Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 334
April 24, 2016
Save a Millennial: Vote for Donald Trump to prevent a continued socialist incursion in America
Look at these idiots. At a recent Donald Trump event these Millennials showed up and displayed the net result of their vast ignorance. If you want to understand why Donald Trump needs to be president it is because of this Millennial generation raised to be socialists through their public educations. These people need to think completely different about things before it’s too late, and maybe—just maybe, Trump can do it through his ability to work the media. Nobody else has a personality large enough for the job, and these people are in real trouble. There are a lot of them out there, and they are very sick.
Check out Jesus in the background. God help us—and if that is the son of God back from the dead—he should probably crawl back into the cave he was resurrected from. What a loser.
Save a Millennial—vote for Trump.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 23, 2016
The Fading of a Purple Haze: Prince leaves the world through death, but the music will last forever
Even for me, I was a little shocked that Prince had died. It wasn’t the loss of a person that I considered to be something scratching the surface of a oveman, but the last great loss of a great talent from the 80s. I feel worse for the modern kids who don’t know what it’s like to have James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince all alive and making music for their society all on stage together. With the modern record industry comparatively crushed relative to that unique period in 1983, shown below, the amount of raw talent that was enjoyed by the 80s may not be seen again for a long time. For modern race baiters who declare that America is a racist nation, they obviously don’t know much about our history. I am proud to say I live in a culture that produced minds like Prince, Michael Jackson and James Brown. Prince for all his small stature of 5’ 2” made the best of it and walked around like he was 9’2”. I always thought of him as a remarkable person and he had an impact on me that lasted.
I also thought he was a little weird—and for whatever reason, we accept culturally people who are extremely different if they are musicians. It’s a very strange thing to watch people who pick on others for being different turn right around and wear the shirt of a famous musician that behaves in very eccentric ways. Prince was certainly one of those people. Prince was about nine years older than I was, so as he was making his most famous music, the album “Purple Rain,” I was traveling all over the country as an Explorer in the High Adventure Boy Scout Post, 962 ran by one of my arch rival school teachers from the 7th grade. Me and that woman hated each other, but she was access to adventure so I put up with her and spent a lot of my time from 14 to 16 years of age doing just about everything human beings could do regarding adventure, rappelling, backpacking, spelunking, and competing against others in yearly competitions at Camp Frielander in Loveland, Ohio. It was the only thing that could have held my interest at that particular time and I thrived in that environment. In a lot of ways Prince and I came to age at the same time in very different ways. Both of us learned to think bigger than just being human which a lot of Prince’s songs reflected.
I was never particularly compelled by the religious leanings of Prince, but I did enjoy his otherworldly approach to life—the eternal aspect, and he seemed to accompany me everywhere during those Explorer days. Explorer Posts are divisions of the Boy Scouts of America, but they are co-ed activities so there were always girls around—especially on the competition campouts where explorers from all over the southern Ohio region showed up to fight it out at Camp Frielander each August. Most of the competition was fire department Explorer Posts and those from various police divisions—where young people were basically in apprenticeships for those careers. My Explorer Post was designed to make global adventurers, and the skills I learned there I never forgot. I always had extreme confidence and all that came to excessive fruition during this period of my life—and my antics seemed to always occur next to a Prince soundtrack. No matter where I was, or what I was doing, Prince was on the radio or on somebody’s private boom box. And when it came to confidence and multitasking, I looked at Prince and took some young direction. My introduction to the Explorer Post world came at Camp Frielander where on my very first night I blew up our campfire on purpose with a homemade bomb and picked a fight with a rival Explorer Post over a girl who me and the other males all wanted. From winning several of the events and gaining everyone’s instant attention, like Prince I had splashed onto the stage of adventure boldly. Within a year I was giving speeches in front of massive crowds at GE Aviation in Evendale and running around the University of Cincinnati like I owned the place and I was still six to seven years younger than all the kids attending. From Prince I learned to step in front of an audience and take charge. With him being so short and strange, I used to watch how he handled things and I incorporated many of his social tactics to my own escapades. So I can say that Prince greatly improved my life during a key time.
Within a few years I was elected president of the Dan Beard Council for the entire Tri-State region and I eventually secured the girl that we all wanted whom I had met that first night at Camp Frielander. But by then I had outgrown her and I had rapidly evolved beyond many of the people who were with me that first night of that summer competition. Literally the day that I was elected, which occurred at General Electric in front of a packed house I had met another girl that I liked a lot more so I was looking for a way to get rid of the other one and her father was one of the guiding administrators for the entire Dan Beard Council in the eastern part of the country. Later that night when I was supposed to be in fight against a bunch of kids at my school, one of them ended up dead and of course I was the key suspect—everyone in the Explorer Post community abandoned me, including all my girl friends—and Prince’s constant music was the only thing that made sense to me during that period. It was a surreal feeling to listen to the song, “When Doves Cry” as police cars all over Cincinnati went looking for me to question me for murder. In 24 hours I went from the top of the world to just a few steps from jail and it was very strange. But at no time was I afraid, or did I weep for my losses. I simply recaptured myself quickly and got back to what I did best and within a few weeks, had recovered completely and was back to my usual persuasions.
Prince was so boldly creative that he gave to my mind, which desired unlimited energy, a glance into the eternal—and that carried me to places that would soon become self-sustainable. I outgrew Prince by the end of the 90s largely due to the fact that I did more before I was ever 19 than some people did in their entire lives. By the time that Prince did a song for Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman film, I had outgrown him—but I continued to always admire the eccentric musician. Prince was wildly imaginative and magnificently talented and I learned a lot from him at a key time in my life—and it was clear when he died that future generations wouldn’t have the same opportunity—and for me that was the saddest aspect of the mysterious death at Prince’s Paisley Park home and studio in Minnesota. Prince at 57 didn’t eat meat, and was pretty religious for a rock star—and he had such a tiny little body. So diseases took a toll and if he took some drugs to alleviate the pain, he likely put himself under too much strain—and he left his body to join the focus of his otherworldly pursuits which had been a big part of his music for so long. It was that otherworldly appeal which I always enjoyed and drew from for myself. So it didn’t surprise me that his soul just decided to leave his body one day as the body struggled under pressures only the living understand. Prince seemed indifferent to life and death, so he obviously didn’t have much fight in him to struggle through such tribulation. But it’s always a shock to see that someone as full of life as Prince had left the world of the living—because it seems counter to his core personality.
Death is a journey of its own, and Prince took it closing a chapter on earth that future generations will only hear about. I learned a lot from Prince, and I am happy to say that his overman appeal to me is something I quickly mastered myself—and actually exceeded by the time I was 30 years old and had suffered through many more tragedies on the same scale as that day I was elected onto the Dan Beard Council and lost it all just a few hours later. Prince seemed at that time to be the sage from the top of a mountain who had all the answers, but it wasn’t long before I was looking down on his mountain and thinking how small he really was. That’s not Prince’s fault, as an artist, all he did was present something to contemplate through his music—it was up to us to bring meaning to it—and I did—living the life of a boundless adventurer who didn’t know any limits. I probably achieved more earlier because of Prince than I would have without him. Then suddenly he was gone as quickly as he came, like a purple haze and a distant memory that will soon be forgotten like a purple rain once the sun comes back out and distracts us from the day. Such is life—but for me, I will never forget. He was certainly one of the best and our society won’t produce another like him likely for hundreds of years—if ever.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 22, 2016
Sell Your Disney Company Stock While You Still Can: The double standard between Curt Schilling and Howard Ashman
Sometimes you readers here ask me my advice on financial matters, and when I give my opinion and you listen you profit wonderfully, and everyone lives happily ever after. But as I watched with some level of horror that the Disney owned company ESPN fired the great baseball pitcher Curt Schilling over his social media disgust about transgender politics while my third grandson was being born at the hospital I have decided to give this advice for free before being asked. If you have any Disney stock in your portfolio, then you should dump it now. Not only does the Disney Company need to be taught a lesson due to their bad management and advocacy of progressive politics using their extensive entertainment vehicles to attack traditional family values—but it’s just good sound financial policy. Disney is running all its companies in the ground—most people just don’t see it yet. So for your own good, you should stick by Schilling—who is a real man, and dump Disney. Perhaps they’ll learn something and fix their company, but as of right now, they are headed toward a miserable end as they have attached their star to progressive politics. CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF THIS FAILURE. Here is why Disney stock is headed for troubled times.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/media/espn-dismisses-curt-schilling/index.html
Disney has bet a lot on Star Wars, but those best days are now behind it. With The Force Awakens breaking $2 billion dollars at the box office and falling short of Avatar, future movies will be disappointments up until 2020. There are other Star Wars movies that will do well from now until then, and the merchandise sales will be healthy, but the Star Wars mythology is on a downward trend and losing steam quickly. By 2021 Star Wars will be half the value socially that it is now. It will still be considered successful compared to the other properties that Disney runs, but it won’t be enough to carry the whole company.
