Donald Trump’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Moment: Venezuela’s epic failure due to their commitment to socialism


I know, I write about Donald Trump a lot these days.  Yes there are many other things going on in the world—especially local issues,  but as I see it we are witnessing the greatest political trend change that the history of the world has ever seen—and I can’t think of anything more important.  It dosen’t do any good to chase the tail of something as long and elusive as our current social trends which are like a very long snake.  What Trump does today will have a tremendous effect on tomorrow, so it is important to capture those little moments as they occur.  Specifically it was the great United Nations speech that Donald Trump gave which illustrated so many positive things for American culture, but none as great as when the topic of Venezuelan socialism was brought forth and put on the world stage for all to see.

I was surprised years ago when so many people were upset that the great American novel Atlas Shrugged was being made into a movie.  I knew the filmmakers, and was a friend of the crew throughout the production and for them it was a love project.  They had a small budget in order to tell a gigantic story—an epic on the scale of Game of Thrones.  Yet Hollywood wouldn’t touch the project through a legitimate studio with A-list actors essentially because the media companies were so deeply contaminated with socialist and communist supporters that such a pro-capitalist story like Atlas Shrugged was never going to get “green-lit.”

Hollywood has always been a little left but it has only been recently that they were so overtly advocated out-right socialist—as a general philosophy.  Their A-list actors, even people like Harrison Ford, have stepped out of reality and onto the socialist band wagon because it is the social trend of Santa Monica valley these days.  If you go into a bar there by the pier talking about the merits of capitalism those weak-kneed she-males and braless bitches will be ready for a fight—they believe in socialism that much.  So when the independent filmmakers of the new Atlas Distribution Company wanted to make a movie out of one of the great American novels for which Atlas Shrugged is and has always been, all the studios laughed at them.  Many years before the studios laughed at Star Wars too, but that’s another story.  I only say that because “group think” does not understand how to make good movies, or how to detect social trends.  Individuals do.  Remember that.

I thought the movie attempt at Atlas Shrugged was ambitious and they managed to do a pretty good job getting the high points down in a visual form.  I would like to see a big budget Netflix series done for Atlas Shrugged that spans for 10 one hour episodes, because I think that’s what it would take to properly tell the story—but it was a bold attempt even as the entertainment unions pushed back hard on anybody associated with the project.  The production could not keep actors from one film to the next as the movies were divided out into three parts.  The actors were beat on so much by the rest of the Hollywood community that all three movies had a different cast and the only ones who signed up were actors looking for something to do.  It was a real challenge and showed me how bad Hollywood really had become.  All the friendly meetings I had with various people over the years flew right out the window as their true intentions were revealed during the production of Atlas Shrugged.

For those who have read the book you know what I’m talking about.  The modern situation in Venezuela is essentially the plot of the book.  A successful country (the United States in the story) is pushed into socialism by their government and the world plunges into darkness.  Once the government establishes things like price controls and root themselves into a severe crony capitalist market, the world falls apart and it is the point of Atlas Shrugged to identify why.  Essentially the “engines” of the world go on strike and that leaves everyone else starving—literally.  The beauty of Atlas Shrugged is that it does something that Karl Marx never achieved—it identified why some people make everything happen while others destroy the world around them—so if the makers of the world fail to participate, economies fail and countries wither away into dust.   The political Left has never come to grips with this phenomenon and this is the aspect of our civilization that is most important to our continuation into the future.  Marxism and all the fruits that fell from it like socialism, communism and fascism all turned out to be rotten short-lived fantasies first breathed by Sir Thomas More in his classic book Utopia—that were destroyed during westward expansion in the United States.   While Marx and his followers were pushing for labor unions to take over the world by controlling the means of production the railroads, the gold rush and the promise of private property in America used capitalism to fill the sky lines of the worlds next great cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles which until that period was just a border town–until the gold rush then the movie industry gave people a reason to live there.

Venezuela had been a pretty good place to live; it was a thriving country living off its oil reserves until Hugo Chavez brought socialism to their economy.   Once Chavez died a member of his inner circle Nicolás Maduro, a former bus driver (seriously) rose to power as a union leader and became the next president.  If you want to see what happens when labor unions get their way by controlling the “means” of production, just look what happened to Venezuela in just a few short years. As the state took over more and more of its industry, they became much less productive and their economy essentially died right in front of the world.  Now the people of Venezuela are starving—literally, and nobody seems to understand why, at least those who have advocated for socialism. Yet it is the nearly seventy year old book Atlas Shrugged that provided an almost page by page analysis for all to read—but the world watched and let it happen to Venezuela anyway.

What was remarkable about Donald Trump’s speech was that most of the people in that general assembly at the United Nations have emotional connections to socialism.  They are either members of Socialist International or they have been thinking about it.  Only the United States has maintained a defense of capitalism and our economy shows it.  The way for more countries around the world to prevent more people from being poor or from having terrible GDP numbers is to unleash capitalism and reject communism.  China’s communism only works if it attaches itself to a capitalist country and can keep the other nations around them poor so that they can maintain some form of price controls.  But if a country to the south like Vietnam were to adopt capitalism, or Cambodia, India or even North Korea—Russia and those types of places—China’s economy would sink because of their communist system.  What happened to Venezuela was that the price of oil went down and they couldn’t compete. That is all the unsaid story before, and no American president would strongly defend capitalism allowing everyone to shrug their shoulders as if they had nothing to do with anything happening to countries like Venezuela.  But when Donald Trump said what he did it put the issue on the front burner in a way nobody was prepared for, and it properly articulated the problem—boldly, people had to listen.  And that was a significant moment in the history of the world that will be remembered for many centuries.  I thought it was tremendous and it will prove to be bigger than anything that happens on the local level because that culture change will flow into the rest of the country rather rapidly.  And I love it!

