The Needed Battle Between Capitalism and Socialism

The best thing to happen in America has been and will continue for quite a long time into the future, be the election of Donald Trump. If there was ever to be a proper battle between capitalism and socialism it needed to happen while he was president. I knew that battle would occur at some point in the near future for many years. After all, capitalism had created the greatest country on the face of the planet without question, especially in the category of financial resources. But socialism is what governments wanted, it gave them power and a compliant voting base, so the word democracy became a very addictive element in all global cultures. Public education around the world began to focus on New Deal socialism instead of the rigors of capitalism and several generations of children grew up on a steady dose of socialism in their lives, making them very confused adults. The masses certainly had their sentiments directed in the direction of socialism, so the concern has been mounting for many years.

If the meaning of Donald Trump’s life could be said to have definition, it was that he was being prepared for this battle his entire life. Capitalism needed an unapologetic champion, the kind of person Ayn Rand dreamed of evolving from her famous books, but never came to defend themselves. What we ended up with was people like John Boehner, Mit Romney and John McCain. Even the great Ronald Reagan fell short of a proper and sustaining defense of capitalism. The world needed a King Solomon type, someone who had lived it all and seen everything and still enjoyed lots of gold and beauty which was the direct result of capitalism.

From birth literally anybody with any kind of money in American culture, such as portrayed on television shows like Dallas with J.R. Ewing were always the villains. The heroes were always the penniless martyrs and idealistic greater gooders such as the Lone Ranger and even Zorro. I grew up on the great westerns especially Who Shot Liberty Valance and in most of their productions is the type of sentiment that was found in the creation of a New Deal under the FDR administration. Ayn Rand had made her observations about what was happening and rot her books during the 30s through the 50s. After all, she had to flee Russia during their revolution which brought along communism and she didn’t want to see the same thing happen to America. Her concern was certainly justified, even in American westerns it was always the big rancher who was the villain and it was left to the scruffy loner to save society from the villains.

In is actually a miracle that we have arrived in 2019 America with any scrap of socialism left, but as I have said many, many times, the trend in human society is to always move toward more autonomy, more individual liberty. That is the reason the cell phone industry has exploded and why personal computing and gaming is such a huge industry, because it gives people more autonomy, not less. That has caused young people to turn away from socialism in practice even though intellectually they know of nothing else. That kept capitalism alive for enough years to get a president like Trump in the White House which is why there is so much anger about his election from the institutionalist who secretly wanted socialism for the last 100 years.

This is why I often say that our public schools are worthless because their primary instruction is socialism as demonstrated by the many federal programs that are part of the curriculum coming out of the state capitols in order to get their government funding. But socialism has no place in American culture so why have public education at all if the kids coming out of it can barely read, speak, and behave properly in society. When the only goal of the public education institution which is obvious by now is to create reliable voting blocs of stupid people will continue to vote for complete losers into state and federal offices.

A lot of people are scared of the fights that are happening because there are people on both sides who have been revealed that nobody really took the time to get to know. That is what England learned in Brexit when social media effectively produced more voters than usual to participate in the election. At the same time in America, western civilization was having a similar debate and people were emerging to support Donald Trump whom had never cared to vote before. And now because of the autonomy of socialism media people have a voice they never had before and that is a very healthy thing, but it is scary to an establishment which spent the last two hundred years, likely longer, ignoring those voices and assuming that people wanted what the political aristocracy was offering. Which of course, people didn’t.

Trump‘s type of wealth was the old-fashioned kind, his elegant lifestyle and unapologetic supermodels on his arm said to the world, I work harder than you and have more. Catch me if you can, and it is that type of fuel which has produced so much enormous wealth which many Americans take for granted. Of course, some Buddhist from the orient will declare that such a life is off-center and meaningless, that we should not seek material possessions in this life, that we should live for others as they sit on a rock and contemplate the nature of the universe dirt poor and barely clothed. And the business person trained all their life to be socialists will seek peace in their lives as they are expected to be capitalists, but their minds break down due to the stress and they turn to eastern mysticism for comfort whether it’s the drum beat of some Indian music from North America or the chants of some Tibetan monks. The temptation to quit life and join the unstressed masses is great and promoted by the governments of the world and is very prevalent in our present culture. But that’s not how it was ever supposed to be, Trump was fortunate to come to terms with this early in his life. He’s not at all a stressed-out rich person drowning in wealth like Citizen Kane, he’s happy to have too much because he understands that it is just a means to keeping score in the game.

