.m. shift.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/10/ilwu-o10.html

Of course the socialists thought that Bush had overstepped his boundaries and forced the Longshore workers back to work because they represent the basic philosophy of all labor unions—that jobs exist for employees and that employers are meant to be servants to the whims of the “middleclass.”  And now that socialist types have their president in the White House there is no relief for employers coming—instead there are only more socialist driven costs induced by Obamacare.  So for employers—it’s a no win situation.  Product is stacking up on shipping docks and not making it to their destination on time—and America looks inefficient because of it—which makes socialists happy.

The Longshore workers are disgraceful.  They have a history of this radical behavior and have driven up their wages to a level that is simply not sustainable.  And now because of Obamacare, they have overstayed their welcome and are due for an innovation to replace their sudden worthlessness.  The rest of America should not have to wait for those idiots to do their jobs.  Their selfishness is epic—but worse than that—it is Obamacare that has broken the back of logic.  Yet nobody is talking about that on the nightly news.  That is because the dispute is between various factions of liberals—the Longshore workers and Obama himself.  The companies caught in the middle simply want to operate their businesses.  And with the Obamacare imposition being so high—they decided they can’t.  So employers shut down their weekend work and are ready to move on.  For them—it was the correct decision.  These port employers aren’t alone.  Here is a list of other major companies who have decided that Obamacare is just too expensive.   And this is just the beginning.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090514-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

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

 

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

― Friedrich Nietzsche

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

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

  • Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army .
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
  • Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
  • Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
  • The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
  • The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings.
  • Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
  • The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
  • In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
  • The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
  • The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
  • A S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
  • A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
  • The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
  • A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
  • (22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

What ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Says about Humanity: The politics behind the sexes

I personally don’t see any difference between the minds of men and women.  Women have done great things in history and are quite capable intellectually of anything that needs to be done at any level.  I have raised two daughters to believe that they can do anything and that no obstacle is too great and that there is no such thing as social victimization.  Yet there is a difference between men and women and that is their roles in sexuality.  Sex is a function of human bodies, like eating, breathing, or physical activity of any kind.  The mind often drives the body, but the vehicle that hosts the mind is different.  So it becomes very confusing to society when politics and philosophy have focused incorrectly on the bodily function of the sexes so to gain leverage in the great games of life—whether it was men trying to keep women from voting, or women using sex to gain advantage in a marriage or other relationships.  Such perilous activity is the key topic point to my new installment to the Cliffhanger series Latté Sipping Prostitutes.

Currently the intellectual capacity of our modern society isn’t very astute.  We are a consumer based species heavily focused on sign stimuli which drives our commercial activity to the point where intelligence has been frowned upon.  The Go Daddy commercials are good examples of this—they offer an easy product that virtually anybody can perform—but they use sex to sell their product placement and convince people to turn off their minds to the fact.  Most aspects of commercial society function with this intellectual weakness-Go Daddy is just an example.  The important aspect is that sex is used to place product importance into the minds of the consumer class.  Well, the very same tactic is used in politics, and it is a serious situation that needs to be explored which again is why I wrote Latte Sipping Prostitutes.

Progressive institutions like public education and media outlets have further distorted the contradiction by speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they have in a recent Hollywood Reporter article regarding the new Fifty Shades of Grey film being released on Valentines Day 2015 weekend to capitalize on the romantic event.  The book itself is simply a work of erotic fiction.  It is pornography that has been sold as mainstream literature in outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and was featured on day time talk shows like Ellen as if it were a work of pornography finally aimed at females often referred to as “mommy porn.”  Men feeling like they needed to show support of women–after all they have the annual Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition that comes out in February along with other milder forms of pornography intended specifically for them–just went along to get along.  The book itself and the film that is following is seen as empowering women—so the mainstream bought into the effort and made E.L. James a multimillionaire.  Yet the story itself is all about the fantasy of women being dominated by a strong “ultimate” man.  In this case it is a young billionaire who is drastically handsome and has just enough of a broken psyche that the story’s protagonist can love back to health—which leads to the bondage subplot and the 1/5 of the upcoming film dealing strictly with nudity and sadomasochistic sex.  This has left men very confused because for three decades now they were told that women didn’t want those kinds of men.  They wanted big softies who cried and shared their feelings.  That is not the kind of man who is the object of love in Fifty Shades of Grey and the subsequent novels.  So to sum up the problem progressive society wishes literally to have their cake and eat it too—they instructed men to be less manly and controlling—to be more open and expressive—then promoted a movie that is supposed to empower women which is all about the lust of women for controlling—dominating men.  Then to top it off, the articles leading up to the film’s release–the pre-sales articles bragged about the parts of the country showing the strongest sales numbers and guess what states they were—they were strong southern states still leaning politically and culturally toward traditional values.  The not so subtle message from progressive organizations like The Hollywood Reporter shown below is that women in the south are repressed and desire liberation.  Read for yourself.

