Rich Hoffman's Blog, page 387

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/it%e2s-official-america-is-now-no-2/ar-BBgjXGo

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 06, 2014 16:00

December 5, 2014

Communism is Alive in America: Matt Clark and Rich Hoffman discuss how on WAAM radio

I talk about communism a lot because its influence has migrated deeply into our modern culture. Many, especially on the political left, hope to deny this issue by proclaiming that communism died in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. They wish to believe that it was a relic of the Cold War and that the word “communism” is no longer a threat to capitalism or the economic power of the United States. Yet as Matt Clark and I stated during a radio segment for his WAAM broadcast in Ann Arbor, Michigan communism is alive and well in 2014. The communist country of China just surpassed America in economic output. The International Monetary Fund recently released the latest numbers for the world economy, and when you measure national economic output in “real” terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion — compared to $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A. As recently as 2000, America produced nearly three times as much economic output as the Chinese. China now accounts for 16.5% of the global economy when measured in real purchasing power terms, compared to 16.3% for the U.S. How did this happen? Well, to put it mildly—communism—the kind of communism that Matt and I speak about in the following video recorded radio segments.

It’s not that the United States doesn’t still have economic power—but much of that power has been purposely suppressed by left-leaning political groups dedicated to the original goals of communism. Also this past week as those economic figures were being released, America passed the $18 trillion mark in national debt—much of those holdings owned by the Chinese. Mismanagement largely a passive-aggressive approach to American capitalism by leftist radicals has created this situation and it has occurred because many in opposition to communism failed to see the insurgency due to their various name changes that have occurred to disguise the advancement of communism throughout the world.

Communism is behind many of the Islamic radicals so popular today—especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Communism is widely at work in many minority neighborhoods—such as has been witnessed in the Ferguson riots. Communism is certainly at work in most public schools. It’s involved in labor unions of every kind including the beloved firefighter’s “international brotherhood.” Anywhere where the key terms of “workers” or “labor” are discussed in a way that makes them sound repressed—the philosophy of communism is at work as it was constructed by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Whenever the term “middle class” is invoked to stir them about in hopes of revolution—the strategies of communism are at work as they have always been. The only difference is that the names have been changed from communism to progressivism, liberalism or more broadly the Democratic Party. There is no other way to slice it—communism is what it is—it is the collective ownership of property such as private parks, education such as the property tax system we see today with public schools where every member of the community pays for all kids and all kids are beholden—at least in theory—to every member of the community. Communism is Social Security, it’s Obamacare, it’s Medicare. In the current state those conditions they might be best referenced as socialism, but the intent of all those services is to collect wealth from individuals to turn over to the “state” for distribution each according to their need. If a lazy, socially reckless, despot has a need to be given food and shelter because they are too ill prepared in life to take care of themselves, someone who is able is supposed to sustain the sustenance of that lazy individual. The by-product is that people stop producing because they get tired of seeing their efforts confiscated and given to those who don’t even put forth the effort. In today’s public schools the children are the “community’s children” and that ownership is best celebrated by popular Friday night football games where communism as articulated by Marx is very much alive in support of team sports designed to mask the real psychological motive behind a political philosophy rooted in social collectivism—collective ownership of all property—including children.

Likely most people reading this are practicing communists—yet they don’t want to believe that they are participating in such a diabolical scheme. But it’s difficult to stand on one’s own as an individual contributor—communism is much more appealing to the weak at heart and mind. So they changed the names and called anybody who referred to the old name of communism as a tin-hat conspiracy theorist hoping that the diffusion of proper terminology might garner them a few hidden years of concealment into the warm blanket of social safety. It is easy to hide in numbers and what we have going on in America today are a lot of people hiding.

Then quite literally, communist insurgents disguised as progressives, Democrats and earth worshipers have lobbied more regulation against American business to strangle the effect that capitalism has on a free society. It’s not that China is out producing America it is that the United States has been held back so to allow communism to appear to flourish. All the while those same liberal sympathizers have placed America at the feet of China with an impossible debt to recover from in many American lifetimes. Even if America could pay back the debt, the regulations provided by the EPA, FCC, IRS, DOL and the DOJ would destroy the kind of economic activity that would allow for a resurgence of American enterprise so that the $18 trillion could be paid back. There is no intention of paying back that money as it has been spent recklessly on purpose to destroy capitalism and point the ignorant masses toward the great success that is modern—communist—China.

Communism was created in Europe so to pull the governments of that continent under one government rule—and that is still very much the intention. But first they must destroy capitalism wherever it resides. America was a difficult problem for them because it would be hard to convince young people to migrate into communism when capitalism gave them so many wonderful toys to play with—so they had to change their names and apply an indirect approach—which they have through the public education system. This is why so many young people these days lean-to the political left—is because they were taught to by their public schools led by teacher unions radicalized by the old communist talking points to behave that way.

There is absolutely no question that communism is as big of a threat now in 2014 as it was in 1960. It is probably more dangerous now than it was because it has been allowed to function without the proper identification. It has been successfully repackaged by the political left with softer names that are more appealing to the unknowing. Yet for the truth all one need to do is read the work of Karl Marx and the truth will be told. It is communism that is destroying America and it is the masses of Americans raised to be ignorant—and complacent who are helping them do it.

There should be some credit given to Matt for even putting that type of information on the air. It is not a popular thing to do, yet he does it because he knows what’s at stake. If America doesn’t figure out what kind of scam is being placed upon it by forces outside of the country—then the economic situation for the freest country on earth will take a downward spin quickly. Many would argue that it’s already too late. And when that happens people like Matt and I aren’t going to feel the guilt of not telling everyone that we told you so—because we did.

Rich Hoffman

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Every-Containing-Three-Subjects/dp/1611042828/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417629272&sr=8-1&keywords=a+book+in+every+home

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 05, 2014 16:00

December 4, 2014

Yes I Treat Women Different than Men: The true pillers of society

I will admit it; I do treat women differently than men. When I see a woman, I hold the door open for her, I speak to her with more courtesy than I would a man, and I tend to up the level of respect I give her—no matter who she is. In professional dealings I have never put my fist into a table and ran my head through a door—as I have with men—because women tend to deal with things intellectually so I’m always respectful of that. Girls tend to be smarter than men as men tend to be physically stronger than women so there are dramatic differences in dealing with them. The feminist movement has destroyed the respect that men used to pay to women out of this communist rooted notion of equality which has only managed to water down the respect that women deserve for being the mothers, wives, and daughters that they are within the family structure. The creators of the feminist movement sought an eradication of the family unit and they have been successful in their bra burning assault on the families of the world—and many of the modern social problems that are a result of their antics are exclusively their fault.

In my fiction women are often portrayed in a much more traditional sense—for instance in the Symposium of Justice it begins with a rape, because to me the looting of a young woman of her innocence is a severe crime. Once that is taken from a young woman it is gone forever. Other men treat women who have been fully explored by other men differently—they do not respect them. This is fine for the feminist who seeks to equal themselves to the dogs that men typically are—but for the pure of heart—it is a real crises to give away innocence to a man who throws it in the garbage for some cheap sexual experience. So the females in my stories always are portrayed in such a way of pure values and elevated respect. Those who have squandered away those values I often write about in a cheap and disrespectful manner because they have chosen to make themselves equal to men—which to me is a lesser value.