And it is the game that makes all cultures better and is at the center of capitalism. Nothing makes the lives of people better than capitalism and for a change there is finally a president who understands that and is defending it for the first time in any type of history. Even as socialists see that there is a real danger to their way of life emerging in the Trump administration their means to defend that lifestyle is forcing their most radical advocates out of hiding and into the game where they will lose, and that is a very good thing. It is better to have them functioning in the open for a change so people can make their own decisions about things. That battle might look scary, but its far healthier than what has transpired in the past. And for that we should all be excited.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Most Dangerious Thing in the World is Stupidity, not Fictional Global Warming

The enemy as I call them these days, because they are anti-Constitutionalists keep saying that global warming is the greatest threat to our future survival. They are wrong, the greatest threat to our existence is stupidity which was quite evident regarding the exchange between Dianne Feinstein and radicalized students who confronted her at her office. As hard to believe as it may be, Feinstein came out sounding like the rational person among all the leftists engaged in the discussion over global warming and the artificial deadline created by that part of the political spectrum to lend credence to their short-term objectives of world domination. The sad truth of the whole exchange was that the little children involved were entirely too young to be driven to such passions, they were there because of their mind-numbing educations which feature instruction in all things liberal. It was their teachers who were the real radicals hiding behind the children for which Diane Feinstein had to defend herself.

There is a very good book called Anthem by Ayn Rand that describes the process that at least the political left is following, and eventually in that book society forgets everything it ever knew and the big event in the novel is that mankind rediscovered how to use a lightbulb. It’s a work of fiction of course but it describes well the process for which human beings regress intellectually if they allow themselves to think the wrong things in their culture. In this case, global warming is one of those stupid things that actually lowers the general IQ of society because it is completely rooted in falsehoods and political theater. The poor children at Diane Feinstein’s office have no way of knowing any better, their teachers were the ones who programmed in their minds the things they said. And that is precisely the danger to us all, the greatest danger. Our education system doesn’t teach kids how to think, they teach them what to think.

I would propose that the ability to think is the most important attribute that human beings have, and it makes us all much more unique than any environmental issue. At the core of all environmentalism is the assumption that humans are bad because what they produce while thinking damages the world instead of leaving the world to conduct itself in accordance to nature. However, humans by thinking and changing the world are acting in accordance to their own nature, the same as a volcano erupting, or a forest fire burning appears to have a destructive effect, the longevity of the action turns out to be very good for everything in the grand scheme of the universe. Understanding that, humans can think whereas everything else in nature, including animals can’t. There is nothing more important in the world or anywhere than thought, so thinking more should be encouraged, not demonized.

But we can see the effects of many years of radicalized left leaning public education where children have been taught all the global warming nonsense, and to believe it they have been taught not to think, but to accept as reality whatever the adults in their care instructed them to. And even the extremely liberal senator Diane Feinstein from California understands how bad it is. The collectivist goo that the children were functioning from actually had the audacity to think they were more important than the life work of the California senator and she took offense to it. The teachers there with the kids sounded like Ocasio-Cortez idiots, young people who themselves were forced to drink the Jim Jones Kool-Aid, or the Manson family cult doctrine. Instead of killing other people however their liberal cult is simply out to kill capitalism. That is their only objective.

There is only one objective to the global warming advocates, it is the destruction of capitalism and the products of mankind’s thoughts. The expectation is to place all human beings into a subservient role to the god of mother nature so to evoke in them a superiority that unites the world to something greater than the human being. But it ignores the question, and the reality, what if the human being were superior to nature? A thinking person looks at the world as tools to work with to create new things. It doesn’t just bend to the wills of nature, it asks what could be more, which is a very creative experience, something every artist in the world could sympathize with. Nobody would think to alter the creative output of Pablo Picasso, he is celebrated for his rebellious forms of art expression, which is to say, his inheritably human application to creativity. Yet during the war in the fascism of Europe where people could only pick the socialism of the Nazi, the fascism of Italy or the communism of eastern Europe the ideas of freedom from political tentacles were nonexistent. As an extremely creative person he had to pick one since he was at the top of the art world in order to survive socially. That is essentially what the New Green Deal has done to many of these liberals, it’s the new communism for which everyone must choose to unite under otherwise their network channels into society will be cut off for them. It is just a new kind of tyranny and was the theme to Ayn Rand’s book, how humans forget everything they ever knew just so they can survive in the theater of bad ideas and circumstance.