The Marvel films are in their fourth quarter of effectiveness. The superhero films are losing their appeal and Marvel is the latest “has been.” DC Comics is the new fresh face and even those films will have run their course by the start of the next decade. New films will not hold the same appeal that they have over the last decade and this will seriously damage Disney’s market intentions.
Disney is leaning toward making a gay protagonist and Frozen is on the radar to launch that attempt—they experimented with the idea in that popular musical. It will be a devastating attempt that will be greatly rejected and severely damage the animation division at Disney. So far they have been dancing around the surface, but there is a lot of pressure politically for them to commit more deeply to gay protagonists as primary characters. Once they do that, there will be serious market backlash, and you won’t want your money in the Mouse House at that point in time.
ESPN is going down the tubes with the destruction of cable television. With streaming services taking over the home television markets, ESPN is one of the first major casualties. Baseball is already having trouble keeping ratings during summertime broadcasts and with the poor PR issues regarding concussions within the NFL, professional sports are having a hard time attracting a younger audience. There are too many options for young people and sports are becoming decentralized at a key time and ESPN will find itself on the way out quickly in the years to come. The problem that professional sports face is similar to what the music industry has suffered from in recent years. Studio music has been weakened as options have given more people outlets, but taken away the extraordinary profits that have been enjoyed in the past.
The Disney Parks are getting killed in the Orlando market, even in the Hollywood region. Universal Studios has been far more innovative and has not attached their image so intensely to progressive politics. They have wisely kept a lot of the politics to a minimum where Disney has chained themselves to rainbow-colored castles and flamboyant employees. The Disney parks have taken a noticeable dive over just the last few years looking more like an apologist of the Obama White House than an entertainment company. While Universal Studios was building the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and many other updates Disney was focused on attracting more girls while alienating boys. They have heavily invested in Frozen and their new Fantasyland area. Universal’s attractions are appealing to both boys and girls while being equally thrilling to adults as well. But Disney has alienated boys while focusing on girls and ignoring the adults. They hope to fix that situation with the new Star Wars land at Hollywood Studios, but that will be a few years away toward the end of the Star Wars appeal. It will arrive at market too late and will lose steam by the mid 2025 time period.
It has long been known that the great Howard Ashman of Disney died of aids because of his gayness, but he was smart enough to write songs to musicals that featured romance between men and women—because they have mass appeal. Because of Ashman’s talent Disney has been forgiven by the public. Yet when Disney goes after a strong sports figure like Schilling—who won a world series bleeding from a last-minute surgery to his ankles–because he doesn’t think that men and women should be sharing a bathroom, Disney has crossed the line. They believe that by employing Shilling at ESPN that they control all aspects of his life. Where Disney employees like Ashman were allowed to have a homosexual lifestyle that led to his death—Disney supported that lifestyle. When it came to Schilling, a man known as a conservative who has taken stands on Muslim troubles and gay rights advocacy during his private life—Disney has shown that it discriminates against conservatives while giving free passes to progressives to express themselves any way they wish. The double standard is an attack on conservative value, and that of course is a terrible business decision on their part. So in spite of their social activism, they are making decisions that guarantee their future failures.
What Disney is doing to Curt Schilling is showing conservative America that they have the power to tame a big conservative lion-like the pro athlete and Hall of Famer. They were supposed to be hiring Schilling for his inside baseball knowledge as one of the greats. But what they really want is to control society’s behavior by taming one of the great male idols within professional sports. And that is not the decision-making ability of a great company—but a bunch of idiots and soon to be failures. For that reason, and many of the others mentioned above, and many, many others not even yet talked about—you should sell your Disney stock today, because you’ll wish you listened tomorrow. That tomorrow may not come for another ten years, but it will come—and you’ll wish you had spent it somewhere else instead of a progressive company riding the coattails of a truly great man, “Uncle Walt,” to use the company to change America instead of motivating it to greatness.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 21, 2016
Kong Skull Island at Universal Studios: At least its monsters and not a bunch of gay Disney propaganda
Needless to say, the timing couldn’t be better for me. I have traveled a lot and been to many different places—around the world—but I can honestly say that there is no place on earth that I’d rather visit for vacation than Orlando, Florida. If I were given the option to take a $100,000 vacation to the Mediterranean or to have an all expense trip paid to Orlando to visit the several major theme parks there—I’d pick Orlando. I have said much about my love of those amusement parks in Central Florida and it looks like through competition the great minds designing new attractions at those parks are giving fans everything they could hope and dream of. I am of course talking about the Skull Island exhibit at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure. I am absolutely enthralled by the prospect of that ride and attraction because when it comes to movie monsters—King Kong has always been my favorite—followed very closely by Godzilla. So this is exciting news to me. Then of course is the Star Wars land that is opening at Hollywood Studios over the next couple of years. I have my concerns about Star Wars—and my hope is that they’ll right their ship before that exhibit is completed—but I at least am hopeful at this time that they’ll do a great job.
It is a shame that Disney as a company has decided to take this exciting period and attempt to shove progressive ideas down the throats of their fans. When I showed my wife the footage of what Disney did on their ABC television show Once Upon a Time she declared that she would never buy anything from Disney again. It is one thing to put up with and not discriminate against gay people—but it is quite another to flamboyantly endorse the “lifestyle” and Disney is certainly guilty of that. Uncle Walt would be sick with rage at what his company is doing in regards to gay advocacy. It’s not at all a family friendly strategy and it’s an insult to those of us who wouldn’t otherwise think twice about spending a $10,000 vacation there to give our families a good—wholesome time. While at Disney World I don’t want ANY references to sex—especially gay sex. I want higher concepts and heroic effort—not gayness. I can tell Disney this—as much as I love Disney World—if they continue on with this gay pride crap—we won’t be spending voluminous amounts of money on their company any more. My family has been big supporters of the Disney Company over the years—as recently as last week. We attended a birthday party and it was all about Disney for gifts and balloons. If Disney doesn’t pull in the gayness—I won’t go to their parks ever again—even though I might want to see their latest inventions.
Universal Studios is not a conservative company—they have their progressive trends as well, but they avoid getting into trouble with it. Regarding the recent Jurassic World movie the characters were noticeably very traditional within reason. Chris Pratt was very much an “A” type male who had a clear relationship with women. If they had decided to muddy the water and have members of the same-sex involved with Chris Pratt from a sexual attraction standpoint—I would have a much different feeling about Jurassic World. Call it homophobic, call it the acts of a hater—call it whatever you want. I don’t want to see gayness in my stories. I don’t want to see it at my vacation destinations. And I don’t want it around me in public. Keep it in the bedroom and don’t put it in front of my face. With all that said, Universal Studios is certainly better at walking the line between social activism and traditional family behavior than Disney is—and their amusement parks currently are doing a better job of providing a safe environment for families. Maybe that is because the bar is lower for Universal than Disney—as Disney is known for its family friendly material. But I find myself much more excited right now for Kong: Skull Island than for the new Star Wars land at Hollywood Studios.