I have been like this for as long as I can remember and I’m not sure where I got it. Maybe it was because I watched a lot of westerns when I was growing up and the good guys in those stories tended to be very respectful to women. But from my first conscious moments—I have always felt this way toward women. The reason its important is because I just can’t see how society can actually advance if women are not made again into the pillars of society that they truly are. As I was reading through Edward Leedskalnin’s little book A Book in Every Home I discovered that Ed and I have virtually the same attitude toward women which was refreshing to see. Leedskalnin was quite a genius and I’ve written about him before. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. I have been studying the man to uncover his secrets of anti-gravity–so far so good. But relevant to this present discussion is that of women upon which Ed had this to say in his nice little book.

We always strive for perfection. We are only one-half of a perfect whole, man is the bigger and stronger half and the woman is the other. To be perfect there must be two, but where there is two there is no room for more, so the third-party is left to go somewhere else with sour feelings.

A normal male is always ready to strive for perfection, the female is not. It is not only with human beings, it is the same with every living thing. If you watch a flock of chickens, where there is a rooster, and you add another rooster, you will see them fight to the death. One will have to go or be killed and this is the same thing with other living things.

Lower forms of life are guided by instincts alone so the present only comes into consideration. As soon as the other male is chased away, the female is as good as she ever was, but with us it is different. We are guided more by reason and thought than by instinct and so the present, past and future come into consideration. Now, if it is not good today, it was not good yesterday and it won’t be good tomorrow. That is why an experienced girl cannot be one hundred percent sweet.

According to my observation the girls are wrong in looking for their permanent partners. They are too quick. By being too quick, they only get those fellows with quick emotions. All quick emotions are irresponsible and short lasting.

There are two kinds of love—sensual and sentimental. Sensual love has the present and little future only. The sentimental love has the present, past and future, so it is more desirable. It will be slower but it will last longer. No, girls, when any fellow jumps quickly at you, you had better keep away from him. He has no consideration that the action would do any good to you. You are the weakest side, so you should have the better deal and if you don’t get the better deal, there is little brute in him and it may come very hard to train it out of him. The fellow who makes an advance toward you, and if he won’t state what the eventual purpose will be, he is not a gentleman. All men should know that the girl’s primary purpose is to find a permanent partner while they are young. Those fellows who fail to see this are not desirable to have around.

Now you know dear reader why I like Edward Leedskalnin so much—he is a reminder to me of what human beings have forgotten about themselves. The goal of every man should be to be a gentleman to women and respectful to other men who have committed themselves to young women in pursuit of a life-long mate built on sentimental love. It is a hard job and respect should be given to the takers who have signed up for the long-term commitment to helping the female realize her lifelong goal.

Women who have had this instinct pushed out of them by social re-engineering are not really women any longer—but strive to be men in a woman’s body. They seek to have emotional leverage over men when they need the advantage but not the violence that men often inflict upon one another when force is needed to resolve a conflict. So they avoid that violence by appealing to the traditions of women as a weaker sex. But in all other manners they expect to be treated equally—but only without the value.

In my stories I see no future in this reckless modern feminism—so my value migrates to the solid foundations of tradition. Most of the time I feel very alone in this—women appreciate my courtesy, but they don’t know what to do with it because the respect for the behavior has been breed out of them by progressive influences. In much the same way that human beings at some point in history levitated large objects with knowledge into anti-gravity so to is the basic respect toward women just as rare—and forgotten. However, ironically while I was trying to resurrect that past knowledge with hints at a forgotten time, I uncovered Edward Leedskalnin’s wonderful outlook on women and the value that they truly have, and why it is important to protect them for the betterment of our entire civilization. Modern feminists find Ed’s views diabolical, and a menace to their progressive philosophies—but history is proving Ed right and the progressives wrong with a dire warning that mankind must resurrect and re-implement—before it is too late and lost forever.

You can purchase Ed’s little book here:

Rich Hoffman

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/25/news/economy/mary-poppins-minimum-wage/index.html

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 04, 2014 16:00

December 3, 2014

Kristin Bell Begging for Tuppence: The falsehood of a living wage

It was nearly unbearable to watch all the idiots crying in front of Wal-Mart on Black Friday 2014 protesting in favor of a “living wage.” The radical concept of inconveniencing shoppers trying to impose an unrealistic minimum wage reminded me of the absolutely preposterous video done by Kristin Bell from Funny or Die mimicking Marry Poppins. In a parody the Disney character (played by Kristin Bell) she quits her job because the Banks family won’t pay her more money. According to Bell’s character she is struggling to make ends meet at $7.25, the federal minimum wage, pleading for a $3 raise. Bell, who is a young talented kid ignorant about basic economic concepts, has swallowed the socialist notion of a minimum wage without any critical thinking espousing the same stupidity as the Wal-Mart protestors who are attacking the shopping giant with a contentious desire to unionize those employees.

Rightly, Reason Magazine answered Bell’s video with a Mary Poppins satire of their own against the federal increase of minimum wage laws. The unintended consequence of increases in minimum wage is that the money has to come from someplace—business owners are in the business to make money, and wage increases cut into their profit margins—which determine whether or nor they wish to involve themselves in the risky business of operating a money-making enterprise. If employees become too troublesome and desire more money than they are worth—a smart business owner to maintain their interest in a business must replace those employees with something more reliable—like a machine.

Already in manufacturing 3D printing is threatening to remove many delicate manufacturing jobs that would have before been done with a punch press or plastic injection machine. Even fast food restaurants are nearing a phase where they could be almost completely automated. The only reason they presently aren’t is because wage labor is still cheaper. But at a $15 dollar rate—nobody will bother—they’ll just buy the machines and cut the cry baby employees. Machines don’t unionize and they do what you tell them to—and they don’t have unrealistic expectations regarding personal value.

Ironically Bell in her video complains that Social Security and other taxes are removed from her check before she sees much of the money and this is why she needs more money—well—welcome to the club. Anybody who works sees this theft of their weekly paychecks with a wealth redistribution scam that favors the lazy and unmotivated. But it was the same progressives who are behind this minimum wage increase who voted for all those stupid “society” projects like Medicare, Socialist Security, and a progressive tax system. Now they want more money on their weekly paychecks to pay for the stupid things they voted for which is utterly ridiculous. It was progressive mismanagement which caused this issue of depleted personal revenue.

The protestors who want to shut down Wal-Mart are utter idiots because if they eventually are successful society will lose the stand-alone stores that are quite a community asset for those who have them. People won’t rush out to a store with a bunch of radical union protestors to buy their cloths and milk. If it becomes too much of a pain in the ass, they’ll just order what they need online and have it delivered to their house. Twice over the Thanksgiving holiday recently I sat in the comfort of my chair at home next to a roaring fire—sipping on a Mello Yello, watching football, and ordered items from my iPad. Two days later those items arrived on my front porch. All I had to do was open my door to retrieve them—that is my concept of shopping. Occasionally my wife drags me to Wal-Mart which has value because I don’t have to wait for the shipping of the item—as Wal-Mart has already done that part for me. That is what the brick and mortar store offers—immediate gratification. But if that experience isn’t gratifying—and cheap—people will reject it.