What is being taught in our public schools is stupidity, which is an odd thing to say considering that the entire effort of public education is supposed to be intelligence. Yet the products of public education, for which we are all a part of in some way or another, is to accept orders from the culture, to memorize what “they” tell you, and to not develop critical thinking on your own. That is the only way a hoax like climate change could be accepted among a population the size of North America or Europe, is if all the means of education were exploited in the same global way, so that everyone suffered with equal paralysis the effects. But the danger to that system of thought, especially in the United States where people are very autonomous and thrive to have options in their lives, for those left who can and do think on their own, they see very quickly the hoax for what it is. And Diane Feinstein isn’t the only one insulted with this new breed of young people who repeat what they’ve been taught but are unable to think on their own completely dependent on the system of education that created them.

The evidence is in the young people who were in Feinstein’s office, they were too young to have an opinion, yet they were sent there by the adults to evoke news headlines and drive the climate change narrative deeper into our culture from the mouths of innocent little children. It is the ultimate, non-thinking exploitation. But there is real evil in it because for it all to work humans have to give up what it is they are the most valuable at extracting, intelligence and creative thought from the world. Instead, the suggestion is that we are to yield to a power that is not superior but is instead regressive so that the political left can gain power by exploiting stupidity and fears. And that is the tragedy of our times, because too many of our youth are already ruined, and until we change the nature and focus of public education, that evil of non-thinking will continue.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Brexit

The HBO movie released in January, Brexit: The Uncivil War staring Benedict Cumberbatch as Dominic Cummings was exceptionally good. I thought it was stunning that most of the movie was shot from the perspective of the “leave” position. I kept waiting for the liberal spin on the whole thing which eventually did come during the last five minutes of apologetic musings about what a travesty the whole endeavor had been. But up to that point the movie did a great job of showing how the Brexit deal started and how it ended up shocking the world a few months ahead of the Donald Trump election in 2016. I understand very well the role Cummings played in the movement that did shock the world to its very foundations because at precisely that moment we were going through the same kind of thing in the United States and I had a front row seat. So the movie was very interesting to me as a reflection as to how we arrived where we are today across the world. However, the big difference between the United States and Brexit as they explored in the end of the movie, Cummings did create the platform for the rebellion against the establishment, but there was no leadership to take Brexit to the next level beyond the vote. Whereas in America, President Trump did provide that leadership and has been very successful. The filmmakers of this Brexit movie seemed happy to role in the rebellion so long as they said sorry in the end. But Hollywood won’t be making any such comparative movies about the Trump victory, because it was successful, and nobody involved is sorry.

Watching the movie put a lot of things in perspective in hindsight. As I’ve stated many times, the rebellions in Europe and America, within “western” culture were going to happen as a result of the autonomy we all have now with personal information. While the Brexit film focused on the data collection Cummings used to secure over 3 million new voters in 2016 to their cause, the reason for those voters activations is the real story. The feelings people had which led to Brexit were there whether or not anybody wanted to admit it, just as they are in the United States in what elected Trump in the same fashion. Once voters had an option, no matter how much data collection anybody was able to do, the sentiment was deep and long-standing, and once people thought they had a shot at something new, they took it.

The political left all around the world is still apparently shocked by all this. They obviously haven’t gotten over it in Europe and they certainly are lost in the United States. The roots of the political left are rooted in counter-culture rebellion, so they understood Brexit from that vantage point and were able to make a good movie as a result. But they now find themselves in the perspective of the “stay” people from the movie. There are some scenes at the end of the movie where the political left represented here by Hollywood writers, producers, and directors are having this discussion with themselves, and it was fascinating to watch. For them these elections in 2016 were real tragic events, they thought they understood the way the world worked, and they want to blame Russia, or billionaire funding of data collection as the silver bullet that wrecked their world. But honestly, the anti-left rejection by voters was always there, it just needed to have the issue framed for them in ways they felt compelled to act upon.

That is precisely the reason that the MAGA hats in the United States are causing so much consternation, because the messaging inspires action by those who have been typically left out of the process of governing. In the movie Brexit, they had a few scenes with focus groups of what the establishment thought were typical voters and it clearly showed how the new way of doing things outpaces the old. Hillary Clinton got caught in the same trap, using old analysis and campaign professionals to stay within an institutional framework while the world was moving toward much more thought autonomy. There are more options for individuals than ever in the history of the world and everyone should have seen this coming, that the political parties of old did not fulfill those changing needs. So the old way wasn’t going to work the moment an option was created. The MAGA hats are constant reminders as we now move into the 2020 elections that the political left still doesn’t understand what happened. They understand what happened to them, which is obvious in the Brexit movie, but they don’t understand why or what to do about it. That is the reason for their panic, and their need for the Mueller investigation, to buy them time to get their own messaging for 2020. But the time is up and they are entering that season without any answer and that has caused this anger toward the hats over the last few months. While Brexit struggles to actually move from the EU without any real leadership, President Trump has taken the ball and ran with it and is now scoring lots of touch downs. The movement of rebellion is here to stay.