I have zero interest in seeing the new Avatar land at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Avatar is one of the most progressive films I’ve ever seen and even though up to that point I was a James Cameron fan—he ruined his reputation with me on that project. Technically, Avatar was a beautiful film—but the anti capitalist message in the movie was just despicable. Avatar celebrated tribalism and the whole global warming environmental message—and it was just sickening. It is almost as gross as the gay agenda—the proposal that earth is a living conscience superseding human invention. Its one thing to appreciate nature—it’s quite another to worship it. Avatar is about worshiping nature—and I’m not into that. Mankind should look at nature and think of it as paint for which it can make magnificent art. Nature is a foundation for thought—not a dominate force against it. So I may never go to Animal Kingdom to see the Avatar exhibit. Not the best decision in the world for Disney execs.
But relatively safe from political contention is King Kong and the mythology of Skull Island. We don’t have to worry about homosexual sex and environmental messages with monsters wanting to kill us—so it makes for a nice comfortable, thrilling adventure that you expect while on vacation. Nobody wants to be lectured to about progressive politics if they are Midwestern conservatives spending many thousands of dollars on a vacation experience. And there are a lot more of those Midwestern conservatives than there are progressive homosexuals and urban rap artists. I understand that these large entertainment companies want to be as inclusive as possible so not to turn away the potential for making a good ol’ dollar, but in cases of politics, they have to pick their poison. They can’t have it both ways. Don’t put sexual lifestyles in front of us then expect good conservative Christians seeking strong family values to put up with the intrusion on their life. Nobody wants to spend $235 dollars a night to stay at a Disney hotel to see a bunch of rainbow gay people running around ruining the environment. At Skull Island, there is no fear of gay themes because it’s all about monsters and destruction, and that is something to look forward to.
So it is just a little exciting to have the prospect of visiting Skull Island at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure—and I hope to see the major improvements to their Jurassic Park section of the part rolled into the mix. It doesn’t get much better than dinosaurs and giant monsters and I will spend a lot of money to support that kind of thing. When I’m on vacation I don’t want to see a bunch of fairies, and gay people—and I certainly don’t want to be lectured to about environmentalism. That is why Universal Studios is pulling out in front of Disney in the theme park business. Even though Disney is a sentimental favorite—Disney has shot itself in the foot with their progressivism. Would Harry Potter be as popular as it is if Harry fell in love with a guy as opposed to a girl—of course not? With such love and fairy tales there is always the promise of happily ever after with children and a continuation of the family name when romance is developed in a story. But with gay people—it’s just sex—the love goes nowhere and as a plot device—is pointless. Universal has filled its theme parks with superheroes, robots, and stunning action rides that allow visitors to truly feel like they are getting away from the outside world. But more and more at Disney are the reminders of their pro-gay protests against state legislation in Georgia and North Carolina. They are too progressively active to appeal to the American conservative base and it is starting to show. I know if I feel the way I do about them, then others are not far behind. With that consideration, Skull Island is looking more appealing than Star Wars right now—because I have a very strong hunch that Disney is about to ruin Star Wars with a gay story line just as they are with their Once Upon a Time television series.
I don’t have to worry about gay plot lines with King Kong and that is wonderful. But if King Kong suddenly becomes about gay monkey sex—then I’m done with him too. I don’t care how cool the monsters looks—I’ll be done with King Kong the moment he wants to play with another giant ape’s ding dong. Because that kind of emotional stuff just isn’t cool. Monsters that want to kill each other for dominance is—and for that reason I’m really looking forward to Skull Island at Universal Studios, Florida.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 20, 2016
Disney is so Gay: Literally–they are pushing a homosexual agenda in the ‘Once Upon a Time’ television show on ABC
It is so immature, the concept that most people have about love and instantly associating love and sex interchangeably. In most cases the people who write these modern movie and television story lines are kids themselves—barely in their 30s—and they lack deep understandings about life and how humans evolve. They certainly don’t understand love—for that you need a married couple who have been together for at least 25 years—and been through a lot yet still choose to stay together. It is impossible for anybody less to write about love in a manner that is based in any kind of reality and that is certainly true of most Disney productions where they are driven by progressive values instead of tangible human motivations. Their television show Once Upon a Time finally made good on its promise to include a gay story line in season five, and that was something I had been predicting that they’d try and the result was embarrassing. I actually felt sorry for the writers and actors who had to portray the story line, which went something like this; although Mulan (Jamie Chung) revealed her unrequited love for Princess Aurora (Sarah Bolger) in season three, she wasn’t the one in a new relationship in Sunday’s episode, “Ruby Slippers.” However, she did help make it happen, and now we have Disney justifying “loves first kiss” as “love” doesn’t know any boundaries, sex or ethnicity. Love just is. Well, they are wrong.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/once-a-time-gay-storyline-884653
I love a lot of things and that love does not translate into sex. I love movies, I love cars, motorcycles, and guns—I love my grandchildren, my kids—I love my life. But love and sex are not equal elements to a social paradox. Progressives to spread this gay love socialism that they have been preaching for so many years had to strip away the value of love before they could attempt to sell it the way these idiots on the show Once Upon a Time have provoked. In order to sell gay sex to the public—which has been going on for quite a long time—they had to destroy the notion of deeply committed love and attribute it to raw physical sex—the desire to integrate biologically with another human being for first the pleasure of it—then to procreate humankind with the result. Under the progressive definition of love, if a human feels compassion for another person, then they must have some sort of physical justification for that emotion. For instance—they must kiss them, or touch them in some way.
Sex does not represent love. When I see a young couple (a man and a woman) kissing at a restaurant or at a park it is a beautiful thing. When I see a couple of girls kissing in the same settings—or God forbid a couple of dudes—it is disgusting. The reason is that the man and the woman have the potential through their affection to create a family, and that is a beautiful thing to see. Without the potential for the creation of a family the physical display is simply for pleasure and it can then be disgusting—because the act becomes intrusive to our senses. Sex by itself isn’t beautiful—two fat chicks covered in tattoos and body piercings making out in an amusement park line waiting for a ride is annoying. Anybody with experience knows that what they are seeing is a short-lived emotion. But if a young girl is making out with her boyfriend and they are holding hands and hugging each other, then that can be kind of sweet. The reason is that their affections for one another can lead to the creation of a family. All of us with experience know that the public sentiments of physical expression fade away as the love grows stronger but that what they are engaging in may be the start of a new family name—and that is beautiful.
Ultimately this is why progressives are attacking traditional sex and trying to paint gay sex in a way that makes it appear to be love—because they hope to remove the value of relationships and throw that value back to the states to manage allowing people to engage in open sex with all human beings without the stigma of judgment. This was the kind of world in the dystopian novel Brave New World—where nobody really felt anything for anybody—people just engaged in sex for the pleasure of it but they did not feel the meaning of love behind it. Sex in that book was open and meaningless.
You can love a member of the same sex—two guys can love each other—but it is not appropriate for them to take that love to the barbaric level of sexual intercourse because what would be the biological point? The appropriate thing for two guys to do to show love for one another is to punch the other guy in the arm and call him a name—like “hey dick-head,” or “hello you diabolical scum bag,” followed by a smile. The reason is that the two friends are showing they have command of their biological functions and are working from a foundation of mental domination—love is in the mind, not the heart. Such relationships are able to last over many years and are a form of love. Take away the sex and love can thrive in a relationship. Sex is only a distraction to real love—it doesn’t define it. Sex is only a biological function. Love is a mental decision not related to biology. One is a function of instinct; the other is an affirmation of shared values.