Consider when we go to the bank these days to get money—so we can go shopping. I used to hate going through the window talking to a person who sometimes gave me back the wrong amount of money. I much prefer the ATM because in 20 years of using them, they have never miscounted my money and are dependable every time—the average transaction time is 4 minutes—then I’m off onto something I would rather be doing. Progressives would argue that what we are losing is the human contact which makes us all sensitive to each other’s needs. But that squishy sentiment isn’t often the reality. Unless the person working with you is pleasant—I’d rather deal with a machine. For instance, going to the license bureau is always unpleasant. There you have a bunch of unhappy government workers who know you can’t go anyplace else—and that you have to do what they say. So they take their time, are often cranky, and have no fear of competition. If the minimum wage activists get their way with Wal-Mart and McDonald’s what we will end up with is a bunch of grumpy nags bitching about everything asked of them—and nobody wants that.

Just the other day my wife and I were going through the McDonald’s drive thru picking up some McRibs and the people working the window were nice on both the money end and the push-out window. It was actually a pleasant experience to receive my food from a real human being and it made me want to order again a few hours later, so my wife and I went back up for dinner to get more food. But that’s not always the case—sometimes people who you know don’t want to be there are at the window and you can’t wait to get your food and be off and away from them. They are the kind of people who clock into their time clocks at the last possible moment and leave as soon as possible when their shift is over. You can always tell a bad worker because they are the type who stands at a time clock wanting to leave the moment they can. Their behavior carries over into their productive output. It gives them away on sight—you can tell who they are by their body language. Those people are not worth $15 dollars an hour. They are not worth a mythical “living” wage as determined by a bunch of knuckle dragging progressives. They are lucky to have a job at all, and if Wal-Mart and McDonald’s have to pay those types of people more money, they are better off investing in a machine that will do the work more reliably, and cheaper. Because the goal of every business is to MAKE MONEY—not give things away for free.

The Kristin Bell Mary Poppins character is far different from the Walt Disney version. The Disney version might be worth a few more dollars for what she brought to the table but the Bell version is the kind of baby sitter who brings over her boyfriend the moment the parents leave the house. When the parents return they find that Bell has wrecked their house with a rave party complete with drug paraphernalia strewn about and the kids out cold from intoxication. Then Bell gives the parents a bill saying that she’ll sue them if they don’t pay her $15 per hour instead of the $7 they agreed on since her boyfriend wrecked her car leaving that house intoxicated, since the parents would be responsible for what happens at their house. Then Bell would complain and protest about how greedy the parents were because they still refused to pay, or hire her for another night. After all, she needs money—so somebody owes her some.

Human beings can be better than a machine to deal with, but only under certain circumstances, and none of those circumstances are brought about with an increase in the minimum wage. Such an increase doesn’t just impact jobs on the bottom end, but raises all wage levels with artificial inflation which is why people support such a stupid proposal. People, who currently make $15 an hour which is a good wage, would want to be compensated at $20 because some fast food worker is now making what they once did. And if they don’t get it, it’s better for them to quit the harder job so they can make milk money at a $15 wage at Wal-Mart. Only people who don’t understand how money is made and why businesses do anything support a minimum wage increase. Those who do understand find the proposal reprehensible—because they know that the unintended consequence is what the video from Reason Magazine revealed. Machines are more reliable when the expectations of employees are too great. When humans become a pain in the ass, they will find themselves jobless in a hurry—and Kristin Bell’s Mary Poppins would find herself begging for a tuppence within a few days of walking out on employer with her broken umbrella and terrible attitude. Because nobody wants to deal with a bitch like that—the money just isn’t worth it.

Rich Hoffman

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

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 03, 2014 16:00

December 2, 2014

World Socialist Web Site Didn’t Like ‘Interstellar': Social justice is more imporant than space travel–according to them

Most normal Americans probably don’t know that there is a World Socialist Web Site, but there is. In fact, there are a lot of web sites throughout the world dedicated to socialism and they are primarily aimed at the young, the stupid, and the uneducated masses that lack natural aptitude. Socialism is attractive to the infinitely, and incurably lazy because it allows them to gain resources at the expense of somebody else’s work. It is far from fair because those who have natural ambition and drive are constantly plucked throughout their lives and punished for their drive by the collective masses who call themselves socialists. There are a lot more socialists than most people realize—and they are a lot more open about their activity outside of the United States. There is still a stigma in America toward socialism because of the foundations of capitalism that formed the prosperous country. So socialists and would-be communists keep their identification concealed behind “alternative” terminology to perpetrate their ruse against society.

I have identified to readers here what Interstellar was all about in my review, which can be seen by clicking here. The film has made within just three weeks over $500 million dollars, most of it overseas—particularly communist China and somewhat capitalist South Korea. The film underperformed in the United States largely due to the intellectual weight of the subject matter. Thinking is not fashionable in America currently, so given the nature of Interstellar, an almost 3 hour film that does not involve any sex or even romance—is a lot to ask out of American film audiences to sit though. They for the most part are scared of a physics experiment that does not involve someone flashing boobies somewhere within it. Those who love Interstellar in America are those who like to think. In societies already suppressed by communism and collectivism however—they do enjoy thinking because it’s the only freedom that they have—and they LOVE Interstellar. Forget the stereotypes that Asians are good at math, the movie market in the East loves thinking movies—which Interstellar is.

But socialists don’t like thinking movies because they require non-thinking mentality to execute their ridiculous political and economic policies. Communists in China have seen first-hand what a debacle their policies have been and the are moving toward capitalism instead of away from it like Americans have been for so long—and they see the message behind Interstellar as hope for their dire situations. Elsewhere, particularly around Europe, socialists see the message of Interstellar as a threat to their climate change religion of earth worship so they attack the premise of the plot with the same voracity that Bible thumpers profess that evolution is not a scientific factor in plant and animal life development.

For proof of this discriminatory condition against capitalist endeavors such as a non-climate change movie, below are some hilarious excerpts from the World Socialist Web Site as they reviewed Interstellar. The World Socialist Web Site is essentially The Huffington Post only without the filter of progressivism to mask the hard left slant. The WSWS is written by The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) which is the name of two Trotskyist internationals; one with sections named Socialist Equality Party which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain. The International Committee originated as a public faction of the Fourth International. It was formed in 1953 by a number of national sections of the FI that disagreed with the course of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International led at that time by Michel Pablo (Raptis) and Ernest Mandel (Germain). The Committee was co-ordinated by the American section, the Socialist Workers Party, and included the British section led by Gerry Healy and Pierre Lambert’s Parti Communiste Internationaliste (PCI) in France. Trotskyist groups in various other countries, notably in Austria, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and Nahuel Moreno‘s group in Argentina, also joined.