The highly anticipated big-screen version of EL James’ best-selling erotic novel is selling more advance tickets than average in many Southern and Midwestern states, according to Fandango. In particular, presales for Fifty Shades are nearly four times better than average pre sales in Mississippi, the online ticket retailer added. Sales are, similarly, at least two times better than expected in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.

Fifty Shades, which hits theaters on Feb. 13, is already the fastest-selling R-rated title in Fandango history. The company analyzed the state-by-state advance sales patterns, comparing Fifty Shades presales against the average and finding surprisingly high numbers for the Universal/Focus Features title.

Fandango is also reporting that hundreds of opening-weekend screenings of Fifty Shades are already sold out in cities like Tupelo, Mississippi; Florence, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Diego; Houston; Las Vegas; L.A. and New York.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fifty-shades-grey-ticket-sales-770101

The sales pattern for Fifty Shades of Grey will be that the film will do between $80 million to $60 million on opening weekend but will drop quickly once the build-up audience sees the movie.  It will be lucky to make $160 million domestically which will make money on a budget that is reasonably low—and will be considered a success.  But it will not be on par culturally with something like American Sniper which speaks to the typical “Red State” voter.  Progressive institutions are trying to build a case for their viewpoints of expanded feminism by attacking typical red states and purple states such as Kentucky.

Of a particular interest Florence, Kentucky was mentioned which is a southern suburb of Cincinnati.  I know from personal experience a lot about that demographic which is typically very affluent.  There are a lot of professional couples living in that region where the husband travels a lot in their job and the women are independently building their own lives under a shared roof under very progressive conditions.  When you get a few miles away from this specific region of Kentucky the demographics move back toward Bible Belt traditional roles where women still are encouraged to wear skirts on Sundays and to stay home to raise their babies if it’s even a remote option with a marriage partner.  Yet the Hollywood Reporter took the pre-sales numbers from the Rave in Florence as an indication of the Bible Belt south as having women crawling all over themselves to see Fifty Shades of Grey.

Obviously the motive of the reports were political and agenda driven.  When the reality comes to pass and the film isn’t a blockbuster on par with films like American Sniper—everyone will forget about the build-up.  But they will remember that women in the south felt repressed and that they desire fulfillment they aren’t getting from their traditional lifestyles meaning they need to support more Barack Obama wealth redistribution programs, Hillary Clinton for upcoming president, and Elizabeth Warren as a viable progressive voice in Washington.  Men through their guilt will just throw up their arms and say nothing as their wives vote for Hillary and they vote for whoever the Republican is leaving the minority voting population as the pivot vote.  See how it works?  But all along the scam is clear—Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t empower women at all—it just exploits secretly the stereotype that was always there—that women in a sexual sense desire to be in possession of a man who conducts their life with sheer confidence and strength.  It has nothing to do with a woman’s mind or ability to conduct a hard task like becoming a scientist traveling to Mars or a technical wizard in a laboratory—but with their desires for sexual roles that they are biologically inclined to.  To fill those roles they want strong men—not weak crybabies. So it is in this way that feminism has confused the hell out of everyone with the strategic objective to advance progressivism.