As I’ve said before—even though the House of Cards is a compelling show, the gay sex is just ridiculous. They have attempted to normalize gay sex and it is just gross. Disney will face the same problem as they continue to advance the gay agenda through their feature films. When it was announced that the Green Lantern superhero was a gay character—the popularity did not increase for him. The mass population will reject such a premise because ultimately it’s gross. Nobody wants to look at gay sex—not really. For the same reason that it was always the teenage girl who survived until the end of 1980s horror films—because it is always a tragic loss to lose a girl because of the potential for life that she holds within her—gay expression is something audiences will reject because they cannot relate to the characters. Those of us with experience know that love is deeper than just physical attraction so a story cannot advance in our minds if sex is used as a substitute for love. It just doesn’t work and having two girls show their love for each other through physical attraction in Once Upon a Time comes out awkward, and it makes you want to change the channel. It leaves the viewer with a desire to turn away and move toward something else instead of sticking with a story they know will go nowhere biologically.
Hollywood has been trying to normalize the acts of gay sex for a long time and now they are really testing the fences. But all they are doing is cheapening the foundations of love that every human being craves by confusing young people with expressions of sex and calling it love. I understand that the writers of these shows haven’t lived enough to understand—and it shows in their products—but it’s not cute to see such failures exhibited as successes. People will endure the gay sex to watch a show, but it will hurt the appeal and weaken the ultimate market viability—and that is the risk that companies like Disney run by signing up for such progressive experiments. The moment that Woody and Buzz Light year announce that they have a gay love relationship the value of Toy Story drops immensely because the love that the two characters have for one another transcends sex—which is why the Toy Story films have been so successful. But playing with biological and psychological relationships in stories intended for young people, like Once Upon a Time is suicidal from a creative standpoint. I would hope that Disney would employ smarter people and not get so wrapped up in progressive politics—because it will hurt them. And I personally want Disney to succeed—so it pains me to see them make such epic mistakes. That prime time attempt to normalize gay sex on a popular television show was really stupid.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/04/18/once-upon-a-time-gets-first-gay-couple/
If you click on the link above, you’ll see something really……………gay.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 19, 2016
Rich Hoffman Hosting WAAM Radio: Most of our problems summed up in an hour
Matt Clark needed to head out-of-town so he asked me to host his WAAM radio show at 1 PM on Saturday, which I accepted. For just such occasions I now have a home studio to broadcast from since with my busy schedule, it is nearly impossible for me to actually do so from a fixed location. It had been a very busy Saturday morning—so busy that there wasn’t even time to eat breakfast, so as I was doing show prep about a half hour before going on the air my wife brought me some Chick-fil-A to eat. While I ate I was watching the news on a studio monitor. This is what I saw:
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Once I got on the air I unloaded all the connecting events that had happened just during that particular news week and finished off with the conclusion that America was at the end of its rope. We needed to take action right now to correct our treacherous conditions otherwise we wouldn’t get a second chance. This is what it sounded like. Click the link, sit back and listen—then share it with a friend.
First I spoke about the Russian jets buzzing American ships in the Baltic. Putin has been openly challenging American interests around the globe. He calculated that under the Obama presidency that the military would not fire on his pilots and that he could flex his muscle in the Baltic region. He was right much to all of our embarrassments. America should have shot down those Russian jets. It is hard to take the life of other people, but the Russians shouldn’t have provoked our military.
Donald Trump is about to win New York big, which shouldn’t be a surprise. Running a populist campaign Trump is at a severe disadvantage to other political candidates who know the system better than him, because they helped create the rules. Trump needs a very dominating victory in New York otherwise this whole election process will linger on needlessly. Kasich is going nowhere, and neither is Cruz. For the sake of the Republican Party, it needs to get behind Trump. Otherwise Trump will need to start his own party so that the focus can shift to a general election victory instead of all the party oriented politics.
Hillary Clinton is running for president even though she’s under investigation by the FBI. Think about how amazing that is—we actually have the first woman running for president with a barrage of scandals on her coat tails—and she’s the expected front-runner. This would have been the story of the decade in the 80s or 90s, but with all the topics of our day, it’s just one element that is almost background noise.
We have over 19 trillion dollars in national debt which to me is the biggest story of all. We are actually talking about 21 trillion dollars within a few years of now, and that is unfathomable. On the radio show I proceeded to talk about all the regions of the country planning to file for bankruptcy to get out from under all this massive debt—but there is nowhere to run. At the current 19 trillion-dollar deficit it exceeds our national GDP and is big trouble for having any hope at actually paying it off in our lifetimes. This is the clear exhibition of incompetent management of our government and it demands immediate action to avoid default. The only way out is massive economic expansion of 7% to 10%–to have a chance at surviving with our national sovereignty.
The NFL player Will Smith was shot in New Orleans and his coach Sean Payton used the tragedy to call out for gun control. This infuriated me greatly, CLICK TO REVIEW. Payton ran his Saints organization under a bounty system the year they won a Super Bowl in 2010 and Will Smith was one of his star players doing his part. Smith obviously thought that he was above the law as he was dining out with members of law enforcement then had a small wreck on his way home. Instead of stopping to exchange insurance information, Smith ran off and the victim hunted him down a few blocks down the road and shot him dead. I put the blame on the kind of system that Sean Payton has created with his football players which spilled over onto the streets of New Orleans. So it was disgusting that Payton sought to deflect blame away from himself and blame guns taking a very progressive position against them. It was pathetic to use the murder of his friend to advance a political cause that deflected away from his own bad behavior.
Socialists around the country are demanding $15 dollars an hour for minimum wage which is insane. Money is a measurement of value—if money is just handed out indiscriminately, it loses its value and inflation is invoked. It is truly pathetic that more people do not understand basic economic concepts. Fast-food workers are not worth $15 dollars an hour by market measurement. The government backed increase will only cost jobs because it will force companies to automate their processes to cover their margins. To the socialists that are causing all these problems globally, they just don’t understand that money is a measurement of values which they don’t see or understand because their emphasis is on equality—which essentially is a unit of measure that throws out all judgment. You can’t have any kind of functional society without human judgment. One thing I do on this site is write abundant articles on archaeology, as I am pretty obsessed with the causes of demise regarding ancient cultures. I would attribute this tendency of demise to the Vico cycle which is a recurring theme given to human inclination hard-wired into our brains. It is up to us to rewire ourselves to think differently and to make a conscious decision to step away from that destructive cycle. The $15 dollar an hour minimum wage proposal is a promise to destroy our economy—which has always been the goal of socialists.
John Kasich is an unmitigated, delusional idiot totally out of touch from reality. Watching him run for president makes you wonder if that guy has actually retained his sanity. I think he has lost it somewhere over the last few years—he is certainly not the same person I knew back in 2010. He sounds like a babbling fool and he’s just embarrassing. He has no moral platform to even consider being nominated for president and he’s functioning under the assessment that he does. I get messages from his campaign every day talking about how he’s the only guy who can beat Hillary in a head to head election. Give me a break. I don’t think he could win at anything against anybody. He’s a buffoon obviously surrounded by complete idiots. His type of politician is exactly what has screwed up our government in the first place. It’s hard to believe that people like him are out there until you hear him talk and realize that he has so much support from the establishment. No wonder we are in so much trouble.