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Guns and Books: The keys to a happy and free civilization–Samantha Power’s guilt

I say it quite a lot these days, and I’ll continue to do so. If you have two main things in your life you can consider yourself a free person. The first is the ability to read and to use it to consume many books over your lifetime. Having the ability to read and use the knowledge gained from books can make a person nearly invincible—95% of the time. If you are smart, you can get through most anything in life, even physical threats—just with what you learn from books. If you put a smart person in an MMA ring with a beast of a world-class fighter—I will bet on the smart person every time. Because there are more tools to beating brute force that come from intelligence that severally put people who rely on just physical strength to get by in life. Then for that last 5% of the time—you need to own and know how to use firearms. The gun is the great equalizer in life, so by having that you can keep villainy away no matter what anybody may throw at you. That’s why in American society, those two things are what I’d say are the two most important elements to living a free life.

To prove my point just look at the mess Samantha Power is in, who used to be the UN Ambassador under the Obama administration. The academic radical used her position to spy on political rivals and essentially brought in most of our intelligence agencies in the process into a grand scheme that showed just how dangerous collectivism in any capacity can be. Most everyone involved in the federal government activity under the Obama administration told the same story revealed by the Power unmasking of Trump political players—which was the modern equivalent to a witch hunt as we’ve ever seen. Many pundits including Rush Limbaugh did a fabulous job of exploring the who, what, when and hows of this story—so my point here would be on the “why” it is necessary to never trust any institutional system that uses collective force to enforce a philosophy. Having the ability to read and to shoot takes away that power from these types of people and are paramount in stopping villainy as we detect it.

It should come as no surprise that fascists—such as the type the Democratic Party have always inspired to become were in the business of book banning and controlling knowledge—because they needed stupid people to follow them. Smart people who are well-informed would never follow these losers who rallied behind Samantha Power to unmask people connected to the newly elected President Trump. If it can happen to a sitting president with made-up chargers created to justify wiretapping, or any other spying the government wished to conduct on their quest to control political dialogue—then it can happen to any of us. What stops that behavior is of course a well-informed society where internet information is free and easy to access, books of all kinds are available on the open market, and people are free to assemble as the Tea Party did to share educational treasures uncovered during intellectual quests that inspire others to also gain knowledge.

The same people who want to limit what people read, and watch on television under the umbrella of free speech, are the same as those who are always demanding a control on firearms and want to ban personal guns. I personally think that people should be able to carry guns everywhere—that we should be able to wear them on our hips everywhere we go, even to weddings and to court appearances. If someone doesn’t have ill intentions toward you, nor you toward them—it keeps everyone honest. The gun banning people want to put themselves between you and a potential rival as a mediator taking away the responsibility for two parties to actually work out their problems allowing passive-aggressive activity to take control of the process of peaceful exchange replacing mutual respect for fear of the law.

It is highly unlikely that a person would pick a fight with another person if that other person was wearing a gun. It doesn’t matter how big they are, or what sex they may be—when people see a gun on their hip, respect for what that gun can do is the first thing on everyone’s mind—which forces all dealings with that person to be done at an elevated level of respect. If you take that respect away and replace it with fear of prosecution, then those who think they can buy and twist the laws of our land to their advantage may not be so hesitant to do something corrupt. This is clearly what we see in the case of the Obama administration using Samantha Power to commission the many weapons of government to attempt a coup against an American election. They did it because they didn’t fear that anybody would shoot them, and they figured they controlled the strings of government so what was a person like Trump going to do to them—so long as the media played along? That’s the kind of world you get when you take respect for other people out of the equation and replace it with an adhesion to fear. The more fearless, or less moral of the human species will always think they can gain an advantage over others if they are stupid, and unarmed. That’s why Samantha and her partners under the Obama administration thought they would get away with what they did. They never expected they’d ever get caught because at the time they controlled the law and most of the people they deal with were either stupid, or unarmed—likely both.

Carrying a gun isn’t about killing other people, its more about preventing other people from killing you. Just having it does most of the work for you which then frees up your mind to pursue more intellectual pursuits. When you don’t always have to worry about some power-hungry fool coming into your life to disrupt you in some way, you can then read books and contemplate bigger ideas. Some of the best people you’ll ever meet in life are those who read more than fifty books a year and also do a lot of shooting—like people in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and in the Dakotas. They are not stupid people and they are mostly all heavily armed. You don’t see their cities being shaken to the ground in protests, and you certainly don’t associate them with any kind of crime. There’s a reason for that—and it starts with the gun and ends with the average intelligence of the people who tend to read more than other places in the country. Books and guns are the keys to a healthy and happy life and those who best utilize those two very simple things are those who end up most successful at the very foundations of existence. The proof is clear, and where those things are missing—such as in our Beltway culture, the worst that comes out of the human experience is prevalent. That is why Obama and the Democrats in general always look for ways to impose gun control. That is also why they have problems with free speech. They need people unarmed and stupid so that they can rule your minds. Once people are armed with knowledge and weapons, people like Samantha Power are just pests who can quickly be swatted aside, and that’s exactly what is happening in the age of Trump.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

