Why Executive Leadership is the Key to a Successful Society: And why it is so incredibly rare

True executive leadership is not something taught in classrooms through textbooks or lectures on management theory. It is forged in the crucible of real-world challenges, where fear, uncertainty, and the need for decisive action collide. I learned this early, during an unusually formative childhood that exposed me to high-stakes environments far beyond typical teenage experiences. As a young teen, I participated in the High Adventure Explorer Post, a program that graduated from Boy Scouts and emphasized rigorous outdoor challenges. This led to my involvement in Project COPE—Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience—a Scouting initiative designed to build confidence, trust, leadership, and teamwork through group games, trust falls, low-course elements, and high-course obstacles such as climbing walls, rope swings, and balance challenges.

In one memorable weekend seminar, around age 13 or 14, about 20 strangers were thrown together to solve impossible-seeming problems. We had to transport everyone across a field using only a few 2×4 boards, balancing on pegs where touching the ground meant starting over. We climbed a 20-foot wall without ropes, stacking bodies to create human ladders, pivoting people into position, and hauling others up from vantage points. The trust fall was particularly vivid: standing on a 6-foot stump, falling backward unthinkingly, relying on the group below to catch you. These weren’t games; they demanded communication under pressure, overcoming personal fears, setting aside differences, and articulating a clear plan that everyone could execute. Success required a narrative—a story that unified the group around a shared vision. Failures taught the team what not to do: hesitation, poor coordination, and ego-driven decisions doomed the team. Those who emerged as natural leaders could rally perfect strangers, build trust quickly, and guide them through duress to victory.

This experience wasn’t isolated. I rose to become vice president of the Dan Beard Council, a significant Boy Scouts organization in the Cincinnati area, under somewhat controversial circumstances that provided invaluable lessons in organizational dynamics and influence. At 14, I was invited to speak at GE’s Evendale facility—a massive engine manufacturing site—where I delivered a pitch on leadership drawn from these adventures. Standing before seasoned professionals as a kid, articulating principles of vision, trust, and collective action, cemented my path. It wasn’t credentials that carried the day; it was the ability to communicate a compelling story and inspire follow-through.

These early trials shaped my understanding of executive leadership, a skill rare even among those who hold C-suite titles. Many executives excel at spreadsheets, regulations, data analysis, and compliance—tasks that engineers and administrators handle well. But leadership transcends that. It is the art of creating a vision that others buy into, communicating it clearly enough that diverse groups align, and leading from the front to pull everyone through obstacles they couldn’t surmount alone. True leaders don’t micromanage every detail; they don’t need to know how to code the software, assemble the product, or balance every ledger line. They orchestrate the team, provide the overarching narrative, and empower others to execute. Think of a kitchen: the chef doesn’t wash dishes or make noodles from scratch, but ensures the entire operation runs smoothly so spaghetti arrives hot and customers return. Leadership is that orchestration under fire.

This truth stands in stark contrast to prevailing misconceptions. Schools rarely teach it properly; corporate retreats often superficially mimic it with trust falls and ropes courses, checking boxes without the depth of real hardship. Many in leadership positions mimic “mob rule”—placating safety concerns, enforcing endless administrative loops, or prioritizing equality over merit. They hide behind regulations, consensus-building, and democratic processes that dilute accountability. The result? Stagnation. When organizations are mired in bureaucracy, innovation slows, and potential leaders get sidelined.

Consider recent local examples in West Chester Township, Butler County, Ohio, where I’ve lived most of my 58 years. It’s a prosperous, conservative community built on business-friendly policies and strong leadership. Yet newcomers like Amanda Ortiz, who relocated here in 2016 with her husband and now serves as a trustee (elected in 2025), bring perspectives shaped by different environments. As a veterinarian focused on animal welfare, she campaigns on “people over business,” critiquing development and emphasizing resident input over economic growth. While well-intentioned, this risks importing anti-business sentiments—such as higher taxes on enterprises and wealth-redistribution rhetoric—that clash with what has made the area thrive. It’s the same mindset seen in broader progressive movements: viewing successful CEOs as “greedy” and advocating for shared wealth without acknowledging the rare skill of value creation.

This echoes larger ideological battles. Socialism and communism promise equality through state control or democratic redistribution, suppressing individual leadership. They assume administrators can orchestrate prosperity through rules alone, without the visionary drive of a single, accountable leader. History shows otherwise: state-run economies falter because they penalize autonomy, stifle innovation, and equalize performance at mediocrity. No one climbs the wall if everyone’s voice is equal and no one leads decisively. Remote work trends exacerbate this—employees scattered, communication fractured, approval loops endless. You can’t build trust or rally a team when half are at home; the COPE lessons prove that interaction under pressure forges bonds that Zoom can’t.