Taking several steps back to look at the situation properly it is clear that no institutional figure in western culture understands what is going on and they have gone to great strides to revert everything back to the norms of yesterday which will never happen again. The reason isn’t because of Donald Trump, or Dominic Cummings, but because human beings desire autonomy. Western culture acknowledges personal autonomy which is why it’s even an option. In the East everything is sacrificed for the greater good, so in the battle between east and west, that fight will play out along economic lines which is happening presently. The meeting with Trump and North Korea is certainly part of that plan, to take a hostile communist regime that can barely feed their own people and turn them into a capitalist haven, in spite of all the help China tries to give them. Trump is playing that chess game brilliantly. But the real internal battle within western civilization is the fight over what role institutions played among people who desire much more autonomy. When there were only 3 or 4 networks on television and people still read newspapers, the establishment thought they had everything all bagged up. But now people have too many choices for rigid institutions to exist so statically, and that is the cause of the political change. That is why Brexit happened and why President Trump is in the White House.

The conflict that has resulted isn’t caused by exploiting hate for change, but the hate that has been generated by restricting human options. All political parties have insisted on not listening to their customers, the voters, and instead giving them limited options politically, which has caused the hate we see today. Those emotions were unavoidable, there will never be a going back to the good ol’ days of blind compliance. That’s not the world we are living in. The producers of the Brexit movie understood that for most of the film, even if they had to throw some red meat back to Hollywood at the end. The film is certainly worth watching.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Firm Tits, Tight Asses, and Virgin Galactic

I understand why it wasn’t the lead story on every news publication across the world, but that’s still no excuse. Virgin Galactic took their first passenger into space during their second trip above 50 miles in a series of flights that should put Richard Branson himself into the passenger seat by summer of this year. From there the commercial space race will be open for business and the world filled with humanity will be forever changed. But this has been the case for a long time, space is a very above the line thing to do, and most of our civilization is still very much below the line, where they perceive there is safety and security in staying victims to earth’s conditional elements. Going to space is a definitive jump into taking responsibility for mankind’s own fate and future which then brings to question lots of elements that no civilization is quite ready for. But still, I would have thought there would have been more coverage of Virgin Galactic’s efforts and trajectory of success. In my way of looking at things this story should have been the lead on every publication and cable news show. But it wasn’t which goes a long way to painting a picture of how technology and human invention is outpacing our institutional responses and political understanding. When President Trump says he wants a “Space Force” he’s an above the line guy who is already in the future. Many of our human neighbors, however, still have a long way to go.

On more than one occasion I have pointed out that the main differences between our contemporary politics could be seen clearly in the summer of 1969 when Apollo 11 reached the moon and we walked there for the first time that we know of. A month later was the music festival of Woodstock where people rolled around in the mud naked and drunk living like a bunch of apes from Africa listening to primitive music and intoxicating themselves with drugs and alcohol so that they could lose their minds from the burden of thought. Those divides are very much alive today, even more so than then because as more options have technically become available to our culture the real desire that below the line people had to hide in the masses has been exposed. There are no excuses for a good life when options are available, but mankind does not have the courage to take them. So pressure escalates and the differences between people become much more noticeable. That leaves about half of our world terrified of what will happen as civilian space travel becomes the norm.

I have run into this kind of thing in people many times and usually I avoid such people like they have the plague. So much so that many years ago when a really hot young chick wanted to sleep with me with an almost mad like obsession I found myself at her house getting to know her better with the obvious next steps in the back of both our minds. That’s when she started belittling movies that I really liked, which she thought was cool to put down. As a female she represented sex and the social norm. Many males will adopt their views towards whatever a female thinks so that they can have sex with the woman. That’s a standard practice among all males, I have talked about this phenomenon among school levy supporters where guilt driven moms support school levies because they think it’s the next best thing to them actually doing their jobs of raising their children. And generally, even though it means they have to pay more in taxes, men generally go along with it because they don’t want to limit their opportunities for sex. So that was the game this girl was playing, she was trying to establish the norms of our relationship. She figured that was her job and she had the looks to do it, even though she was the initiator of the sexual activity. That’s when she started bad mouthing Star Wars and Indiana Jones. She brought it up because I wore a hat that looked a little Indiana Jonesish to her and she thought it was funny. Well I didn’t. Even though she was a pretty young girl I saw instantly in her a little loser who was headed nowhere quick and our little get together ended about five seconds later. I left and never spoke to her again which was baffling to her. Apparently, she had never been turned down by anybody before. But in looking at her I couldn’t help but think that she was one of those below the line Woodstock types and that was very unattractive to me.