It’s a complicated story and my narrative Latté Sipping Prostitutes means to specifically break down this issue in a way that provides context.  An example is often helpful because society speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue.  And it takes a great understanding of human nature to see through the haze. That understanding will not come from the Hollywood Reporter.  They are simply trying to make a point that will recruit more progressive voters in the future from states that typically vote the way their husbands do—because men tend to pay more attention to political aspects of society as women tend to focus more on social aspects.  In most honest marriages men leave the social engagements to their wives while the men read about local and state politics in the paper and the two typically trust in each other the result.  There is much more at work behind the Hollywood Reporter article that goes back to the training of progressives from their institutions of learning which taught them to think in such ways.  But it’s hard to see, which is why it is good to have tools which enable the curious to see those tricks played so openly upon the political and social landscape using the sexes to hide the truth.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

New X-Wing Strategies for Scum and Villainy: Lean Han and the Outrider

It has been a busy end of the 2014 year and there really hasn’t been time for all my hobbies. Really, I have too many interests, so my enjoyment of the Star Wars Miniatures game X-Wing has been on hold for a while. I did manage to watch the matches of Paul Heaver at the Worlds X-Wing tournament at Fantasy Flight Games and enjoyed watching his “Fat Han” build dominate the competition. Those matches can be seen below and are well worth viewing for their strategy. X-Wing has become even larger over the last year and there are no signs of it stopping. It’s a fabulous game as I’ve said before—and it keeps getting better. Even with all the innovation that has went into X-Wing from FFG it was great to see the Han Solo build win Worlds. I have used a similar build from the start of X-Wing but it was the addition of the Headhunters and the Artoo card that put the Fat Han build over the top—and Heaver exploited it brilliantly over the course of the 2014 season.

For anyone who has been wondering about the content of the new Star Wars films, hard-core fans know that the rumored abandonment of the Expanded Universe is purely a false flag attempt to throw people off the trail of the actual plot. In the gaming universe, FFG has shown that more than ever the Expanded Universe is shaping the future of Star Wars for the better and for me personally, there has been nothing more exciting than the Wave V addition of the Rebel faction YT-2400 Outrider which fits perfectly into a strategy I had been wanting to work on for the 2015 evolution of the meta game. imageThe news coming out of X-Wing is so exciting that sometimes I wish I could afford to just play that game all the time. I would love to spend the rest of my life playing it all day every day and I’d never tire of it. For guys like Paul Heaver they are able to delve into every aspect of the game strategically which would be a lot of fun. I can maybe get a game of X-Wing in about two times per month. But some people who I know are able to play several times per day and 12 to 20 per week which is the best way to really get good at the game. Now with all the expansions coming into play, there is a lot to keep up with—but its fun trying. For 2015 the biggest news is a Star Destroyer huge ship coming to the Empire faction and the advent of the new Scum and Villainy faction. It is that new faction that had my interest in devising a new strategy in how to deal with them once they hit the market. For me, that will involve the new Outrider.

It took me until February of 2015 to finally get to play a game with the YT-2400 but I’m happy to report that it is the perfect complement to the traditional Fat Han build replacing the old Twin Falcon builds as a viable strategy. The Outrider fits in as a perfect complement to the Falcon with its 360 turret ability, and barrel roll. On the Falcon I typically use Expert Handling ability to get a barrel roll out of the Falcon so having two large ships that can barrel roll in and out of firing arcs is the key to making this a build that I think will work best in dealing with the new faction of Bounty Hunters.

What will set the Scum and Villainy faction apart from the previous Rebel and Empire factions is that the bounty hunters will utilize illegal armaments and dirty tricks. So it will turn the game meta on its head and make the game so much more dramatic—as if it needed it. The addition of the new Boba Fett Firespray under the Scum faction is going to be a really difficult ship to deal with along with IG-88 and other pirates. So firepower will be needed that can fire behind those dirty tricks. That’s where the YT-2400 comes in. The feature build is the use of a Heavy Laser Cannon from range 2-3 to pick off foes from a safe distance using the barrel roll to stay out of the line of fire.