Contrast that with proven leaders like Jack Welch at GE (who transformed it into a powerhouse through bold vision), Steve Jobs (who articulated Apple’s future and pulled teams to it), or Elon Musk (who leads from the front on audacious goals). They don’t consult committees for every decision; they communicate big concepts, inspire buy-in, and drive execution. Donald Trump exemplifies this politically—articulating massive ideas that mobilize millions without micromanaging details. He leads the metaphorical train, helping people over walls they couldn’t scale alone.

America’s success—its unmatched GDP, entrepreneurial spirit, and job creation—stems from empowering such leaders. Capitalism rewards those who develop the rare skill of pulling others forward through narrative, trust, and action. Boy Scouts programs like COPE and Explorer Posts cultivate this through sweat, cold nights, cut fingers, and mud—trials that separate natural leaders from followers. Most participants become capable followers, which is fine; society needs both. But the few who rise, who can get strangers over obstacles and keep harmony afterward, become CEOs, founders, and visionaries who employ millions.

The fantasy that mobs or committees can replace this ignores reality. Numbers don’t vote on facts; gravity doesn’t bend to consensus. Leadership isn’t democratic—it’s directional. Empower leaders with autonomy, and organizations soar. Suppress them with equality mandates or administrative burdens, and decline follows. This is why communist models fail: they suppress leadership, fearing individual excellence threatens the collective illusion.

In my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business: A Skeleton Key to Western Civilization, I explore these themes deeply—strategy drawn from hardship, the primacy of vision over bureaucracy, and how true leadership saves companies, communities, and civilizations. It’s not theory; it’s lessons from the school of hard knocks, much like those COPE weekends or speaking at GE as a teen.

We need more such leaders, not fewer. Penalizing success through spiteful policies—resenting wealth creators, demanding redistribution—creates injustice and stagnation. Gratitude for effective leaders, who lift everyone, builds prosperity. Civilization learns this slowly, but the path is clear: identify, empower, and follow those who can get us over the wall. Without them, we stay grounded.

Bibliography and Footnotes

1.  Scouting.org, “Program Feature: COPE,” detailing Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience as group initiatives, trust events, and high/low challenges for leadership and teamwork.¹

2.  Wikipedia, “COPE (Boy Scouts of America),” overview of the program focusing on strength, agility, and personal growth through outdoor tests.²

3.  Grand Canyon Council BSA, “COPE,” emphasizing confidence, self-esteem, trust, and leadership via mental/physical challenges.³

4.  West Chester Township official site, “Board of Trustees,” bio of Amanda Ortiz, resident since 2016, veterinarian, elected trustee term 2026–2029.⁴

5.  Amanda Ortiz for Trustee campaign site, platform stressing “people over business” and resident-focused leadership.⁵

6.  Journal-News, “Longtime West Chester Twp. trustee unseated in election,” Nov. 6, 2025, coverage of Ortiz’s 2025 win unseating incumbent.⁶

7.  Rich Hoffman, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business: A Skeleton Key to Western Civilization (Liberty Hill Publishing, 2021), core text on strategy, leadership, and capitalism.⁷

8.  Overmanwarrior.wordpress.com, author bio and book commentary, linking personal experiences to leadership philosophy.⁸

9.  Various Scouting resources on high-adventure programs, including Explorer Posts and leadership training via challenges.⁹

¹ https://troopleader.scouting.org/program-features/cope

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPE_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

³ https://support.scoutingaz.org/main/cope

https://www.westchesteroh.org/government/general-government/west-chester-board-of-trustees

https://www.amandaortizfortrustee.com/

https://www.journal-news.com/news/longtime-west-chester-twp-trustee-unseated-in-election/CD2ADHRUKVC2JOIQSCMINM3MWE

⁷ Liberty Hill Publishing / Amazon listings for the book.

https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/author-bio-for-rich-hoffman

⁹ Multiple Scouting America sites on COPE and high-adventure bases.

Additional references include historical accounts of Boy Scout leadership development, economic analyses contrasting capitalism and socialism (e.g., works on Jack Welch and Steve Jobs biographies), and local Ohio political coverage.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Problems with 5G: The occult of Apple, neutrinos, and non-ionizing radiation from Wi-Fi networks

Up until this point, I have not thought much about 5G technology. After all, I support technological innovation. But after Covid and watching the behavior of the big tech companies regarding Covid and election fraud during 2020 and how they took active roles in subverting truth, I’m not so sure that they have our best interests in mind regarding 5G technology. It looks to be great for them, but not so good for us. And that was the feature of a conversation that I was in at a public meeting where there was a lot of justifiable concern about wireless networks in public schools and whether or not they should exist and expose children to ridiculous amounts of non-ionizing radiation, which we know emits from Wi-Fi networks. The compromise was that schools should spend the extra money to hard wire their internet devices rather than rely on wireless networks that broadcast all this information all day, bombarding young bodies with lots of unknown particles while in schools. Of course, there were snickers about this suggestion; we have all grown to accept wireless internet technology everywhere we go; it’s in our homes, at McDonald’s, our shopping complexes, everywhere. We are all bombed with non-ionizing radiation constantly, all hours of every day, all year long, and we don’t know the damage it causes us over such lengthy durations. In a post-Covid world, I am much less friendly to any tech companies and tend to think it’s good to have internet blind spots, places on earth where we can get away from “them.” We accept certain risks because it makes our lives more convenient. But then again, do we need to be plugged into their internet system all the time, all over the earth?   Maybe not.