“Rocket Man”: Ghost writing and the hidden value of being a voice in the dark

It was 2010 and I was meeting with my congressman John Boehner with a Power Point presentation I had put together about the United Nations and how much America put into it compared to other nations, and I was urging my representative to get out of that body of government because it was intrusive, out-of-touch, and seeking to end American sovereignty.   Of course the reaction I received from my proposal was a sneer and an attitude toward me of ignorance which pissed me off greatly—as if my little mind couldn’t grapple with the realities of the world.  It pissed me off so much that I immediately resolved to create this blog.  I was smarter than any of the people I met with, yet because I suggested ending the American participation into the United Nations I was treated with contempt and ignorance as if those things applied to me.  Well I’m still at it while Congressman Boehner is now a lobbyists in Washington D.C., as he essentially always was, and finally there is a new president of the United States who does understand as I always have what the United Nations really has been, and he gave a speech which properly represented my view points—and I enjoyed it greatly.  The best part of the speech was where Trump called the war mongering North Korean despot, “Rocket Man” for his constant threat of nuclear war.  The stunned chamber listened mostly in silence as a new kind of American bravado finally launched itself on the world stage and it gave me tremendous pride.

Critics of President Trump will say that he doesn’t read off the teleprompter very well, and that the magnanimity of that UN speech was written for him, and that he’s not sophisticated enough to come up with those line of sentences on his own.  But I’d say that it takes a lot of guts for someone like Trump to even read words written for him in front of such an audience because once he does they will forever be associated with him, and that is something different we haven’t seen before—a person in a major leadership position who will own that kind of dialogue on the world stage.  John Boehner certainly wouldn’t do it way back in 2010 and he was the closest person who I thought might.  Certainly John McCain who had just run for president in 2008 wouldn’t because he lectured our local radio celebrity Bill Cunningham on using too harsh of language against Barack Obama during a Cincinnati GOP rally—so even during elections where much was either gained or lost, the GOP leadership would not commit to the kind of terms that were needed to stand against a global tide seeking to end American sovereignty on its way to world domination of thought and deed—while we as Americans paid the bill.

A few years later when I needed them most, many local GOP people left me hanging on a vine as I had committed myself to harsh language at our political enemies and they wouldn’t stand with me.  They cowered in fear because they were not in politics to accomplish anything seriously; they simply wanted the titles and the money that came from crony capitalism and stirring the pot the way I wanted to, in order to fix the situation didn’t give them what they were looking for in politics, so villainy continued and they would look toward me and say behind my back, “he just doesn’t understand.”  Like hell if I never understood—I knew far better than they did what was happening because I could look at the situation objectively.  My career wasn’t tied to the stars of the senate or the House of Representatives.  I had no plans to be Washington lobbyist the way that Boehner did, so I had no fear of pissing anybody off.  I always thought that was the purpose of government—to represent the people who are really out there—not to become some party caricature for bridging business with money and hiding the whole escapade behind rules and procedural conduct.

I can say starting this blog has been one of the best things I’ve ever done.  Personally I’m quite a successful person, so there isn’t anything anybody can “give me” by being a nice, polite person who plays nice with others in the realm of politics.  Writing comes easy for me because I’ve spent a lifetime reading and thinking about things to a level most people just aren’t comfortable with.  So if I’m not looking to be the next George R.R. Martin or Steven King in the writing world, I have a substantial talent to apply to the hard work of intellectual reform that needs to take place regarding the role of government in our lives—and that work can then get done.  I write lots of articles—daily—and people voyeuristically read them.  Often times its speech writers and people in positions of power who get from what I write an affirmation of their own thoughts—but it helps them to hear it from someone else, and this gives them the license they need to act accordingly in their lives.  I don’t mind at all if something I say ends up in a speech somewhere spoken by some important person—I consider the exchange an act of ghost writing.  I don’t expect to be compensated just as I didn’t expect John Boehner all those years ago to credit me with ending the United Nations.  It became obvious to me that people like that guy needed to have everything spelled out for him so that actions could be taken, and if I waited for the publishing world to publish my books on the subject, the work just wouldn’t get done.  The liberalized attorneys and editors at the big New York firms who publish books these days would never give me a chance unless I had a cable news show that could push the product—and I had no plans of doing something like that—even though I probably could have.  From that time of meeting with Boehner to the present I’ve had a chance to host my own radio shows on major stations, but I didn’t take the jobs because honestly I make more money on my own than any of those studios were paying so I endeavored to put my thoughts out to the public and to keep the money out of it to keep the exchange as clean as possible.  I’d let the people who did have to write speeches, and give them on important matters take whatever inspiration I could give them to the next step—and it has been working—slowly and surely.