Needless to say, they didn’t like the movie, here’s what they said:

Interstellar is part of a trend in contemporary science fiction movies, and cinema in general, that subscribes to the notion that everything in this planet is already lost. Brand’s brilliant scheme is simple: if we cannot save the Earth, let’s leave it. The idea of abandoning the planet for a fresh start in another part of the universe is alarming, irritating. Responsible scientists, artists and others need to address the present social and political challenges, instead of ignoring them or projecting them far away.

Toward the end, when Cooper awakes on board a NASA space station orbiting Saturn, it seems that people are living in harmony. As was the case at the beginning of the film, there is no reference to the social context. Is this a world with a different economic structure, with social justice, free from capitalist exploitation? Does Nolan think the discovery of another planet will automatically make human beings’ relationships better? Or is humankind a species destined to wander through the universe without hope for all eternity?

Nevertheless, the overall plot resolution is ridiculous. Nolan prefers providing easy, indulgent answers to the audience rather than working through thought-provoking questions.

At one point, Amelia says: “Love is the one thing we are capable of perceiving that transcends time and space.” But beyond the vindication of the family institution, the classic setting of the petty bourgeois, the film does not dare to go anywhere. Ultimately, what is so striking about Interstellar is the contradiction between the science and technology (including film technology) and the poverty of the ideas. It is easier for many filmmakers to imagine a fifth dimension and coming out the other end of a black hole than it is for them to study our social organization and construct a critical picture of it.

Incoherent and boring for long stretches, Interstellar is a galactic mess: a sci-fi extravaganza, in which Nolan becomes the prisoner of his own gravity. His work says little about the human condition, our world and its relation with the universe around us. Made for $165 million, it has already grossed more than $130 million in the US, and $225 million in the rest of the planet since its release. If Nolan’s film reveals anything, it would be the mediocre state of American studio filmmaking and the undemocratic global system of distribution and exhibition.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/29/inte-n29.html

Notice how the key words of socialism were placed in the article from their philosophic vantage point, “capitalist exploitation,” “social justice,” and the illustrious “bourgeois.” Their biggest gripe with the film is that the Nolan brothers decided to take the plot line of earth worship completely out of the factors of consideration and just left earth behind for destinations yet unknown. By doing so all the tenants of progressive and socialist belief are instantly diffused. Socialism and communism only work when there are no other options for a society—and capitalism is destroyed. This is why they tend to mostly be greenie weenie types and old hippie tree huggers with tie die t-shirts hanging in their closets and an occasional aroma of marijuana smoke emitting from their urban dwellings. They have made a religion out of earth worship and attached it directly to political activism—which ultimately attacks capitalist enterprises like coal consumption, carbon emissions, and creates EPA activism through regulation.

The Nolan brothers behind Interstellar come from England and have seen the effects of socialism there first hand—and their movies reflect their dislike of the practice. They have a right to their opinion and many people in the world agree with them, measured by box office take. After that, Reagan became a diehard capitalist who helped destroy communist Russia in a spending war they could not win with their repressive economy.

Socialists require no options to sell their ideals to society, and Interstellar takes movie goers completely out of the earth worship culture of progressives and gives them something else to think about besides social justice. Given that option, socialists throughout the world are watching as years of mind-numbing programming are erased with a simple three-hour Christopher Nolan movie. This is precisely why my own children have been to see Interstellar three times over the last three weeks. When my oldest daughter had any option she wanted for her 25th birthday, she chose to see Interstellar for the third time—and I am proud of her for supporting such a wonderful picture. I want to see it again just because I know it galls socialists to no end to see such philosophic competition arguing against their policies.

Kip Thorne is hardly a bastion of conservatism along with his openly left-leaning Interstellar producer Lynda Obst. Thorne is an academic whom I admire immensely, so I forgive him for his old hippie ways. It’s alright so long as he stays on campus and keeps his fingers out of the business world where capitalism rules. Lynda was producing Interstellar with Steven Spielberg and if things had stayed the way they were lining up Interstellar would have been a good film like A.I. or something to that effect, but it would not have made nearly as much money. Science geeks would go to the film, but conservatives would stay away because of all the hippie messages that Obst and Spielberg would have sprinkled in—and the $200 million dollar project might have broken even in the world-wide market. But Obst had a problem, after a writer’s guild strike pulled Jonathan Nolan away then Spielberg had to bail, she had no other option but to take the next best thing, Christopher Nolan fresh off his Dark Knight films. The Nolans working together once again rewrote the script, cut out all the hippie sludge, and put together a film that truly took viewers off this planet and all the problems associated with it. The result is an international box office smash that will redefine the film industry—especially in the Asian market.

So the socialists of the world are watching the success of Interstellar with a serious case of the goo. They are miserable to see such a rejection of their social philosophies, and Interstellar is very much a rejection of their assumptions—that’s partly what makes it so wonderful. So if you really want to piss off a socialist—go see Interstellar a few more times and support it with the kind of revolution that the communists in America are calling for in Ferguson. The best way to solve many of the social problems that afflict the world is to put more money in people’s pockets and upgrade their standard of living. Space shows promise in that direction—but more importantly, capitalism offers those solutions. Socialism leads mankind to earth worship and more EPA regulations. Capitalism leads to space, and the many opportunities for the world found there. It is that realization that has the World Socialist Web Site feeling so dejected. And that makes me very, very happy.

“But beyond the vindication of the family institution, the classic setting of the petty bourgeois, the film does not dare to go anywhere.” Now, you know what’s wrong with American public schools—what a terrible, diabolical attitude toward family structure. It should be clear what socialists are out to destroy.

Rich Hoffman

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 02, 2014 16:00

December 1, 2014

‘The Force Awakens’ Preview: Canon versus fan boy reinvention–concern on the horizen

I am one of the few people who saw the new Star Wars preview for Episode 7 and did not get all that excited. My daughter and I were at the Barnes and Nobel at Newport on the Levee as she was catching up on the New Jedi Order books and we were talking about the new preview which saw millions upon millions of views depending on where it was seen on YouTube in just 24 hours. Some sources had 24 million views in that time frame whereas the official Star Wars site had over 8 million. I’m not that excited about the new story because for one, Han Solo will likely be killed and unless Lucasfilm follows the story line they have been on for over twenty years with their expanded universe I will not be able to accept a new story canon—as I’m too invested. It just won’t work for me. Once Han Solo is out of the picture, there won’t be anything for me in Star Wars any more. Even if there are the planned Han Solo stand alone films, if they do not follow the storyline of the six novels I have read about the origin of Solo, I will likely reject the movies and stick with the books. The whole thing will only work if Lucasfilm keeps everything in continuity with each other.