Bernie Sanders is actually beating Hillary head to head as a socialist—and that points to a radical shift in our country. Young people like Sanders, they are ready to embrace socialism because we’ve allowed the concept to be taught in our public schools and colleges, and now they are voters. As of now there is a strong chance that he could be the Democratic nominee and he has half the country at his back. Remember when Mitt Romney received all types of flack, which probably alone destroyed his 2012 campaign for president when he made the 47% comment? What he said was true and now just four years later those 47% are looking at an open socialist like Bernie Sanders and thinking hard about voting for him just so they can get free stuff. That is a serious problem—economically, and ethically.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg asked his employees this week if they should publicly denounce Donald Trump. I see Zuckerberg as just a stupid kid—a little midget boy who is about the same age as my kids who got lucky with some code that he wrote. His politics are consistent with other Millennials taught progressive ideology in public schools and George Soros activism from publications like MoveOn.org and Think Progress. Those publications then inspire more mainstream outlets like Rolling Stone and The Huffington Post. Zuckerberg even though he’s a billionaire is an open border socialist and he is the next great threat to our American Republican after George Soros finally dies off. The problem with Zuckerberg is that he has name recognition and a product that most everyone in America is using and loves. He is the Lex Luther of our real world—and he has to be stopped. For that reason, I am not on Facebook. As I explained on the radio, the people helping me with my book projects created Facebook accounts for those novels, but I personally don’t have anything to do with them because I reject Mark Zuckerberg in every way shape and form. He is an American villain.
The Ohio legislature is ready to throw in the towel to pro marijuana activists early in the fight to legalize medical pot before there is a vote in November. Again, as I explained on the radio, I am against pot in every way shape and form. I don’t take drugs, not even aspirin, so I’m dead-set against more drug legalization—especially medical marijuana. In Ohio, the legislators want to get their hands on the tax money that pot could bring to the state, because they are so miserably hungry for another revenue stream which will allow them to redistribute more tax payer money to people who don’t deserve it—that they’ll do and say anything—even create a marijuana bill avoiding tax payers at the ballot box in November. They are all villains as well, and they are selling out their state because they are lazy fools guilty of mismanaging our government.
And finally Puerto Rico wants to file for bankruptcy, it is $70 billion in debt and there is no hope of coming out of it. Democrats are against the proposed bill which is in front of Paul Ryan because it prevents a raise of the minimum wage in that territory as they push for socialist increases across America. If Puerto Rico is granted bankruptcy protection then following will be states like California and cities like Chicago who are all on unsustainable economic paths. So house Republicans have a major problem on their hands far worse than whether or not Donald Trump is their nominee. We have major, major, major problems and nobody is talking about it—because the consideration is so unpleasant.
So it was a busy one hour broadcast that rivals anything that you can hear on talk radio. Since Matt gave me an open opportunity on WAAM’s airwaves and I already had the hour blocked off, I took the time to make the case in a way that connects the dots for everyone listening not only to the live broadcast, but the podcast later. It’s valuable information that nobody in the mainstream news is able to provide to their supporters, because the complex nature prevents a correct understanding. But I have a unique background and an ability to tie it all together so I did. Hopefully you will enjoy the broadcast and will take the time to share it with someone you care about. Because we all have some hard decisions to make and we need good information to help us make them.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 18, 2016
The Ploys of Communism: Defending Boeing from socialist insurgences stationed in Seattle
The commenter below actually said some decent things, so I’m not going to rake him over the coals. He is the product of his modern environment shaped by public education, popular entertainment and political necessity. In fact I agree with him on several issues—his comment is a welcome form of debate—and I like to see people thinking. However, the context of capitalistic function is off and I will explain why after you’ve had a chance dear reader—to ponder over his words as he left them followed by the link to the 2013 article I wrote which initiated the small banter. When I wrote that particular article Seattle, Washington had just elected an open socialist onto their city council and it was a sign of things to come. Of course I was right in all aspects—within three years, we have an open socialist running for president and now they are coming out of the wood work everywhere. They believe the stigma of socialism has been removed from our social context. They are talking more openly about the topic which is good—because it allows us to finally deal with the excessive problem that collective based cultures face and how it impacts their national GDP. Here is the comment as printed.
Paul Brar
Doesn’t Boeing earn a healthy profit every year? If so, why cannot they pay their workers decent wages and provide decent pension options. If a company was not profitable or earning low profits, then your article would be justifiable but when it come to very large corporation who make millions in profit every year, I think the workers should expect decent wages, working hours, good working conditions, etc. Further, please do not confuse Socialism with Communism, they are not interchangeable. For example, Social Democratic countries in Europe are mostly democratic capitalistic countries with social values that protect the workers from exploitation. That is the future and once we keep evolving, we will realize profits are not the main aim for humanity but evolution. Evolve to be able to travel to other planets, advances in medicine so that we can live for 400 – 800 years, where the whole planet is connected and basics needs are free for everyone (i.e. food, housing, clothing, etc.) and profits are made by advances in technology which compete with open source technologies. There is enough on this planet for double or even triple today’s population but greed has led to social/economic inequalities. We have to evolve as we are not much better than animals with basic technology. Reason for life would be to evolve as humanity, not hoard for the next generation.
Here is the problem with what he said, Boeing has one primary objective, it makes airplanes—the best airplanes that it can and their profits are a product of the successful implementation of that objective. The employees are there to serve the needs of the business so that Boeing can achieve its stated goals. If Boeing needs to secure its workforce to retain their skills and reduce unneeded employee turnover, then the company needs to pay what they need to in market value to retain those employees—through benefits, work hours, etc. Boeing does not exist to be a job provider—their primary purpose is not to provide sustainable jobs to the people who work for the company, and the employees are not equal partners in the productive enterprise. They show up to work, punch the clock, do their task, and they return home to do whatever they desire with their earnings exchanged for their labor. The mistake that socialists and communists make is that they assume that a job is collectively owned and that they are equal partners in providing labor to a marketplace. They completely ignore the tendency of free-enterprise for which the founders and ownership of Boeing participate in to assume all the risk of a profitable venture and that any disproportionate rate of pay which might be enjoyed at the top—by CEOs and the board of directors, is that the risk of success or failure is completely on their shoulders so the greatest rewards are garnered by them alone. In a capitalist society—which is what America is supposed to be—income is directly linked to the amount of risk assumed by an individual. And by risk it is attributed to the level of responsibility for task completion that a worker possesses.
Under collective bargaining agreements unions have destroyed the value of a good wage because everyone gets it no matter what they bring to the table of productive enterprise or the level of risk assumed by individuals. The lackluster sloth that only has a passion for video games once they are off work can make as much money as the person who desires to work through all their breaks to achieve more productivity at work and continues to work long after everyone sleeps for the night. What happens as a result is that you get fewer of the latter and much, much more of the former regarding employee behavior. If you have ever done business with a French company you get a taste of what I’m talking about. In France, which is a heavily socialist country, the emphasis isn’t on productive output in most cases; it’s on personal time and vacation periods incurred. There is very little passion among the French workforce to complete tasks because they take the products for which they manufacture for granted. They believe they are all equal contributors to output. As a result, most of their workforces are planning their two months of vacation each year instead of thinking about accomplishing the task of productive enterprise, and their nation suffers as a result. Human beings are driven by the opportunity to profit and when employees see that they can get ahead in life and that profit is there for them if they do well; they tend to find ways to be productive. But if they get paid regardless of whether strategic product objectives are fulfilled or not—they tend to perpetually plan for their lunch breaks and vast amounts of vacation time that they incur as a result of their socialist underpinnings.
All this European socialism which emerged from the communist plunge taken early in the last century is derived from Immanuel Kant’s philosophy which has spread like a disease across the world. While many don’t consider the collectivist theory to be reminiscent of communism, it is a direct byproduct of small “c” communism without the ruthless dictators. America’s plunge toward socialism is directly the fault of labor unions which have been functioning under communist oriented sentiment for decades and 7 years of a presidency that openly beholds the softer European versions of collective bargaining at the first sign of a sizeable profit margin.