What went into that United Nations speech took a lot of people who spent time writing it and drawing inspiration from a number or sources to even string together the thoughts.  It wouldn’t surprise me if some of my own words were drawn from these very pages to help create the framework of that speech—because it’s those people who are behind the scenes for whom I write for most.   We live in a confusing world and it’s not easy to see things clearly when you have to bang champagne glasses together to keep fundraising going, or you are at a cigar gathering with other powerful people but still need the clarity to stay on point.  I offer to those people a flashlight in the dark by way of ghost writing that I hope moves the ball in the right direction—a direction that John Boehner clearly was afraid to advance himself.  All that behind the scenes stuff means nothing if we don’t have a spokesman willing to take the words and apply them to life and that is what makes Trump so magnificent.  There are many hundreds if not thousands of minds behind that speech, who have written as I have here, and many other places which culminated into the actual formulation of that speech.  But before such a thing could be read to a hesitant audience at the United Nations we needed someone who would take ownership of those words and to unleash them in a dramatic way.   Watching Trump deliver that speech was very satisfying to me, because it took a long time to get someone in an elected position who would actually say what needed to be said.  Ghost writing may help nurture an idea forward, and that’s always what I hope to do.  I whisper to people after they’ve read something I’ve written in the middle of the night when their minds quiet down, and it usually assists their own thoughts—but those thoughts go nowhere until that person acts and takes responsibility for advancing the cause.  Speaking personally, it was more satisfying to watch Trump give that speech to the United Nations than it would have been if a major publisher had given me several million dollars in royalties for all my writing on these matters.  It means more to me to hear Trump say these words than to have a public who enjoys reading these kinds of things, but spends no time in the world acting on them, throwing credit in my direction.  My millions came to me when Trump said “Rocket Man” to that U.N. assembly on September 19th, 2017.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Reality of ‘Game of Thrones’: How Hillary Clinton is all too similar to Cersei Lannister

It has taken several years but my youngest daughter has finally talked my wife and I into watching the Game of Thrones, the popular HBO series based on the books by George R.R. Martin.  My first impression was forged when my daughter was watching an episode from Season Two many years ago where two women were essentially involved in pornography and each time I looked up from my work while she watched these episodes someone was naked.  So I didn’t have a very high impression of the show but for an excuse to get people naked and make it a medieval setting.  I thought it was just another tacky enterprise and I wasn’t impressed.   But it has done well over the years and people obviously like it for some reason, so my wife and I gave it another chance recently and started watching it from the beginning, and much to our surprise, we both actually like it.  For me, I find myself living in the Game of Thrones literally as I have those experiences in most of the people I know in politics, business, and family quite literally.  I find the characters created by George R.R. Martin to be very realistic in their motivations and how they apply those needs to the world around them.

I can’t help but draw parallels to the Game of Thrones and real life, specifically in the case of Hillary Clinton.  The character of Cersei Lannister comes to mind—the queen who will literally do anything to stay in power and close proximity to the throne for which her son sat for most of the first seasons once her husband had died.  House of Cards involves much of the same kind of power grabbing soap opera style narrative and when I was watching that series drew unmistakable parallels to the Clinton White House.  Now that Hillary Clinton has been caught and the DNC exposed the United States is having its moment or discovery where we learn how vile all these characters in this real story actually have been.   When we voted for Donald Trump many of us only suspected it, but now in the aftermath, we understand all too clearly what Hillary and her minions have been up to and the plots are not unlike the Game of Thrones stories, and for the same reasons that exist in the realms of that fiction.

My mom and my grandmother used to get very involved in their day time soap operas.  When I was a kid and went to the store with them on their daughter mother days I’d often make fun of how they’d cackle after the various narratives of whom was sleeping with whom and for what reason.  I never understood their fascination with such boring stories of love, lust, betrayal and scandal—it seemed small-minded to me even at a very young age.   However I do like fantasy stories, such as Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, and clearly these are very similar styles of stories with a soap opera quality to them when you start getting into the private motivations of the human condition.  A fantasy backdrop seems to work well for our society in observing things that might otherwise be all too real for us.  And this appears to be the big secret of Game of Thrones.

I think this is why the actions of Hillary Clinton and many politicians just like her go by people generally unknown.  People may suspect many of these things but their only real acceptance to these motivations are best presented through fantasy stories which seem removed so far from our reality that the villains often get away with hiding from us in plain sight, and once we discover their villainy, we don’t know what to do with them because our only experience with understanding these types of characters is from the voyeuristic comfort of our television screens.

It wasn’t ironic to me that as I was watching Game of Thrones for the first time seriously and I heard the dialogue by the character Cersei Lannister that Hillary Clinton was doing media for her new book, What Happened.  What was revealed was a character right off the pages of George R.R. Martin.   Hillary was so insulted by the Donald Trump election that she couldn’t stop herself from showing the world just how arrogantly she believed she had a right to the throne of the American White House.  For her it was a rightful claim passed down to her from some progressive assumption that American politics was the same as European politics, or those throughout the world functioning from the same kind of social illness as we see on display in fantasy stories like Game of Thrones.  We rebelled in America to get away from this kind of thing, not to advance it.  We don’t look, for kings to worship in America, at least we aren’t supposed to.  Literally, the American White House is not supposed to be just another episode of the Game of Thrones or House of Cards.

In many ways I think this is the problem people have with Donald Trump—he is truly something different.  I know that’s why I voted for him.  Trump has virtually the perfect wife, he has perfect kids—Trump himself is a pretty perfect person—he’s not sick, he never sleeps; he doesn’t have little insecurities that he’s trying to hide behind public office.  He’s just a guy who loves to solve problems and be in the heat of the kitchen—and this doesn’t fit the narrative of the typical American politician that we have come to think of as corrupt.  Hillary Clinton does, but Trump requires us to accept all new motivations which have not yet been explored in a contextual way articulated through our fantasy stories.  I would go so far to say that only a novel by Ayn Rand begins to cover the Donald Trump presidency while most of us experience the range of human emotions driving modern politics through fantasy works like Game of Thrones, or even Harry Potter.