The version of Fat Han that I’m using is a very fast Falcon that I’d call a “Lean Han” and the YT-2400 decked out with a HLC and the Outrider card which allows for that secondary weapon to become the primary. With the two speedy YT family ships on the board at the same time using Han’s re-roll ability to make sure he hits each round, it will be the most effective counter to the meta-game that is coming if you are a Rebel player—which of course I wouldn’t consider playing as anything else. The games I played with the pairing were very successful even against a TIE Swarm so the YT for me is a dream come true.

The guys who are playing double-digit games of X-Wing per week are really lucky. I would consider retiring from all my many tasks and becoming a professional player just because it’s so much fun to play. I think it far surpasses Chess as a game of strategy and is showing signs of maintaining great depth for the future. The game is huge now, but after the next Star Wars film comes out in less than a year it will really explode because of all the new ships and characters who will be made into ships in the game. The Scum and Villainy factions along with the Outrider are great examples of how FFG has used the Expanded Universe to build a great mythological gaming experience and for Star Wars to really work; the new films will need to tap into all this background going into games like X-Wing. Many of the cards offered with the ships come from characters only referenced in the novels and comics, so the direction of X-Wing indicates the direction of the Star Wars franchise from Disney over the next six years. A decade from now X-Wing may be a massive game full of loyal fans that will greatly eclipse what Magic the Gathering is today. It is really fun to watch this phenomenon mature into something special.

I played a game over the weekend at 4 AM and found myself so consumed with the strategy of X-Wing that I felt like I was on vacation from the mundane world of normalcy. It’s no wonder the game is gaining so much in popularity. What’s better is that every month more and more players come to the game as newcomers and with them will come a host of bizarre strategies and attempts at innovation. Right now, Paul Heaver is the top player in the world—for two years in a row. The trick in becoming so good is in figuring out what the new meta game will be, and developing a strategy in how to deal with it. “Fat Han” was last year’s strategy. This year it will have to be something else. For me, it will be a twin Falcon/Outrider build with a Lean Han advancing with great maneuverability through and around obstacles. From my perspective speed and firepower are the only ways to really deal with the Scum and Villainy faction. But we’ll see. Part of the fun with the game is in figuring out those kinds of things—and seeing how they play out in real life against a real player. As usual, FFG is at it again, and stronger than ever. They really are an amazing company. Their products bring me great joy, and I know by the game’s popularity that I’m not alone. It is certainly one of the bright spots in the modern world. Myth made into a community of neat people who give me hope on humanity. I love X-Wing Miniatures.

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Fighting Off Vico: The answers are at Cliffhanger Research and Development

It is obvious that the world is losing it’s understanding of the root cause behind innovation as isolated factions are continuing to perform such miracles, but society at large is lost as to what to do about them. As the current of world civilization desires to move toward the Vico model of four stages where presently anarchy is giving way toward theocracy it is clearly a mistake to my eyes. So I have decided to do something about it which begins with philosophy and ends with the preservation and continuation of innovation. (CLICK HERE TO REVIEW THE VICO METHOD)

One of the greatest restrictions to modern innovation is the diabolical menace of failed philosophies.  Without a correct way of thinking, new ideas created by human minds cannot ignite into their true potential.  So I am resurrecting an idea from my past—something I started a long time ago which can be seen at the new website of Cliffhanger Research and Development below. At Cliffhanger Research and Development the products produced must then not be technology itself, but in correcting the failed philosophies that are currently restricting the proper development of innovation.  So contained within the written works produced by Cliffhanger Research and Development are examples of real technology and historical records that are true – but are suppressed behind a veil of static social systems intent to carry civilization through democratic anxieties backwards instead of toward innovation.  The plot lines of these works are never-the-less exciting, and action oriented, but the underlining expectation is to make readers aware of these emerging technologies and put them into a context that can be understood as a whole instead of fragmented efforts by well-intentioned inventors.  Some of the topics explored are:

Regenerative Medicine  Cures for Cancer

Self Navigating Flying Personal Vehicles

Unexplored Aspects of Mankind’s Origins as a Species

Anti Gravity Technology

Benefits of Civilian Space Exploration

Alternative Fuel Sources – Thorium Energy 

The conflict in such stories is always the struggle to introduce a new dynamic force of such emerging technologies against the static patterns of conformist orthodox.  To put it more conventionally, the desire to carry society toward the merry-go-round of the Vico method which is a case of continuously rising and falling civilizations that are only measured in history books—is a cycle that needs to be broken with thought so that action can take place. To fight such battles, new heroes are needed which are featured in the collected works by Cliffhanger Research and Development seen at the link below.

 CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

For instance, in my novel Tail of the Dragon, the content of the story is one of emotional conflict, car chases, legal entanglements and non stop action. But it is clear that the star of the show is technology—in this case a 700 HP engine that runs on vegetable oil. During the car chase the police confiscate all the fuel stations along the chase route leaving the fleeing bandits with no place to refuel so that eventually they will run out of gas since the police and military were unable to stop the armored car being used in the chase. So the unusual feature of this particular car which the protagonists drive allows the car to be refueled at fast food restaurants with used fryer oil making for some interesting chapters. As the author my point in such stories is not to just introduce a plot device that had never been used before, but to make readers aware that such a technology exists so that action can be taken to embrace it when they are told by the governments of the world that there are limited options to their rising gas prices at the fuel pump. Or those politicians who wish to attack “big oil” with the new religion of environmental concerns with the subtly hidden desire to carry society back to a theocratic culture driven by earth worship can be challenged with options not before considered. The United States produces a lot of that vegetable oil as waste from its fast food industry and if the waste were captured, it would certainly have an impact on fuel costs and the dependence on foreign markets. The Tail of the Dragon story is meant to bring these unique technologies to the minds of readers in ways they wouldn’t have otherwise considered.

In the Cliffhanger series The Curse of Fort Seven Mile, I am presenting a large contingent of very controversial proposals within the context of a classic action adventure story. My first love in life has always been philosophy, but my actions have always been mechanical. I’ve always been good at identifying things that are broken mechanically, or intellectually—and fixing those items quickly. So I started off in life as an inventor. That’s how Cliffhanger Research and Development began in the first place. So the plot behind The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is more fact than fiction as Cliffhanger Research and Development is featured prominently as a company involved in all the above technology. What is preventing that technology from emerging into the human realm is the static patterns of modern political systems which need to be broken so that marvelous inventions like the ones featured can emerge and bring with them fulfillment. Ultimately to perform that task it requires a divorce of the Vico method which is something the human race has never achieved. It has pushed against it a time or two—the latest being the creation of the United States—but politics driven by insufficient aristocratic human desire for social titles always pulls mankind back to the precipice of Vico.

The protagonist in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is a vigilante by the name of Cliffhanger who has found that the world was not ready for the inventions of genius, so he sets out to bring justice to the unfortunate in the classic way that a good guy punishes bad guys, but there is a deep analysis as to what makes bad guys really bad. It’s not enough for me to just say that so and so is an antagonist and that they deserve to be punished so that good people can flourish—I feel I need to show the depths and causes of such villainy, so that readers can recognize it in their own lives and take action against it. But Cliffhanger isn’t just about saving damsels in distress and unfortunate victims of ruthlessness. Cliffhanger is a hero dedicated to breaking the cycle of Vico and unleashing the hidden potential behind human innovation on a mass scale that will bring to the world a renaissance of thought followed by action.