The failure in understanding is that money is a unit of measure and not of actual value. To fall in love with money or profit and base a philosophy on it is like basing the value of a measurement off a yard stick and not the thing being measured. By itself a yard stick, a ruler, or anything resembling a measuring instrument has little value until it is used to measure the height and width of something. In relation to those results, we might say something is bad or good based on the dimensional characteristics. Profit is a measurement of a company’s’ financial success, it is not a pool of money meant to be equally distributed among a mass workforce.
Collective bargaining has muddied the water of free enterprise and made it so that companies hoard their profit to protect themselves from mass employee insurrections such as layoffs and disproportional yearly increases not rooted in value toward a company’s actual worth. A line worker does not have equal value to the risk takers at the top. They may physically work harder as the line worker, but they get to leave at the end of a work day relatively free of responsibility—so the input toward a company’s wealth is not equal. The executive at the top of a company worries about the health of the company usually 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Sure they play golf with clients, go out to eat and get to travel around the world, but it’s not all fun and games—the stress they endure is not proportionally distributed among those enjoying collective bargaining benefits. That is why the executive likely earns six figures for a 50 to 60 hour work week while the hourly worker has to work 70 to 80 hours of overtime to receive the same. However at Boeing, members of their machinist union are easily compensated at the six figure range as seen at the link below—and most of them are not exceptional employees by any measure—they are average and can only achieve such high rates of pay because the health of the company has been able to sustain it without leaving for another country where they can protect their profit margins. The union and the collective bargaining that the company has to endure due to socialist policies never stops asking for more money and Boeing is at a point where they are seriously balancing out whether or not to out-source all their work because the collective bargaining agreements are too unreasonable—and they are at a tipping point.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=The_Boeing_Company/Hourly_Rate
The concept of collective bargaining is a faulty one; it is a socialist concept that should not be in any American business. It’s not wrong for a line worker to make six figures if they outwork all their peers—but when all boats are forced to rise together the incentive to be better than the next worker, or to learn and endure more for the productive enterprise of a successful business is taken away, what we get is lackluster performance that ultimately makes that company less competitive. The only reason that the United States has endured with these socialist policies as long as they have is because most of the world isn’t any better off. America is still the best option for a company like Boeing because it is close to the end-user of their products and the labor pool is relatively stable for the high-tech jobs they require. But that doesn’t make it right and at some point in the near future we either have to reject outright the socialist collective bargaining concept for the good of our national GDP, or we will gradually lose more and more manufacturing until only service oriented businesses remain. And that is where America stands in 2016—dangerously close to the edge of oblivion.
So while the commenter above was right about the tail end of his observations—about the direction of the human race—he isn’t quite there regarding the motivations for getting there. If we expect entrepreneurs to continue evolving and driving the marketplace forward, we need to take the shackles off them and not expect them to carry all of society forward with little to no profit incentive. Boeing does not owe its profits to the workers—the workers are compensated based on their value—at least they should be. The collective bargaining agreements under their labor contracts are excessively burdensome and will eventually destroy the company just as insects acting as parasitic entities on a nice healthy tree will eventually kill it for their own sustenance. Socialism is a concept that must be rejected at every level—especially at Boeing and the Seattle region in general. Socialism only benefits the lazy and unproductive and holds back the efforts of the exceptional. But it is the exceptional that drives mankind forward, and that is a concept that every socialist and student of if ignores—which is why under any name that they call it—collectivism destroys culture—it doesn’t enhance it.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 17, 2016
Holding out for a Hero: America’s final seconds–they need Donald Trump
I spent an entire hour talking about it on Matt Clark’s radio show over the weekend highlighting the necessity—but America is in a situation where it needs one last bit of hope at the last second. Just like the heroics we sometimes see in sports where a three-point shot is drained at the buzzer, or a champion quarterback throws a ball from midfield into the end zone hoping that his guy catches it with no time left on the clock—or a batter steps off the bench to hit a home run with two outs in the ninth to win the game—we are there as a nation. We aren’t talking about a sustainable nation anymore—we’ve mismanaged the entire last few decades and now we’re at the end. Now all we can do is hope with one last shot by some miraculous hero who doesn’t know the word “quit” that we can sneak away with a victory as the years run out of the second decade of the 21st century. Donald Trump is that big dreamer and flamboyant, reckless showman who might just have what it takes for a hail Mary victory before our nation gets to 2020 and discovers that we lost 24 trillion in debt are being pushed around the world by deadly “wanna bes” and communist dictators. The most extraordinary example of Donald Trump’s last second efforts was the Wollman Rink in New York—which I’ve written about before—but somebody unearthed this wonderful footage from the 80s just ahead of the Tuesday primary vote and is providing us some game film showing the possibilities.
It takes a special kind of optimist to win consistently and it takes an even more unique personality to pull out victories when everyone else is ready to throw in the towel. I’m a sports fan for only this reason—I’m always on the search for the miraculous—because it sometimes shows itself in our games. But in real life, it is far harder to see—because we often do not have units of measure to capture such things since the ending of a clock and the parameters of success and failure are not so easily interpreted by rules everyone agrees on. That is why the Wollman Rink lingered in disrepair for so long in New York City until the big dreamer Donald Trump stepped up and provided the much-needed private sector miracle that everyone needed—and as the video shows, it restored a bit of happiness to those who didn’t have it three months earlier.
The mayor of New York at the time was Ed Koch—seen in the video speaking. He was a big time Democrat who didn’t like Donald Trump. Trump had no choice but to work with the mayor for his various building projects, so the two had a contentious relationship. It was with great reluctance that Ed let Donald Trump even touch the beloved rink—and to throw in the towel to allow the private sector to take a swing of the bat. Donald Trump being the big thinker that he was immediately went to work thinking outside the box and talking to the right people so that he could make the right decisions. If Trump was asked how he was going to do all the things needed before he did it, Trump couldn’t have told anybody because he didn’t know, just like a star athlete can’t put last-minute heroics down on a sheet of paper to show pin-headed bureaucrats how they can duplicate his success. That is because the success starts with a state of mind and optimism derived from past accomplishments. Then the execution of that optimism has to be communicated to others so that they can do the right things at the right time through unrestrained leadership.
Trump had no “plan” as politicians and other idiots at the back of the train regarding the “Metaphysics of Quality” CLICK TO REVIEW often require—he only had a trust in himself to do the right things at the right time—and that’s what he did the moment that Mayor Koch gave him the green light. The first thing Trump did was talk to an ice maker who was in the business of making it for a Canadian hockey team instead of the current outfit that was located in Miami, Florida. In hindsight it should have been obvious to the politicians involved that they should have had someone with great experience advising them on how to build the rink in the temperate outside climate of New York—but after seven years, they hadn’t yet figured it out collectivity. They make the same mistakes in the military all the time, overpaying for things because nobody is competitively bidding and sources are usually generated behind political donations. The same thing essentially happens to everything the government touches at any level—decisions are not made to work with the best and brightest because government is too focused on “equality” and opportunity to make decisions based on merit. So they are weak to identify elements of success when they need to.
It is that system of government that Donald Trump has had to contribute to for so many years, and in the very liberal New York area—a Republican like Trump has had no choice but to pad the pockets of politicians to fund them away from tampering with his projects. As Ted Cruz says, “Trump funded Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer—along with many other Democrats” he’s speaking from extreme ignorance. Well, that’s simply not true—Trump paid them to go away because that’s how politics work—they are second-handers always looking to take from those that have. The best way to get them off your back is to pay them off and if you give them enough money they’ll help you no matter what political party you’re from. In the field of battle there is no room for such ideological nonsense as Cruz utters. Here is a guy who has never built anything—never created a single job who only understands political theory applied in the vacuum of conservative thought and he thinks he actually has the right to judge someone like Trump—who has been doing things on a big scale for three decades and knows just how to work the system to get what he wants out of it. When Cruz speaks about this topic of political funding, it is disgusting because he has no experience for which to utter the words.