Deep inside us all is still that European fascination with names and titles—the very things we rebelled against as Americans.  We may not like people like Hillary Clinton, but we trust that dysfunction because it’s what we understand at a primal level.  In Game of Thrones I haven’t yet found a character I can relate to except for some of the Stark kids—but even then the idea of duty to a family name and the promise of a reign on some Iron Throne doesn’t make much sense to me.  But most people watching can find something they can relate to in the characters of the very sprawling epic that has become Game of Thrones.  And to my experience it works because it’s not so much fantasy, but is actually quite real.  The fantasy settings of dragon stories and magic allow us to create some emotional distance to the subject, but honestly the psychological explorations of the characters themselves is all too real.  What is shocking about Hillary Clinton is that she is every bit as vile as the most dastardly villain from Game of Thrones, but we have been exposed to her without the trappings of a fantasy story set a long time ago in a time long forgotten—but she’s standing right in front of us on full display.  Our modern society may not be as simplified as a medieval setting so to examine all the plotting and scheming that goes on in the human mind for the advancement of infantile ideas about control and human achievement, but the essence of those motivations are all too real—and not so much a fantasy.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

St. Louis Protesters Vandalize the Mayor’s Home: Lyda Krewson should have gunned down the people on her lawn

The St. Louis protests over the shooting of an alleged drug dealer during a police arrest migrated into radicals upset with the lack of prosecution by the legal system to go over to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home and vandalize it by throwing rocks through the windows and blasting it with red paint.  In the process nine St. Louis police officers were injured, two of them seriously, one with a broken jaw, the other with a dislocated shoulder—and in my opinion the protestors crossed the line from something possibly protected under the umbrella of free speech and migrated into something where an armed defense of the mayor’s home was justified.  Lyda appears to be a nice lady who did everything she could to deescalate the situation with non-violence, but I would argue that in so doing she actually perpetuated the situation.  It would have been better to put bullets into those attackers when they came to her home and to send them to the hospital, or to the morgue at that point in time instead of taking the passive position that she did—because she only empowered them further.

I have some experience with this kind of thing and my general policy is to engage violence with more violence than the attackers can handle.  If they come to your house to throw eggs, then you should burn their cars so they can’t escape and cripple them so there is no retreat-until the police can come to make an arrest.  Playing nice with people who are willing to vandalize private property doesn’t make things better.  As the mayor said, nobody was hurt and that she can fix what was vandalized—but in all actuality people were hurt, police were hurt seriously and getting hit in the face with bricks could have easily have killed those police officers, which to me opens up the options of what should be done to those attackers to deescalate the situation in the future.

Private property is what we’re talking about here.  While Mayor Krewson’s position is the one that current law and order adheres to—it has the assumption that material things can be replaced but lives cannot-it is technically wrong.  The reason for the police, the Second Amendment and the trappings of a legal system are to protect the private property of America’s citizens.  By going to the mayor’s home and attempting to influence her where she lives the mob was purposely attempting to use fear and the destruction of private property to influence the nature of law and order.  That is not acceptable.   When those lines are crossed and a mob of insurgents arrives to your place of residence to influence your behavior in the realm of law and order, then violence in return is the only option.

Obviously the actions of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA are open about their strategies of violence against those they disagree with, so that opens the play book to violence which can then be conducted against them.  And the battleground which gives merit to the action is in the defense of private property.  I would say to the reporters who had to endure having water bottles being thrown at them, or violence inflicted on them in any way that your personal space then becomes private property and should be defended with any means necessary.  If the attackers lose their life in the process–then so be it—they had it coming.  This is the right way to think about these matters.

I’m writing this now as a kind of qualifying statement for future behavior.  Speaking for myself, I get by most days without having to inflict violence on other people.  If it happens it’s never because I started the conflict.  I have had to be violent with people before on occasion and while doing so have in my mind the complete destruction of those people.  Most of the time things work out alright and everyone lives to see another day.  But when it comes to private property and the defense of it, we have a right as individual American citizens to defend it.  Our politics does not give those rights over to enemy insurgents to do with whatever they want.  If I were the mayor of St. Louis I would have had to engage those people after the first broken window with violence that likely would have ended their existence—because it would have been the right thing to do.  All that stands between such things is law and order and once the mob failed to be contained by law enforcement, then the next tier of defense is personal protection.  For me, I have lots of options, but firearms are part of that defense.

I always try to use other methods before reaching for the gun in this present so-called civilized world.  Someone trained in various combat methods should have various degrees of defensive persuasion to apply against villains.  But for Mayor Krewson who obviously is a nice lady who doesn’t think much about such things, machine gunning down the protesters on her lawn would have been acceptable.  Those protestors made it very clear that they were willing to fight and possibly kill the law enforcement personnel on the streets—so that means that all the rules are off the table and anything goes—essentially.  It is quite obvious that appeasing these radicals is not the best method and that our legal system does not know how to handle these matters.  The path of Mayor Krewson has only made the situation worse.  Turning your back on these types of aggressive people empowers them to do more vile acts, it doesn’t deter them.  So we must draw the line somewhere and a personal residence where your family sleeps and your possessions are kept is where that thin line of justice resides.  If anybody is willing to cross that line, then they are said to be willing to surrender their life to your protection of it.  Because you really have no way of knowing what their intentions are.  Are they there to simply scare you, or under the pressure from the mob and the politics of our times, will they simply revert to the animal nature of rape, pillaging, and death?  We must assume the worst and hope for the best, but if they cross that line, they’ve made that decision for us.