I was inspired to this effort ironically because of my admiration for H.P. Lovecraft while playing the very involved game, Arkham Horror. It took a century for readers to begin embracing Lovecraft’s ideas—which have just now taken root. He has a similar style and approach to his subject matter as I do, so it is clear by the Lovecraft roadmap that it sometimes takes a long time for a set of ideas to take hold, but once they do, they have a major impact on the thinking of society—which is what I’m most concerned with. Unlike Lovecraft who was haunted by terrible nightmares and a sickly body all his life until his early death living week to week in poverty—I am individually quite successful and resistant to various forms of offense conducted toward those opposing Vico’s cycle. So I can write and commit myself to this Cliffhanger Research and Development project without concern of hiding myself as a ghost writer the way Lovecraft had to—or bending my work around the criteria of a New York small press publisher. Knowing that it will take a while to sink in—I am free to tell the stories that need to be told without caring for their immediate reception. My target audience is not the masses at this time—but those who are capable of innovation. I’m looking for the unique individuals out there who understand the foundations of leadership. I want to provide them with a virtue that they can get no place else. For now it starts in these stories, but as time rolls on and away from Vico—it will find its way into education processes, laboratories, and the precipice of space as mankind for the first time breaks the shackles to anarchy and the chains trying to drag it back to theocracy.

Of course this is no small attempt—but then again, I understand that with all the good things I do on a daily basis—it will be Cliffhanger Research and Development that will be remembered. As a beginning endeavor it is just a seed now, but with the nurturing that will be provided, it will grow into a rather large force with deep roots able to withstand the tests of time. And it all starts with the click of a mouse.

CLIIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

Facing Down Evil: A brief history of Iraq and why America went to war

It’s OK to hate evil, in spite of any Christian sensibilities toward turning the other cheek. Sometimes its far worse to turn away from evil than in not loving thy neighbor as thy self. Evil is evil and it must be recognized and dealt with. For far, far too long Americans have been reluctant to pass judgment on evil for fear of appearing as “judgmental imperialists” to the rest of the world—and that has been a mistake. To see evil in all its gruesome antagonism and to understand what the Iraq War and Afghanistan War have always been about watch the video below.  I can’t guarantee that the video will still be up when you have the chance to see it dear reader—but for those who catch it before it’s taken down, it is horrible to look at. What is in the video is a row of prisoners under the control of ISIS. The terrorist group is behind the row with firearms waiting for the approval to fire. Once they get it, they unleash their violence into the heads of each prisoner one by one before unloading their magazines into the helpless bodies. While watching, ask yourself what any of those people could have done to possibly justify this horrendous action. Nothing comes to my mind and I can think of a lot of things. The only proper designation is that the act is pure evil by an evil group of people and it deserves answers from a just people in a just nation.  Warning, the video is very violent.

I was happy to find that Glenn Beck the day after a Jordanian pilot was burned to death inside a cage by ISIS terrorists had a similar reaction as I did. Even Beck is tired of pussy-footing around with terrorists as he showed the pictures on his Blaze website. The video was even worse than the still photographs. I think it was in many ways worse than the above assassination of the prisoners because it was just so cruel. The video was cut together with very cartoonish music and was done with the type of theatrics that might have been seen in the worst James Bond villain. Glenn Beck put up the pictures below.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/glenn-beck-the-world-needs-to-see-the-depravity-of-the-islamic-state-graphic/

In the movie American Sniper many opponents to the Iraq War have come out against the United States premise of occupation and have said that Chris Kyle and others were not heroes in that war-torn land. As much as I sympathize with the debacle that was the Sykes-Pikot agreement which ultimately broke up the Middle East into French and English territories after World War I what has been the result of that entire region with the exception of Israel, has become like a giant inner city in America. The good intentions of bringing civilization to the Arabs have resulted in a theocratic society rolling in poverty, aggressive religions, and communism in their core economic beliefs. They are now a very dangerous people in the Middle East because of their belief systems and that has left them vulnerable to the most aggressive, and repressive of their kind to emerge as global bullies.

George W. Bush knew of the complexity in the Middle East and took it upon himself to find a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power—to complete what his father had started. The so-called WMD’s in Iraq were moved across the border and hidden in Syria to be used later by Hussein knowing that U.N. inspectors would be looking for them. Of course the United Nations never found the weapons, but America went to war anyway—basically to punish evil. However, Bush didn’t do a very good job of explaining the reasons behind the Iraq War and once Americans discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They thought that Bush had lied just to provoke a conflict. The intelligence from the region indicated to Bush the kind of violence being conducted similar to what we are seeing today from ISIS. So off flimsy intelligence, and a moving target scuttling the WMD’s across the border, George Bush went on a Christian crusade into the heart of the Middle East to punish evil as he saw it. Likely he felt the way we do now in seeing prisoners burnt in cages and shot in the head one too many times to turn away. When you have the United States military as a weapon to use, he did—and I can’t blame him.