I don’t see any way out and I am an eternal optimist. I am that guy who wakes up every morning and always believes he can win no matter what the odds. I am all that and then some—and I’m saying America is at its end—we get this one election and that’s it. We are losing in the world and our enemies are sensing it. If we want the Republic of America to survive to 2020 we have to act now and hope that someone like Donald Trump can do for America what he did for the Wollman Rink. To him it is simple; it just requires more advisors to speak with which he loves doing. It will involve a whirlwind approach that has never been seen before in the White House. Trump will work day and night and he won’t take vacations—and our many problems will get fixed quickly—relatively—just as the Wollman Rink was. And if I’m the head coach trying to figure out who needs to be on the field in these last seconds—I want my best guy doing the job—not some political hacks who are responsible for us losing the game in the first place at this late stage. I want the private sector guy who has a track record of doing the impossible—and Trump is that guy. We just have to give him the opportunity and to get out of his way and hope for a miracle—because that’s where we are as a nation.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 16, 2016
Donald Trump is ‘The Fountainhead’: Individualism is a higher concept over collectivism
I thought it was the biggest story of the week, and I wouldn’t be completely forthcoming if I didn’t know why he said what he did—specifically. (CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY)
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/12/donald-trump-is-an-ayn-rand-villain/
When I wrote my article about Donald Trump being quite a lot like the famous Ayn Rand hero of The Fountainhead way back in August there was a considerable amount of scorn about it from friends I have in the “Objectivist” community. They couldn’t believe I said such a thing—because to them, Trump was a progressive—a statist—a tyrant in the making. They couldn’t think of him as a Howard Roark or even attribute to him the kind of intelligence that would be most at home with Ayn Rand’s heroes. But with Trump, that was all I could see and that he was the best opportunity to take the United States to a level of philosophic understanding that could only so far be found in an Ayn Rand novel.
Everybody thinks they are an expert—yet they get caught all too often in the superficial elements of Donald Trump’s personality. I see in Trump a man who has paintings on his Trump Tower ceiling and has an apartment, and private airplane covered in real gold. I see a guy who has a stunningly beautiful wife and a wonderful family and can notice a fingerprint on something he cares about from twenty feet away and it drives him crazy. I hear in him a guy that says he is his only foreign policy advisor, and that he consults……himself—and I see a guy so much like Howard Roark that no other character in all of literary history comes close to describing the real Donald Trump—the guy who sleeps in Trump Tower and likes to put pictures of himself on the wall of his office. Trump loves himself and is all about the “Pronoun I,” and to me that is extremely appealing. CLICK HERE TO REFER TO A PAST ARTICLE ABOUT THIS VERY SITUATION AND THE NEED FOR IT IN POLITICS.
I have spent millions and millions of words on these pages talking about how stupid collective assimilation is in anything—that the biggest mystery and key to success in most things is individually led leadership. My favorite part of the novel, The Fountainhead was when Howard Roark declined to be on the architectural board for the World’s Fair. He insisted that he contribute his designs as a solitary figure, not as a part of a collective board. Ayn Rand was onto something very important there pertinent to the American economy and it was unique to her. Liberals and the public in general think wrong on this matter—and it starts in public school and our churches. The assumption is that two heads are better than one, and that fifty heads are even better yet is one of the biggest mistakes the human race has made so far in our written history. I have yet to see a company that functions well under this philosophy. Many movie production companies and many Silicone Valley operations believe in collective enterprise—but what they are presenting is an illusion—because most of their successful projects are still led by very strong individuals who are clever about the way they extract the individual effort out of their teams. But it isn’t the collective mass of a board of directors or the worker bees of a project that lead to its success—like the striking fools at Verizon believe in their union behavior—it’s the solitary efforts of individuals.
I know exactly what Trump is doing with other people because I by default utilize many of his same strategies—so it’s easy for me to see the man behind the façade. I do see in Trump a man who loves art, who enjoys the fine things in life as an individual and certainly marches to the beat of his own drum—but he has learned to pull other people into his vision with the opportunity to share with him greatness. Most of what he does is utilize raw leadership tactics—which is why he’s popular to begin with and has a level of celebrity that is bullet proof—because his skills are so highly specialized and beyond the mechanisms our society has established to suppress challenges to its static system.
The world is burning with socialism—once you leave the shores of the United States, socialism is literally everywhere. Collectivism is the mode of conduct that the world uses to establish its morality—and it’s wrong. Nobody is more important than you dear reader. However, you best serve others by serving yourself—and if you truly love others you seek to preserve them because it would hurt you to see them in demise. I read just last night a comment about Republicans and Democrats that went something like this—“if the elephant and the donkey have let you down, turn to the lamb.” It was a religious argument about politics essentially saying that Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, and that a person should turn toward the church—the sacrificial lamb. Well, that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time—nobody should surrender their life to the whims of the galaxy or even the universe. Jobs are made by individuals for other individuals to build their lives around, decisions are made by individuals for the impact that they might have on the world around them—humans are thinking creatures who make magnificent structures by thought alone and Donald Trump is one of the least apologetic yet most successful among us to utilize this essential function. We have to stop this whole sacrificial notion—its barbaric.
When I hear Trump say that he’d like to marry his daughter and see that he uses the beauty of his wife Melania to club rivals over the head, I don’t see or hear a self-centered maniac who is selfishly dangerous in his sexual promiscuity—I see a guy who as an individual appreciates the beauty of a fine women as a work of art and loves how it inspires the individual in him to do better and work harder each day so that he can be near them—and I don’t think it’s a sexual thing. When I hear him say that as a 70 year old man that he will be the healthiest specimen to ever hold the White House and that his big hands are evidence of a large penis that can bag and tag fine women and leave them happy about it—and that those same hands can drive a golf ball over 300 yards—I hear a man who won’t back down from any world leader for the sake of collective assimilation. I hear a guy who will walk into the United Nations and say as Howard Roark did in The Fountainhead—you either do it my way, or I’m out. To the consensus builders who think this approach is appalling, they’d be right from their point of view. But their way has cost the United States everything and everyone else in the world very little—because they brought nothing to the table to begin with. The battle of our day is literally over the benefits of collectivism and Individualism—and how the two are not compatible. Trump stands by individualism vehemently and that is something that we’ve never seen attempt to enter the White House and I think we either find those traits in ourselves once again—if not for the very first time—or we perish into oblivion. There is no middle ground and this philosophic argument is all about absolutes.
While progressives contemplate a world managed by a few elite academics who distribute fairness across civilization like butter on a piece of bread—Trump is nothing like any of them. Yet he can sit down with the very liberal Kristen Powers and give USA Today an interview on Ayn Rand and the world didn’t melt into a whirlwind because honestly they haven’t caught up to the events of his previous day—or the things he does and says tomorrow. Yet there it is, and I’m proud of him for saying it. And it is my sincere dream that Donald Trump could step into the White House and treat it like Howard Roark—bringing to not only America, but the world, the values of The Fountainhead. If there was ever a time for it—it is now. If not now, then perhaps never again. I don’t think we’ll get another shot before socialism destroys our civilization—globally. As a I watch modern artists like James Cameron talk about his new hippie driven movies like Avatar and Disney make Star Wars into a much more progressive mythology—it is obvious that they are missing the secret ingredient that Ayn Rand so eloquently brought to life in her American novels—individuals trump collectivism. The first Star Wars films were about this idea and even Cameron’s Titanic was about this issue—and ultimately the love between Jack and Rose was very Randian.