A legal system that cannot protect our private property and our pursuit of happiness is ineffective and they don’t have a right to then prosecute us, the law abiding, with the use of firearms or other things to protect our personal sovereignty—and our bodies are part of that sanctity.  People do not have a right to get in our faces, vandalize our cars, or threaten our homes in any way shape or form.  If politicians cannot get this situation under control and use the rules of law to produce a society filled with justice, then we have no other choice.  In my opinion the mayor should have gunned down those protesters and left the lifeless bodies hanging from the trees of her front yard—because that’s the only language that people corrupted with primal instincts understand.  And in the realm of value assessment private property cannot always be replaced.  It represents more than material possession—it is a token of our personal sovereignty, and if we don’t have that in American society—then we have nothing of law and order.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Piracy of St. Louis Protesters: It’s a behavior problem, not one of law and order

It’s important to understand what is going on at the St. Louis riots over the weekend of 9/15 2017.  We’re not talking about a free speech case where protesters were just upset over the ruling from a court case where a police officer shot a man of color during an attempted arrest—we are dealing with communist trained radicals who fundamentally want to change the nature of American life.  After the acquittal of the police officer due to a lack of evidence, the Black Lives Matter people along with ANTIFA took to the streets to vandalize the mayor’s home and commit violence against police officers and journalists hiding the action behind free speech—when in fact all it truly was could only be considered open insurrection.  It’s time that we properly define things so that we can deal with them.  People who are working against the American way of life don’t get to tear down the institutional judgment of protections under the 1st Amendment and even the 2nd Amendment, then hide behind them to commit violence, loot stores, break people’s bones and generally become a menace against society.  We don’t have a system of law and order which allows for mob justice-such as what these communist oriented protestors are advocating—that if you don’t like a court ruling, you get to destroy things built by a capitalist society.  That behavior just isn’t acceptable and deserves to be met with violence of its own.

The suspected drug dealer who was shot in this case by a panicky police officer is an old story and it won’t be the last time.  If you are a thug who shows no respect for the law you are giving an open invitation to the police to shoot you.  If I acted the way that guy did when the officers tried to arrest him, using a car as a possible projectile to run the officers over, they’d shoot at me also.  It has nothing to do with being black—but everything to do with having law and order on the side of the police who are commissioned to walk a fine line between justice and anarchy.  Without police, people like these protestors would turn our society into some rotten destination of human degradation—and when they get the police on their heels paralyzing them from action, which is precisely what happens they change the nature of our society into a much greater negative.  Of course that is part of the strategy behind the anti-capitalist groups that sponsor these race riots such as what we saw in St. Louis and many other places recently.  But it’s important to remember that it isn’t a race situation at all, it’s a behavior problem.  The police will shoot at a white person under the same conditions as they will a black person.  The difference is that the black person has been taught from their youth in many cases to function in a victimized state and that the law doesn’t apply to them whereas the typical white criminal shows much more restraint when dealing with the police—so they get shot a lot less often.

Additionally, it’s the location of these shootings, usually in inner city dwellings and city streets where crimes are statistically higher because of the demographic circumstances.  The Democratic failures of applying people of low value into concentrated dwellings has produced a society of crime where the only way to advance their lives is through criminal conduct.  If you take young black men and give them mentors, and raise them in the suburbs where there are good neighbors, things to do, and reading isn’t considered a negative—they tend to grow up somewhat successful and they don’t get shot by cops because they aren’t in trouble to find themselves in that situation.  It’s not a color problem it’s a behavior problem.   The way to fix it is to change the way that people live in cities and under what conditions.  Throwing money at them isn’t enough; you have to change their behavior from the ground up.  The people participating in the St. Louis riots this past weekend are not interested in law and order; they are conducting themselves as communist insurgents looking to rule society through mob influence.  If they don’t get what they want they are looking to the violence of a mob to change the conditions of the world around them—and that is an essentially anti-American activity.  We can define that by characterizing the nature of the rule of law toward individual behavior as opposed to mob justice-which is a distinctly different thing.  Mob practices are associated with communist and socialist countries, not American culture, so to apply it to this case complete with flag burning voids the warranty so to speak of constitutional protection.

As a society we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by people who have no intention on living within the parameters of a capitalist nation.  You can’t have a nation of communists within a nation of capitalists and expect everything to work out OK.  That’s just not possible.  Just like you can’t have a bunch of people protesting the values of the United States flag by not standing for the National Anthem or burning the American Flag then claiming that the activity is protected by that same flag under the Bill of Rights.  It’s just preposterous.  When we stand for the flag or put it up our flag pole, we are saying to one another that we adhere to the values for which that flag represents.  You can’t protest those values then when trouble breaks out run to the protection of that flag, even as you burn it in the city streets of St. Louis.  You also don’t have a right to protest that flag if you are currently taking money from the government for which that flag has been instituted—and most everyone participating in those St. Louis riots have their hand in the government cookie jar—so we need to look at this situation with the correct lenses.