I told my daughter to get the New Jedi Order books and continue reading them, because there is some great stuff in that series. It is quite possible by watching the trailer that the Daisy Ridley character is Jaina Solo and that the X-Wing pilot is Jag and that the Sith story line that was built up in the Legacy of the Force novels will be the jumping off point for these new movies. It would make sense. But she reminded me that most franchises—particularly Marvel are mixing and mashing story lines with revision and under those circumstances, Star Wars would be making a huge mistake. I told her that I didn’t think they were that stupid—and I don’t think they are. I think most of the story lines leaked out are false ones meant to keep fans in the dark and in doubt. But, there is the part of me that has been so let down by bad decisions made by other people in the past, that it wouldn’t surprise me if my daughter was right. In that case this next Star Wars film will likely be it for me—and I’m sure I’m not alone.

I just don’t see Lucasfilm isolating all their long-term fans with revisionist history in the overall Star Wars mythology. Scrapping the stories of several New York Times best sellers just doesn’t make any sense for anybody. There are many fans who have been with Star Wars through the lean years so taking away the story arcs that they fell in love with would not give the franchise the fuel to carry the kind of numbers Disney needs out of this mythology. Without question the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens will do great initial numbers—but realistically—it needs to be a two billion dollar money-maker at the global box office to hold up to the aims that Disney has for it—and if people like me jump off the ship—I don’t see how they get there. There are obviously a new generation of people who will enjoy them but Star Wars just doesn’t benefit from having a split fan base of people who liked Star Wars before Disney took ownership and those after.

There was nothing in the new trailer that told me that my thoughts weren’t the case, so I am still hopeful. But from the new preview I wanted confirmation that Lucasfilm didn’t decide to take the revisionist route in the story arc. They didn’t give me that assurance—so anxiety toward the new film was my reaction. In many ways my concerns stem from the new cartoon Rebels—which is alright, but you can certainly tell that George Lucas is not a part of the stories anymore. The content in the new Star Wars cartoon is good, and fun—but much too light. The program is being made by fan boys essentially—like myself and that’s fine so long as it doesn’t screw up the overall story lines of the greater mythology. If it does, and these new filmmakers stray off the path—then there is trouble ahead for Star Wars.

It is possible that Rebels will come around once these filmmakers get their teeth deeper into the story and become more comfortable with the characters—but so far I see Lucasfilm and Disney painting themselves into a corner they don’t need to. Without George, I have my doubts that the whole thing will work because of what I’ve so far seen in Rebels and what they didn’t show in the new Force Awakens movie trailer.

Pablo Hildago who is part of the new story group said in his book The Essential Guide to Star Wars that it was possible that Lucas might revise the canon around the films—that the movies were the establishing parameters. Yet Pablo is the essential guide to the expanded universe and with him a major member of the story group—I just can’t see them making decisions that ruin years of publishing from the guide books to the novels. To do that would be a disaster for the Star Wars franchise. For families like mine where we own every single Star Wars book that there ever was—making them suddenly irrelevant would isolate our investment. So from a business perspective, I just don’t see a rejection of the expanded universe canon. It would be the dumbest thing to do in entertainment. I am a die-hard Star Wars fan and the prospect of a change in canon from what I’ve invested twenty years into to suddenly accept something a bunch of fan boys came up with second-hand is not possible. I would lose my enthusiasm for the upcoming films instantly.

But for now the new film looks great from the preview. Basically, if the female lead is Jaina Solo I’m good for a new generation. If it isn’t, then my love of Star Wars essentially stops now and it will become like a James Bond franchise for me which I’ll watch for fun, but cannot buy into the character since Sean Connery stepped away from the movies. Sean Connery was James Bond canon whether or not anybody likes it. Accepting someone else in that role just never worked. Star Wars is even more sensitive to this issue.

So we’ll see. I told my daughter to stick with Star Wars, read New Jedi Order and all the other books because they perfectly set up another movie by the time a reader comes to the end of the Legacy series. But the new preview didn’t do anything personally for me because I wanted to see assurance that Lucasfilm didn’t screw the pooch. In some ways they gave cryptic indications, such as the Ridley character with a lightsaber mounted to the side of a strange vehicle, and the X-Wings flying in formation with someone who could easily be Jag leading. But if those characters aren’t present—then it would be impossible for me to accept a substitute. It would just be too much to kill off the most beloved character in the series and accept a bunch of new characters not part of the twenty plus year canon formed by the novels. Until that confirmation is materialized, I will be skeptical and not all that enthusiastic to see something very good come to a bitter end.

Rich Hoffman

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 01, 2014 16:00

November 30, 2014

Staying Fat, Dumb and Happy: Edward Leedskalnin’s thoughts on public education

To those who have read Edward Leeskalnin’s book Magnetic Current they have the fortune of knowing that it is as revolutionary as Einstein’s E=MC2. In the book Leeskalnin explains how to remove magnetic currents from objects and to manipulate them in a way that is useful. Yet the information is technically impossible by modern methods of science as there is some missing knowledge in getting from here to Leeskalnin’s assumptions. The impact of Leeskalnin’s understanding to magnetism will eventually be much more revolutionary than Tesla’s experiments with AC current as opposed to Edison’s DC. Tesla was attacked and buried by his former boss in Edison so to preserve the power grid model we see today that is unionized as a public utility—and controlled by government backed monopolies. Yet Leeskalnin and Tesla were using electrical current and magnetism in ways that tapped into the cosmic supply of that energy—which never runs out making the levitation of giant objects and perpetual use of power completely free as an obtainable possibility. The difference is essentially the Internet we have today which costs a fee to have access but once there, the world is at your feet in as much abundance as you can handle—as opposed to Obama’s attempts through the FCC to control and regulate the Internet as a public utility.

Once the government gets involved in anything its game over for invention and options and this has never been truer than with government schools. Leeskalnin was a certified genius—click here to read more about him—and in his small book A Book in Every Home, he addressed the education problem emerging in America as early as the 1940s—well before the creation of the Department of Education which I have railed against so intensely. Many would look at the education methods from Leeskalnin’s day and declare that they were the best in the world and created some of the best people ever to walk the earth—they defeated Hitler, unified the world with technology sending people to the moon, encouraged the greatest period of economic growth ever seen in the world prior, brought equality to women, and people of color, and still had time to raise decent families. However, Leeskalnin was not impressed and dropped out of school in the 4th grade because it bored him. His complaints about school were similar to Einstein’s and both had little reverence for the government backed institutions.

In A Book in Every Home Leeskalnin had some very interesting thoughts about the quality of an education system and how to determine if it was any good. He stated:

Now, a few words about eduation. You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is mislead. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is can be proved, to possess appreciation and self control.

Now, if you lack willingness to learn, you will remain as a brute and if you do things that are not good and right, you will be a low person, and if you believe in things that cannot be proved, any feeble minded person can lead you, and if you lack appreciation, it takes away the incentive for good doing and if you lack self control you will never know the limit.

So all those lacking these characteristics in their makeup are not eduated.

Essentially what Ed was saying in a manner that reminds me of the way Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War—which is still used today by military minds—is that most books are written by people not properly educated and of no mind to teach others. The government’s motivation in this debacle is revealed by their desire to go through the motions, yet still delivering people to an ignorant state so that they are easy to control by creating a society of the feeble minded. The government only wants to educate people in the methods of instruction that will lead to a career which serves the state—and not in the wisdom of perpetually obtaining knowledge.