Why did Jack let Rose lay on the door at the end of the movie essentially sacrificing himself—he did it because he loved her and to preserve that love he had to save her. He didn’t do it to benefit society—he did it to save his love for her. Ayn Rand called this the Virtue of Selfishness—which many people misinterpret—but it is the ultimate driver for how we work as a human species. And nobody running for office understands that love better than Donald Trump. Most modern artists get this delicate interpretation wrong—because they value the sacrificial lamb concept established by religions to falsely place value in the collective whole of society. But they miss the point of living entirely. For there is only one reason that childbirth is such a traumatic experience, and an epic journey that launches us into existence—it’s because our individual lives mean something and we each can contribute something to the work of art that is “life.” There are very few people who really understand such a delicate balance—and clearly Donald Trump is one of them. We are in new territory philosophically with this election—and hopefully it’s not too late.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
April 15, 2016
Why I’d Give Billions of Dollars to Archaeologists: The undocumented ancient civilizations under San Francisco and the Cloud People
One of the reasons I feel the way I do about civilizations and the politics of them is that I have a long time interest in history. When I was in the 7th grade and had to take an aptitude test designed to point students in a career direction, my three results were archaeologist, test pilot, and stunt man. It was an unusual result and my teacher back then was quite animated about the findings—after all this was a year before there was ever an Indiana Jones movie and nobody in their right mind would want to be an archaeologist. My teacher thought I should have more sustainable career options and that my interests were………not aligned to reality. For one, there wasn’t much money in the archaeology occupation, and it’s not very good for families. It requires one to travel all over the world often in hostile territories rife with political limitations. Even when you do get a dig permit the limits on them don’t allow you to find much beyond a few pots and pans leaving speculation into the greater civilization behind the artifacts to be highly speculative. From the time I could first read my mother bought me great books about the world’s great mysteries—likely the same ones that inspired George Lucas to make the Indiana Jones films, and that is how I learned to read. I fell in love with history early and it was always something that I found as my foundation passion. If I had it my way, we would spend billions of dollars per year in America learning about our past so that we could prevent the same mistakes in the future. We know next to nothing about where we came from and what the people were like who founded our lineage. My study of the ancient cultures we know about has shaped much of my view about politics and philosophy—and it is my belief that the primary reason that more isn’t studied, is because that knowledge is intended to remain suppressed—for the preservation of the static society we have inherited. Knowledge otherwise might provoke too radical of a change and many just aren’t prepared for those changes—yet.
With all that said, I don’t think we are even close to understanding our “native” past in North America—or even South America. There were apparently very complex societies in the high Andes region before there was ever an Incan Empire, and the Bay Area of San Francisco has ancient walled boundary lines which predate any known society and is a lot more sophisticated than the nomad Indian tribes that were found there during westward expansion. In fact, it looks like most of Northern California was host to this ancient civilization for which we know nothing about. The relics of their vast enterprise are covered by modern development—which is usually the case—those are the two enemies of archaeological understanding—war and development. Whether it is the covered up ruins around San Francisco featured below or the “Cloud People” of Northern Peru—there is a lot we need to learn. The history books have not been closed on our ancient past—rather, we haven’t even made it through chapter one yet—much to the dismay of the many museums depending on federal grants to stay open and who want to end the story now to preserve the integrity of their exhibits. There are two reports that I found uniquely connected even though they are very far apart geographically presented as follows:
All over northern California specifically in the region of San Francisco are mysterious 6’ walls. The walls of the East Bay traverse some 50 miles in a straight line from the Carquinez Strait to San Jose, and in some places another 20 miles inland to Mt. Diablo. They are generally six feet high and so far have defied explanation, hence the title “mysterious.” For nigh on 100 years they have been explored, thought about but today have been largely abandoned. Theories on their origins range from Zheng Hue’s exploration fleet, giants, Native Americans, even farmers but so far little or no archaeological research has been done on them outside of the trying to document their history which apparently pre-dates western/Spanish activity in the area.
Rough estimates by a geologist put their age older than 400 years or circa late 1500’s which puts this anomaly in new territory and forces the dismissal of many common theories about European / Spanish farms. Especially since in greater San Francisco region the Spaniards did not settle until 1769 when an expedition lead by Don Gaspar de Portola and Fr. Juan Crespi began to settle what is now San Francisco. There was the odd seafarer such as Sir Francis Drake, who was believed to have sailed through the area in 1579, but seeing as he was a privateer the notion that he and his men attempted to settle the region is highly suspect.
Then many thousands of miles to the south high in the Andes region is a fortress apparently belonging to the “Cloud People” who had predated the Inca civilization and had joined the Spanish in conflict against their South American rivals. When you hear reports from environmental activists that nothing good comes from deforestation tell them this story. If not for deforestation, the ruins of these long forgotten “Cloud People” would have never been found. Trees grow back and the species of animals that live in rain forests can migrate and return, but the treasures lost under the overgrowth from past civilizations are lost until they are uncovered and this most recent discovery is evidence that points to the possibility of a lot more.
Remains have been found before but scientists have high hopes of the latest find, made by an expedition to the Jamalca district in Peru’s Utcubamba province, about 500 miles north-east of the capital, Lima.
Until recently, much of what was known about the lost civilization was from Inca legends.
Even the name they called themselves is unknown. The term Chachapoyas, or ‘Cloud People’, was given to them by the Incas.
Their culture is best known for the Kuellap fortress on the top of a mountain in Utcubamba, which can only be compared in scale to the Incas’ Machu Picchu retreat, built hundreds of years later
Radiocarbon dating samples show that construction of the structures started in the 6th century AD and the complex was occupied until the Early Colonial period (1532-1570). Through the pre-Columbian, conquest and colonial periods, there are only four brief written references to Kuelap. It was rediscovered in 1843.
That year Juan Crisóstomo Nieto, a judge in Chachapoyas, made a survey of the area and took note of Kuelap’s great size; he was guided by villagers who had known of the site for generations. Subsequently, Kuelap gained the attention of explorers, historians and archaeologists. Notable observers who helped publicize the site included Frenchman Louis Langlois (who wrote a description of Kuelap in the 1930s), Adolph Francis Alphonse Bandelier, Ernst Middendorf, Charles Wiener and Antonio Raimondi.
The fortress of Kuelap or Cuélap (Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Perú), associated with the Chachapoyas culture, consists of a walled city, with massive exterior stone walls surrounding more than four hundred buildings. The complex, situated on a ridge overlooking the Utcubamba Valley in northern Peru, is roughly 600 meters in length and 110 meters in width. It could have been built to defend against the Huari or other hostile peoples. However, evidence of these hostile groups at the site is minimal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuelap
I would propose that these two stories of recent discoveries and contemplations of an ancient past are only the tip of the iceberg. As I said, if it were up to me, archaeologists would be well-funded in America—by private donations of course–to expose this lost past so we could better understand the circumstances of our present. If I had the extra money of several billion dollars—I’d give them a check today. I am inclined to think that these two aforementioned cultures, whoever they are, were not the first of their kind—that before them was likely another lost race of people. Related to the Cloud People of South America it should be of great concern that they were known to be as “white” and fair-haired as typical Scandinavians or even Germans. How did they get there so long ago? That is a question that demands an answer. But before we can have that answer we have to see the value in seeking it. We have a long way to go before understanding our own history—and it should be a much greater priority. Because within that answer is the key to understanding much of our modern world and the psychosis which seems attached to it. Before you can fix the future you have to understand the past and we are a long way from that. Obviously we need to strive to do better. The evidence is all around us. All we need to do is be willing to look at it.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