Even though they are a liberal company, I’ve always liked Apple products. I was a fan of Steve Jobs and the geeky types who were part of the tech boom that exploded in the 90s. I always liked Bill Gates, for that matter, and have been a huge fan of Microsoft Office. When I would hear stories about the Apple logo having occult references or the box icon for Microsoft pointed toward supernatural impediments, I would laugh them off as overactive imaginations. But because of their conspiracies with Covid, the way they seamlessly integrated with the strategies of the World Economic Forum, the Desecrators of Davos desire to rule the world from a centralized government controlled by the United Nations, with vaccine passports and edited news that denied hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to dying patients, so that statistically they could have the death counts, and not the solution, I don’t trust any of them. I do not trust Apple news sites. I don’t like the way we have to rent everything from them, like Apple Music. It fits right into the Klaus Schwab tyrannies of world domination from a financial point of view. And I now think that the founders of Apple were lying when they suggested that the Apple logo was just some innocent invention referring to an Apple falling and hitting someone in the head with an idea. Based on their behavior, the occult origins of the logo make much more sense, that it represents the apple that Eve ate in the garden of Edan. The bite represents the fall from the garden, from the grace of God, which we are all supposed to strive to get back to through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

Regarding the non-ionizing radiation, we tend to think that “they,” meaning government and the tech companies, would not want to kill their customers, so if it were dangerous, they would let us know. But after the push for the vaccine mandates that have harmed people with blood clots and even death, and then to witness the mass cover-up and the government deal with pharmaceutical companies to not hold any of them liable, we need to rethink this relationship altogether. It brings to my mind the very modern problem of what we know about neutrinos, which are bizarre subatomic particles that interact with us constantly. They are passing through us all the time as if we aren’t even present. They even pass through the earth, not slowing down in the slightest. We can’t see them, and they have no knowledge of us, yet we constantly interact with each other in mysterious ways. We only know about them because they occasionally crash into each other, and we can see the result. The persistent science points to these particles as aspects of quantum entanglement, which could point to particles that travel faster than the speed of light, breaking Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Scientists aren’t ready to accept that premise; yet another hundred years of research, it’s likely that we will eventually have to admit such things to ourselves. Meanwhile, neutrinos exist and affect our world. Add these mysteries to the unknowns of non-ionizing radiation, and we could be causing lots of problems.    

The bottom line is that the trust in technology companies has been broken, and we should not assume that they have our best interests in mind. They have shown they are committed to making “the administrative state” more powerful for centralized governments in a relationship they have to be at the center of all that control. They want to constantly monitor everything we do, what we read and think, and what we see. So in that regard, 5G serves them much more than it’s a convenience for us. In the same way that they give us apps for every little thing, the tradeoff has been to extract information from us that they can then use against us. So we have a lot to pound away at culturally to solve some of these problems. And where we can, we should reduce wireless networks, especially in schools. Kids don’t need easy access to Snap Chat and Tik Tok when they are supposed to be learning in school without a supercharged wireless network with no dead zones. That non-ionizing radiation impacts us in ways that we don’t understand, and based on the behavior of the people who advocate for 5G technology, we obviously cannot trust they have our best interests in mind. Instead, we should expect malicious intent from them and the worst that human nature can conduct as a behavioral standard. As we learn more, occult practices of a non-Christian nature are at the core of everything they do, which is why many of the leaders in these organizations have turned to the religion of climate science rather than Christ-based religion. The central tenet of Christianity is dominion over nature as all things are in service to mankind. Yet we see this pagan push from governments and the tech companies to make everything subservient to nature which points back to the motivations of the Apple logo itself as an Anti-Christ reverence, where a fall in the garden is preferred.   When you add their behavior to the push for the religion of climate change and the intentions of the globalist types who sincerely believe that the earth is overpopulated, and if mankind can’t be controlled in every aspect of their lives, that the death of people is acceptable to obtain the greater good as “they” interpret it, then we have significant problems and must limit how much control over our lives they really have. And that starts by limiting the effects of their 5G technology and where it can reach and when—then knowing that the debate of 5G in our public schools has a lot of merits.

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business

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