To confirm the results of this vile approach just look at any slack jawed loser who has been trained by their public schools into incurable ignorance. Their minds were destroyed in public education and they now can do very little with their lives but show up at a job they trained for and vote for one of the two members of a political party. The rest of their lives are virtually wasted.

If society had listened to Tesla every home in the world could have free electrical power. There would never be grid failures but each power generation supply would operate like an air conditioning unit does now—they would run and supply free power for as long as the perpetual generator lasted instead of the J.P. Morgan backed debacle we ended up with through Edison. The government wanted unionized employees servicing a power grid, and that’s what we ended up with vulnerable to every downed tree, heavy wind, or car accident that hits a power line. Edward Leedskalnin and his anti-gravity techniques could eliminate huge power equipment for construction and manufacturing methods—but most of those suppliers of equipment are also unionized, and they don’t want average people to gain the ability to lift 20 to30 ton objects the way a child picks up a penny off the sidewalk. The technology is there, but it cannot be unlocked because government schools have taught mass swarms of individuals to think of the collective good before individual selfishness—and in that way nobody dares to provoke the systems put in place by government intrusion—to question their merits.

Yet if you step off the path the governments of the world have led you down dear reader—you will see easily that a better life is easily obtainable. Tesla discovered many of those secretes and so did Edward Leedskalnin. They tried to help people see those secrets by overcoming the public faith in a government backed education system and Leedskalnin’s books were obvious efforts toward that objective. Sadly, especially in Leedskalnin’s case he remained a hermit most of his life because it is just too tormenting for highly intelligent people like him to watch others behave so ignorantly following the same outdated education methods even in a time where the world envied the American system as the best in the world. Leedskalnin understood the deficiency and he tried to warn people of it—but they did not have a mind to listen.

Because of the poor educating methods applied to mass society, there are no minds able to unlock the secrets of Leedskalnin’s book Magnetic Current. There are only knuckle dragging assumptions that always look toward mother government for encouragement and breast milk. And the same slavery of ignorance which has persisted for millennia continues to ruin minds, destroy societies, and eradicate family structure. The only thing government schools are good for is creating compliant minds who will drink too much, shorten their lives considerably with unhealthy choices, and pay their taxes for the employment of slugs who eye every conceivable holiday with a yearning for the intoxication that comes from the hit of a bottle and too many groceries in the refrigerator—keeping them fat, dumb, and happy.

Rich Hoffman

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 30, 2014 16:00

November 29, 2014

Allowing Loafers and Weaklings the Power to Vote: Edward Leedskalnin’s ‘A Book in Every Home’

I have reported on the work of Edward Leedskalnin before—the little man who mysteriously built Coral Castle in south Florida. I like the guy and his science and am puzzling through his mid-twentieth century writings for my new Cliffhanger project. In his writing is a unique glimpse into how people from a previous time thought contrary to the contemporary—which I have stated often I abhor. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT LEEDSKALNIN. It is not a debate that one of the greatest generations of Americans was the World War II generation, which Leedskalnin was a part of. He was also a fine example of an American mad scientist in that he was eccentric enough to remove his vantage point back far enough to provide commentary based on his unbiased observations. He marked these observations down in a small book called A Book in Every Home meant to impart wisdom to future generations curious about the little 5’ man who could lift 3 ton coral rocks like a child plays with toys. Leedskalnin is an American enigma and his writings are quite intriguing.

In his A Book in Every Home Leedskalnin only writes on the left side of the book leaving the right side for a future decoder of his cryptic work to decipher his numerous mathematical puzzles. He dares readers to attempt to top his work by writing their own contributions into those blank pages. Of course for my task, I’d rather leave them empty for the evolving analysis that I am conducting with his work. Rather, I will gladly place my thoughts on his work here in Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom for my readers to ponder. Leedskalnin’s written efforts are a time capsule through our own corrupted education systems softened by political communist infiltration over time. Leedskalnin’s mind was extremely observant of the human race and was unconcerned with political correctness. For me his work is refreshing as many of my thoughts are similar observations uncovered from under attempted suppressions by contemporary corruption. For instance, below is but one small section of his book that I will focus on in this article written about Leedskalnin’s view on voting. He says:

It is not sound to allow the weaklings to vote. Anyone who is too weak to make his own living is not strong enough to vote, because their weak influences weakens the state and a degenerated state cannot exist very long, but every state should be sound and lasting.

By voting, the voters dictate the state’s destiny for times to come and then allow such a weak influence to guide the state, it is not wise and so you see one should vote according to how he is carrying the State’s burden.

Another unwise thing about equal voting is that it gives the loafers and weaklings the power to take the property away from producers and stronger people, and then another unjust thing about equal voting is that it gives the loafers and weaklings the power to demand an easy life from the producers and leaders.

Self respecting producers will not stand such an injustice for long. It is not the producers’ fault when one is too weak to make his own living. The producer’s life is just as sweet as the weaklings and loafer’s life is to them. All people are independent so you see everybody will have to take care of themselves and if they cannot, they should perish and the sooner they perish the better it will be.

To be lasting, the government should be built in the same way as the Supreme power of the land “the army.” Governments have been rising and falling but the army always remains. You know there is no equality in army and so there can be no equality in the state. If you are not an equal producer you cannot be an equal consumer.

In hindsight what Leedskalnin has said has proven 100% correct. From the vantage point of the counter-culture hippies and bra burning despots, Leedskalnin was participating in hate speech, but from the context of historical accuracy, nobody could argue the truth of his statements. The only criticism possible is to declare that it is mean-spirited to allow the weak in society to perish while the strong prosper and that it is up to the intellect of mankind to outthink the whole survival of the fittest mentality. However, which is a better mentality for the collective whole, the view-point of progressives who want to raise all boats even those with holes in them determined to remain on the ocean floor, or people like Leedskalnin who thinks society should advance regardless of those who desire to be the bottom feeders drowning from their own ineptitude? Obviously, the old hippie model has brought us all the elements that Leedskalnin predicted, so it was the little 100 pound man who stood at just 5’ in stature who said that weaklings should perish if they do not desire to be strong—that society should see itself as an army not as a government of equals—because such a view forces the strong to be weak so that the weak do not feel lowered in value.

There is no modern choice for the strong but to diminish themselves to the weak as the lesser have no ambition to become strong. So when society decides to make all people equal whether they are producers or takers the takers will always have leverage over the producers. This of course leads to the monstrosity that we have today in modern politics—a valueless system of corruption and disaster—just as Leedskalnin said it would. It’s not mean to say the truth unless the desire for society at large is to hide the truth from their own eyes to fulfill a fantasy of equality as possible no matter what level of ambition that an individual exhibits.