Vile groups who hate America are using these protestors and the issue of race to fundamentally change the nature of American culture.   Back in the glory days of the pirates off American coasts where looting nations were hauling gold back to Europe from the conquered Central and South American regions, it was customary to fly the flag of whatever ship you wanted to raid.  As you got closer, as a pirate and earned their trust so they would not fire on you prematurely, pirates would then run up the Jolly Roger flag to let the victim know that they were about to be attacked and by then it was too late to flee or prepare the cannons.  That’s how pirates took over vessels to loot them of their worth without being blown from the water.  Communist groups are doing the same thing in St. Louis; they are using black people, poor people, stupid people and out-right criminals to get close enough to the law of our times to take over institutions under a condition of social paralysis.  It’s not a case of free speech; it’s an act of piracy.  The only way to quell that violence is with violence because reason has left the battlefield.  It’s a behavior problem which causes these situations, but its insurgent activity which fuels the violence afterwards with an aim of changing our nation from a capitalist society to a communist one.  That is what these rioters are really after, so we should treat them accordingly—and stop treating these insurgents as if they have a right to do what they are doing.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s ‘The Goal’: Kathy Kennedy is doing a great job with ‘Star Wars’, and how we can prove it with proper business measurements

Before anyone says, “Oh no, he’s writing another Star Wars article,” stay with me for a bit here. What I’m about to say has some very important things in it that are very “holistic.”  They span very much into our greater lives as a human species, so put on your thinking caps and follow along.  Specifically Star Wars and in general Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy have come under great attack lately for firing four directors and twelve writers as she looks for just the right combination of people to make the new Star Wars movies just right.  The most recent news was that J.J. Abrams was coming back to direct Episode 9 which caused quite a stir and finally unleashed a major backlash from the entertainment community that was surprising, because it has revealed some extremely Marxist elements that we all know are there, but these Star Wars firings are exposing it in a measurable way.   So as a guide post to keep us all from getting lost I’d like to introduce to everyone the very good, and very popular book on business, The Goal, written in 1984.  The Goal is such a powerful book that Amazon makes its executives read it and apply the basic philosophy to their industry, which obviously works.  I also happen to know that Boeing has had their industry flow professionals read the book to improve their business climate as well, so we aren’t talking about some fringe infusion of ideas here.  The Goal is very mainstream in American business—extremely well known.   In short The Goal is to make money and to use that as the identifier of all business measurements.  If you are in business the only thing you should be concerned about is making money, it’s not to provide jobs, it’s not to just make products, and it’s certainly not to fuel a political philosophy that is not aligned with the realities of the world.   Now let’s introduce the great director John Landis whom I am a tremendous fan of but has obviously lost his mind late in life.  Read the linked article for the details, but in essence Landis has forgotten that the reason for a movie studio to exist is to make money.  Disney exists to make money.  The director’s specific job is to make money for the studio, not to sacrifice themselves for some social cause, or to have artistic, and creative freedom to let their “inner voice” speak to a mass audience. The director in the case of a movie or most anything else is there to make a product that the studio can make money off of.  It’s the only thing that matters.

Now obviously to do that the product needs to be desired by the public and in the case of Star Wars it brings a lot of joy to people who go to the movies, buy the toys and video games and in general it is those movies that keep the theater experience going so that directors can work on movies that are not Star Wars and may only appeal to 5% of the population.  Movie theater owners need to make money too just to have a place to show Hollywood products.  The industry is there for them to work because enough money was made with something like Star Wars to allow for other viewpoints in other films to be presented to mass audiences around the world.   If I had to value stream map this situation for studio executives I’d of course designate the consumer at the movie theater as the customer that the value of the product design must appeal to in order to successfully implement the strategic objectives.  These people fired from the various Star Wars projects, like Colin Trevorrow and Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, just over the last couple of months were obviously not getting the holistic reason for the Star Wars films getting made.  And what people like John Landis are now criticizing Kathy Kennedy for doing is essentially the labor union point of view from the various entertainment guilds—and that is putting money before art.

I can tell you that growing up all I wanted to be in life was a film maker and an adventurer, something between a Josh Gates and Steven Spielberg.  But when I had the opportunity to work on a few movie sets and talk to people behind the scenes I realized that most of them were Marxists openly pushing for socialism in American society.  So I had to turn away from that industry—sadly.  In the old days these liberals, like John Landis, and Ron Howard had to put up with their stars such as Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood who were all conservative A-listers and Hollywood at least had a nice balance of product to present to the public.  However over the last few decades Hollywood producers looking to appeal to the Clintons and the Obamas in office tried to create a new generation of Marxists to replace the conservative leading men.  They tried to bring progressive ideas to their stories and they figured that if producers gave big explosions and loud music to a movie feature to help the Marxism go down easier, that audiences would stay with them, but that hasn’t happened.   People have just found other things to do.  It should say a lot that Netfllx productions like Stranger Things which is an obvious throwback to the 1980s and the HBO show Game of Thrones which is all about politics set in a kind of Medieval time where all the primal human instincts are explored, lust for power, sex, dominion over others are presented without a lot of subtle global warming messages, and the plight of the poor–the trend toward a customer experience is well-known..  The labor unions in the entertainment industry are looking at their situation and they are blaming Disney for not sticking to their Marxist goals of social reform but instead keeping their focus on “making money.”  Disney currently makes a lot of money off Star Wars and their Marvel projects.  They are giving audiences what they want and in return we give them money.  That’s the name of the game.