President Obama did similar acts for different reasons. He seems to enjoy the caliphate of Islamic extremism going on around the Mediterranean. Just like Bush before him Obama has used his power to assist those he identified with. Who does anybody think the rebels were in Libya who toppled Gaddafi? Obama made the decision to act alone without Congressional approval to basically assassinate Gaddafi, arm the rebels and topple that dictator so to make way for the caliphate to strengthen in the power vacuum. He supported similar actions in Egypt, and if anybody has forgotten the Benghazi situation—clearly some of the same work was at play there as well. Remember when Bahar al-Assad was accused of using chemical weapons against his own people in Syria and Obama empowered him with inaction choosing instead to arm the rebels. Well, where does anybody think ISIS came from? Where did they get their weapons—who gave them all the weapons of terror to use for a push back into Iraq after Obama announced that he was pulling out all American ground troops? ISIS didn’t get the weapons out of a Cracker Jack box, and they certainly didn’t make them. The weapons used by ISIS are a combination of Soviet tanks, and large advanced U.S. made systems acquired through direct raids, rebels who have joined ISIS, and black market purchases stocked by weapons floating around the Middle East from the Libya deal, and Syrian debacle. So the Middle East is now a mess. On one hand George Bush punished the radicals in Iraq with war. Then Obama sought to undo all the gains made by that advancement—right or wrong—by pulling back the troops and funding those rebels who wanted to form an Islamic caliphate. So look what happened, ISIS wanting to take back Iraq from the American occupation used American weapons to retake the region and now they are on a killing spree—and it is grotesque.

ISIS not even grateful to Obama for giving them all those weapons threatened just a few weeks ago to cut off the president’s head in the White House so to inspire further fear. Yet the president did nothing to step up aggression against such a rival, baffling critics. The whole modern trouble with ISIS is just another Fast and Furious scam gone terribly wrong on a massive scale and now torturous thugs are armed with American weapons giving them superiority over the innocent—and America isn’t there to help this time—and have no plans to do so—because the same president who empowered them, refuses to raise a hand against them—even when they threaten his life as well.

There is no way to step back and not have an opinion on the matter. America like it or not is all over the issue which was originally started by the English and French. Yet even when France was attacked recently by ISIS terrorists—Obama didn’t go with all the other world leaders to march with them in solidarity against ISIS in Paris. If the event had been a global warming conference, or a sick turtle caught in some mud pit in Florida Obama would have attended—but in a show of solidarity against ISIS—Obama didn’t show up against the radicals even though he loves his European allies. Why?

Evil is all around us and it is acting against our sensibilities at every level. The Middle East is now beyond hope. Good people are being killed there every day violently by terribly bad people, and those bad people are going unpunished. Leftists in America have empowered that evil with their passive actions—and literal actions—and the responsibility is now on the United States to correct the situation. That responsibility won’t just go away because it’s inconvenient. That Jordanian pilot was helping with Obama’s bombing campaign against ISIS, so we have an obligation to set things straight. The killings of these innocent people in the Middle East has to stop and before that can happen people need to understand what evil is and make a judgment to act against it. The intelligentsia class from American and European society are wrong about leaving the Middle East alone. George Bush, with all his faults had it right. Evil cannot go unpunished and under Obama, it is. Inaction in the Middle East is helping evil spread like a wildfire upon dry grass under a heavy wind. Unfortunately the wind in this case has come from the White House—and that is a question that needs to be answered only through the prism of proper identification of evil itself. The situation is very, very serious.

Iraq had evil in it before America “invaded.” The war was about stopping that evil. It wasn’t about oil. It was about beating evil. An evil that provoked a do-gooding president to do something about it—and another president to feed it like a pet.

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

Visit Cliffhanger Research and Development