All people are created equal, as our founding documents in America declare. From there people make choices—even the mentally handicapped have opportunities under capitalism to overcome their stature and become something more. But people have to decide if they wish to become leaders or followers. Most people desire to be led about and to follow behind someone on the cutting edge. Those people are not equal to the leaders. It takes courage to be a leader and courage is lacking from the typical follower. So when the decision to become a follower is made, those people surrender their rights to be equal to a leader. There is no way to trick the system into some behavioral nonsense when distinctions between the strong and the weak need to be made.

For the followers nobody is proposing that they be blasted into space or imprisoned for foolishness—or even left to die. Actually Leedsalnin did say it would be better for weak people to die, but what he pointed out is that a democracy cannot survive if weak people have equal rights to vote with strong people—because the weak are not qualified to make proper decisions about such matters. In modern times we can now see what happens, campaign donations are horrendously high, progressives are pushing the ignorant to vote so that they can have wind in their sails of insurrection toward communist thought and the entire political system is bent around the will of lobbyists because of the intellectual vacuum created by such a failed system. When the weak are mixed with the strong and all assumed equal, the weak bring down the value of the strong and the sum of democracy becomes lessened.

All people do start in life equally, but as decisions are made in those lives a vast number of any given social population will desire to fall behind a leader. Such people then cannot expect to have the right to vote equally with people who have proven themselves to be leaders. To allow such a thing brings about the very conditions we are struggling with in American society presently. A continuation of that commitment will only lead to more of the terrible behavior currently witnessed on the political scene.

As hard as Leedskalnin’s comments were in the context of the World War II generation toward an emerging threat that he saw percolating through his scientific observations of unquestioned genius—the results are now confirmed. The progressives ran away from such wisdom and guided society to a precipice of destruction. At the time of his writing, Leedskalnin in his little book A Book in Every Home could not prove the debacle that would soon come from the 1960s in America continuing to the present—but he did predict it. Now looking back, it is time to analyze what values we must carry with us into the future knowing what we do. To fail such a task would be to doom ourselves to our own extinction. The weak cannot be made to sap off the strong so to make everyone equal because that is the only way such a thing can occur. The sum than of such a society is one relegated to the efforts of the weak and not the strong—which does nobody any good—not the weak or the strong. So it is time to take seriously the wisdom of our past and apply it to the future and a good place to start is where Leedskalnin properly identified a potential failure in American democracy within a republic—at the voting booth and the type of people qualified to handle such an important task.

Rich Hoffman

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0062322613/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=7000546533&ref=pd_sl_43ktsu58db_e

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 29, 2014 16:00

November 28, 2014

Gene Simmons ‘Me Inc': How to be an army of one

Last thanksgiving during the Macy’s Parade I turned off the broadcast because of the Kinky Boots segment. It was too much for my holiday mindset and I didn’t want to see a bunch of guys dressed in drag running around in high-heeled boots. I wouldn’t consider seeing the play in New York, and I really didn’t want to see it on my television. I gave the LGBT people a chance once to pitch their argument and they gave me the Rocky Horror Picture Show—so that window closed and I’m done with them forever. What a ridiculous movement—no wonder they will remain a minority influence in American politics. However, the following year during the 2014 Macy’s Parade they cleaned up their act quite a lot seeking correctly to appeal to not just the red states across America, but the red counties. If any political map is studied, it becomes obvious that there is a lot of American real-estate that is undoubtedly conservative based and major supporters of capitalist endeavors. Liberals are rare in the core of America and Macy’s was seeking to repair their image with them—so it was with great welcome that the old rock band KISS gave a performance right in front of Macy’s dressed in full make-up and shooting fire at the end of their number just like in their concerts.

The only thing that KISS has in common with people in the LGBT community is that they dress up in strange costumes. The rock group KISS led by Gene Simmons is a comic book inspired unequivocal capitalist endeavor that has been a smartly guided enterprise by the former Hungarian immigrant. Simmons inspired by the Beatles created a stage presence that could have only been established in an American capitalist market combining comic book antics with rock and roll to create for himself over $300 million in net worth. Gene Simmons is a smart guy who marketed his band KISS in a way that redefined the music industry, so it was nice to see the 65-year-old rocker blasting away the streets of New York City on a cold November morning.

Gene Simmons is a unique personality that has always been excessively bold—unflinchingly confident, and unceremoniously blunt. He is the exact opposite to the counter-culture movement featuring socialist peace and love protestors looking for collective salvation—but instead represents raw individualism and self-reliance. As a businessman he has a similar personality as Donald Trump because it takes those types of people to create things from nothing. Not everyone can launch a business endeavor, and even fewer have the ability to manage others toward a task on the horizon only they can see. It takes a unique personality type to perform such a task so it shouldn’t be a surprise that Gene Simmons is the type of direct person that he is. He lives the way he wants to, he believes what he wants, he does what he thinks is right not measuring reaction against society’s gatekeepers, and if you don’t like it, he’ll just breathe fire on you and spit up some blood to assault puritan sensibilities.

Simmons has a new book out called Me, Inc and readers of this site will likely understand that there is a reoccurring theme that taps into the kind of work Ayn Rand was exploring about what makes a great entrepreneur and general businessman so successful. Her explorations were in direct contrast to the socialist movement of the twentieth century as a means of study into American capitalism as opposed to European communism. Not everyone is qualified to manage things–people or resources. Often it is a lonely enterprise conducting life as a visionary where only one or two people can see what the goal is, as everyone else sits around waiting to be shown the path to success. Gene Simmons knows what that lonely road is like and he features those values in his new book.

If someone really wants success in life brown-nosing your way to the top isn’t going to cut it. Sending a potted plant to your boss on Christmas won’t help you achieve the levels of success that lead to boasting around the holiday dinner table, it just makes them a suck-ass. Success is not achieved “through” others, but over them. Most of the time people who decide to stand in the way of your vision will have to be run over to get where you want to go. This notion of collective bargaining and consensus is utterly despicable, and ridiculous. Gene Simmons like Donald Trump has written a book that articulates just that very trait for the would-be successful dreamer seeking to take an idea from murky thoughts into hard reality. In that process people will be run over because they are all too willing to stand in the street to halt your progress and as a visionary, you cannot have compassion for their misery when they force you to eradicate their self-imposed barriers.

Just shortly after watching Simmons KISS performance at the Macy’s Parade I received a parade of texts from well-wishers and brownnosers. Some of those people were sincere and I replied back, most were just looking for a way to get on my good side for some future leverage. My son-in-law and I were at these moments talking about our new plans for the Cliffhanger stories and planning a video shoot to promote it early in 2015. I brought up some names of people to work with and one of them he immediately and ruthlessly dismissed not because the person was a bad person, but because he brought nothing to the table. It reminded me that I was including this person purely out of sentimentality and that this particular endeavor didn’t need to be watered down with such stagnation if we wanted it to work. My son-in-law showed good business sense in his decision and he has not yet read Gene’s new book. But it is those kinds of hard decisions that are required with any business enterprise from music delivery to complicated manufacturing. The coddled masses just do not have what it takes to push an idea of vision across a finish line and sentimentality often leads to destruction of an enterprise. It’s not that people’s opinions don’t have value, but that value often contributes itself to the customer base instead of the creative edge where things are created from nothing. In a nation that is currently struggling under a failed education system taught incorrectly to make decisions by encounter groups, the way to repair the debacle is with Gene’s new book Me, Inc: Build an army of one, unleash your inner rock god, win in life and business. Young people could especially use Gene’s new book as a means of re-educating them into the traits of successful people. They are not learning the correct means to business in colleges and government schools. Performing what is taught in those palaces of stupidity will lead fledgling young business people to crashing defeat in whatever their endeavors might be.