Disney to appease the creative labor unions does take up social causes-but it doesn’t help them at all toward The Goal.  They have nearly destroyed the ESPN network with progressive garbage nobody wants to hear tied to sports.  And Kathy Kennedy has messed with Star Wars in ways that could easily destroy it, by putting more of an emphasis on female characters. I don’t have a problem with it, but its a gamble to try to expand the market reach of Star Wars with females at the possible expense of the males. So far so good, but it is a risk worth noting.  Kathy Kennedy is not a Midwestern conservative, she is a social progressive and it shows in her projects.  But at least she understands The Goal which was written by Eliyahu M. Goldratt—and that is to make money.  To make money with Star Wars you must have merchandising—the experience must continue long after customers have left the movie theater.  That means that filmmakers have precisely two hours to create a product that will unleash countless books, comics, toys, t-shirts, bed sheets—you name it.  There isn’t room for some director to “put their own take on things,” they must follow The Goal—and that is to make money for Disney and its shareholders.  That is a very capitalist concept which pisses off the Marxists—but tough luck.  The product does not exist to make a point—it exists to make money because with that money many good things happen.

I went out on Force Friday a few weeks ago to buy a few items.  One of the things I had to get was a Rathtar from The Force Awakens movie, which was released on Force Friday specifically this year ahead of all the new The Last Jedi toys.  Even though I was very hard on The Force Awakens when it came out largely because Kathy Kennedy allowed the franchise to movie away from the line of stories I had been reading for thirty years in the novels and allowed J.J. Abrams to have the creative freedom to write a completely fresh Star Wars story changing the direction of the original novels dramatically, I have respect for the good work done on that movie.  My favorite scene from any movie in recent memory and certainly one of my top ten moments of all time is that scene from The Force Awakens when the Rathtars are introduced.  That was a lot of fun and whenever it’s on television when my grandkids are watching it, I usually stop what I’m doing to see it again.  At Force Friday there were a lot of happy people spending countless thousands of dollars on new merchandise because The Goal of the product which is Star Wars was aligned with their consumer needs.  Disney received a lot of money, which was The Goal, and the consumer got a quality product that spoke to them mythologically in ways they needed—for whatever reason.  The end result was good for all parties in that transaction.  It is not up to some Marxist Hollywood type to question The GoalThe Goal is market driven, it is up to those in the entertainment business to figure out what the consumer wants—not to change the consumer into something the artists wants—do you get what I’m saying—because this relates to virtually everything in our culture.

I have been extremely excited about the new Han Solo movie now directed by Ron Howard.  I think he’s exactly the right guy to make that movie which he had to take over from Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.  Obviously Larry Kasden who has made some of my favorite movies in the past understands The Goal of Star Wars as a screenwriter.  He may not philosophically like The Goal, but he’s hired to do the job of achieving it—and that’s the difference between professionalism and being a Marxist douche bag.  He’s the writer on this new Han Solo movie along with his son so when the young directors known for The Lego Movie were fired because they didn’t get what Larry was trying to put up on the screen, Ron Howard was brought in to fix things.  I was happy about it because it told me that Lucasfilm understood what The Goal was, and they were committed to it.  I have no doubt that the professionalism of Ron Howard will keep The Goal of the new Han Solo movie in focus and deliver a product that Lucasfilm needs and Disney can continue to use to make a lot of money—which is a wonderful thing.  But I did have to send Ron Howard a Tweet the other day reminding him that all his Donald Trump bashing he has been doing may very well draw a line between him and his audience—half of which like the job Donald Trump is doing.  By politicizing Star Wars, you risk deviating from The Goal, and that is dangerous to everyone involved.  Howard is a smart guy and a fabulous director, but it’s not his job to define The Goal. It’s his job to implement it as the director, and that’s what he was hired for.  All the below Tweets shown below are on Ron Howard’s main page.

The new Star Wars movies may be corporate productions that lack the heart of the solitary vision of George Lucas—but they do understand The Goal and that’s why they are special.  The three measurements in The Goal are throughput, inventory, and operational expense—everything for a successful implementation of a flourishing business model is contained within those three measurements.   Throughput in the case of Star Wars is the delivery of a movie on time from conception to the release date.  Inventory is the resources it takes to make the movie, like directors, writers, studio rentals, building props—all that stuff.  And of course operational expenses are the overall costs of keeping the movie franchise alive as a social mythology, the new theme park attractions, the marketing of merchandise and all the other big picture items.  There is a lot more to a movie than just paying honor to the creative instincts of the film’s directors or the writers.  There is much more to The Goal than just the vision of an artist.  Star Wars is successful because traditionally Lucasfilm understood The Goal.  The Marxist friends of George Lucas may have given him grief over it, but if George had listened, we wouldn’t have Star Wars.  And in that respect, what has John Landis done lately except complain.  He made that famous “Thriller” video like a million years ago.  And The Blues Brothers was made in the 70s.  I would say that Landis like his friend Spielberg has forgotten what The Goal was and instead have adopted that radical Marxism that they all share through their director’s guild.  And lucky for us, who are Star Wars fans, Kathy Kennedy has kept her eye on The Goal and not the socialist sentiments of her entertainment industry friends.   Sure she made the lead actors in most of these new movies a “girl” and she made a black stormtrooper, and put a Hispanic guy in as the lead hot-shot new pilot, which I’m sure made her liberal friends give her less grief over heading a giant capitalist movie studio—but at least she hasn’t forgotten The Goal.  And for that I must commend her.  If she has to fire 200 Star Wars directors she should, because it tells me she is committed to my customer satisfaction and not the social ranting of just another Hollywood Marxist, like John Landis.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.