Even liberals got excited when they saw KISS performing in front of Macy’s because there is honesty to that rock group and specifically Gene Simmons that is uniquely American. Americans don’t need to explain themselves just as Gene doesn’t. All that matters in the end are results and America has those results when they act alone. It fails when America seeks consensus with other countries just like people fail when they act aside from the leadership of a visionary. Gene Simmons is a proud individual who offers no apologies. Most of the world could use the message in his new book. He has written it not because he needs the money, but because the old school teacher in him still wants to help people by teaching them to help themselves. Hopefully, many will take him up on his offer. Those who do will greatly benefit.

You can purchase the book at the following link:

Rich Hoffman

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 28, 2014 16:00

November 27, 2014

Life as a Conductor: What to be thankful for

We are taught during our educations that we can only be good at one or two things at any given point in our lives, and that we must choose between what is important and what is not. Any idiot who has said these things to you lied—they were vile spinsters of bottomless deceit. They are spinsters not in the usual sense of the sexes and definition of unsanctified matrimony, but in their lack of ability to merge with the heartbeat of life living a unknowing existence driven by ignorance just as the loveless life of a spinster does not know the joy of marital bliss. By default we enter life metaphorically as a musical instrument only able to play the notes of our intellect as our development teaches us to articulate the world around us. When we are teenagers we may develop the complexity of a rock song, able to string together a few musical instruments into a catchy beat. But as we get older, our personal music should become much more complex and dynamic. And if we do things correctly, we should be conducting personal symphonies by the time we are in our middle to elderly years. The notes of our life even down to the smallest subtly should be interwoven into our existence at every level and played as one giant musical number daily. For me at this point in my life, the musical track #13 on the new Interstellar soundtrack reflects my personal level of ability to conduct a personal symphony. The music heard below starts slow but gradually increases to a pitch of very complicated musical compositions including a massive pipe organ that merges from the background music to the forefront, which is very reflective of the type of life I am living. It is a wonderful piece extremely metaphorical—personally.

Success in business should not be shackled by success at home with a family—both are important and there is no reason why you should not be able to get on the floor and play with a grandchild while juggling millions of dollars worth the assets and still articulating important philosophy to adult children. A wife needs love and cannot be neglected do to other interests, but those other interests cannot be neglected by the attention hungry spouse either—just as all music in a complex symphony wants to be heard for the grand fortissimo of their composition. The strings cannot complain that the percussion overwhelms their utterances—it is the conductor’s job to put all those notes at play. It is that step of conductor from simple musician that we must make in our lives if we are to meet the challenges before us as a waking awareness demands.

It was an especially proud moment for me when my grandson said, “OK boss,” when we were playing the other day. That is a term I use with people to let them know I see them as important and that I don’t impose my authority over them in a way that can be seen distracting. I mean it in a respectful way, and I say it to my grandson as a way to show him that his intellect is important and that I am respectful to his awaking knowledge. But as a child with limited instruments to conduct his own symphony with, he can only yet repeat what is said around him as a two-year old. But as we were playing my wife was cooking for Thanksgiving dinner, I was receiving texts from across the world needing answers, and four members of my immediate family have birthdays that desired my ordainment all within a few days of each other. There would be no way to playing all those musical instruments metaphorically speaking with a simply lyrical song such as some rap, or rock beat. Only a symphony is able to pay all those necessities the attention the simultaneously deserve. But to play them it requires a conductor to stand in front of them all and provide direction—leadership, and respect for what they all bring to the table for the composition needed.

For instance, in the Hans Zimmer piece referred, the pipe organ by itself is quite a complex instrument. It could easily be a metaphor for a needy wife or overbearing child that desires exclusive treatment. But to play just organ music when a much more complex piece of music is needed to tell the story of our lives would be to stifle our lives to that limitation, which would be destructive—and corrosive. But you cannot do as many people I know did on the night before Thanksgiving when a symphony was required in their lives to meet all their objectives—you cannot go and get into a drunken state as a declaration of indecision. All the instruments of your life need to be played and they need a conductor to make them work in unison. If things are done correctly, you will become your own personal conductor in a life of music that is enchanting and unique. But if you fail, the many instruments of your life will sit waiting for your direction and without it, they never make a sound—but just sit there rotting.

Most of the hard feelings not talked about around Thanksgiving dinner tables come from this failure to conduct the symphonies of which we all play a part. Some people just don’t feel comfortable with string instruments, or the brass. Some don’t like organ music, some prefer the piano—but the weakness is in not embracing all those elements equally and taking charge as an intellectual conductor who can hear the tiniest note mixed with the most complex fortissimo of full notes in a tight beat. Failure to embrace a full symphony in our lives and instead insist on the simple music of our youth is the source of the tragedy. There is no excuse—“but I’m only one person.” There is only the need of a conductor and the fulfillment of those terms.

I enjoyed Thanksgiving in 2014 because my personal fortissimo was much more complicated than the year before and has progressed that way for over 25 consecutive years, which is a measure I hold in relation to myself. I cannot imagine a more complex piece of personal music to conduct as the one I have performed over the last 24 hours. But I will strive next year to improve upon it as only a conductor can. It is not the job of the conductor to play every instrument in their symphony, just to have an understanding of how to play them all. To do so well takes living life and practicing with all of them—and it takes years to master. But when you do, the music that can be made as a conductor unifying all those elements together can be quite a miracle, and the benefactor of many minds who are directly, or indirectly touched by the music you make. It is possible to be good at many things and to do all those things as the same time. The difference is that we must evolve our musical tastes from the very simple—the tunes of our youth—to the tunes of an adult living a full life as masters of many complex skills played in unison to conduct music only we can for ends specific to our intentions. But we must also do so without expecting the members of our symphony to always be happy just playing instruments for us—but to encourage them to evolve into conductors of their own as their skills flourish.

It is good to encourage the members of our own personal symphonies to be their own boss in due time so that the music that enters the world can evolve into the complex utterances that existence demands without the restriction of excuses and lazy, paranoid, lackluster that would rather bask in drunkenness than to shoulder the responsibility of living life as a conductor for the next grand fortissimo. When I say to people, “OK boss,” it is to get them past the shock of authority so that they can as quickly as possible settle in to conducting their own music the way only they can. It is to step beyond that silly human need to be important by title only—and to step up to the podium and before an awaiting orchestra to begin a tune lead by a conductor who has mastered every instrument and is uniquely positioned to lead them all without pretense.

What am I most thankful to on Thanksgiving—music—the hidden beats of intellects striving to be heard against the cold repression of stoic indifference and fear of the unknown.

Rich Hoffman