The job of science fiction, such as in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, is to get people to ask the questions, then to use science to make those things happen. Science fiction typically is a very above the line kind of art. Even negative horror stories like Alien by Ridley Scott is forward thinking in how they are working out problems based on space travel. The job of the fiction is to think above and beyond our present circumstances. The Indiana Jones films are great for asking questions and the character himself is very positive. You never see Indiana Jones sitting around crying about things. He just moves on to the next great adventure which is the kind of attitude our entire society needs to utilize to embrace space travel. So having characters and stories like those in our culture helps us all move into more complicated realms of thinking, such as commercial access to space.

I say I didn’t speak to that girl again, but I did watch her decline for a few years. Even though we worked together she gradually slipped away into darkness and ended up becoming what we might call “trailer trash.” She ended up having kids by at least three different men, she was a stripper who made pretty good money for a while until she hit 23 and started looking bad from all the smoking and hard living. Girls like that end up looking like wet paper bags left outside during a storm that blows up against a chain-link fence for several days. By the time they are 30 nobody wants anything to do with them except extreme losers and their life ends up washed out and hopeless. That is always the trajectory of not only below the line people, but below the line cultures. To have a sexual relationship with someone like that means you have to get too close and my position has always been, I’d rather not. Staying above the line in thinking means you have to stay away from getting messy with below the line people. When she declared that she took the social position against Star Wars at the time and Indiana Jones which for her was to say that she was a grown up and not interested in playing with toys and childish ideas, let me know that she and I had nothing but attraction in common, and that wasn’t enough.

And that distinction between people is where we find ourselves with this Virgin Galactic story—too many people have yielded to young seductress like the girl I mentioned and let their minds stay on below the line ideas instead of considering the possibilities of what civilian space travel actually means to our culture. To far too many people considering such a thing is still for geeks and Star Wars lovers. Space is uncool while getting stoned and drunk while at some latest music concert is cool. Of course, that makes no sense but is precisely why this Virgin Galactic story wasn’t the lead for the entire world, because too much of our culture is still functioning below the line in thinking. But I’ll make a prediction in this case, that is going to change fast. Science fiction is becoming science fact and not even the little tramps and soothsayers with perky tits and tight asses can deviate our trajectory towards destiny. And I think that is just wonderful.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Reason MAGA hats are Important

My recent interests in all things Constitutional is essentially because I have been considering the legal foundation for removing our present government from power and replacing it with something better. I consider the Trump administration something better, and if they were allowed to do their work unimpeded, I would not be thinking of such things—I’d just be happy to vote in elections and let the world turn. But that’s not what’s happening, the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago is all the evidence we need to see to understand just how bad the problem is. What Smollett did by hiring a couple of friends to attack him so that he could make Donald Trump supporters look like crazed lunatics is not exceptional, it’s quite common and is increasing in frequency. It’s quite clear that Democrats understand that the Make America Great Again hats from the Trump campaign are keys to winning in 2020 and they have no such message to compete with. So they are trying to tear down the message and put Republicans on the defense so that those hats can’t be used in future campaigns. That’s the game they are playing and the media is dying for examples. That’s where Jussie Smollett thought he could increase his profile by playing into that media game and it almost worked. Everyone on that political side of things knows the game. He was trying to be a hero to them and he got caught. But everyone from the FBI to most movie studios is in on the game and it has provoked the obvious need for perhaps an open rebellion to remove those people from our governing forces.

The real essence of the problem is that the entire platform of the Democrat party is a below the line one, meaning everything they stand for is about a lack of personal accountability and victimization. As we’ve discussed in the past no matter what size the organization is, people who think below the line must be removed before any level of success can be implemented. Governments and countries are not too big to fail, which is obvious by the current national debt in the United States. Much of that debt is created by below the line thinking, by throwing lots of money at groups of people who use below the line thinking to receive help from the government. The system obviously can’t afford that relationship which is why we have a debt. But the original cause is the below the line thinking that created the situation. Below the line thinking and above the line thinking are not conducive to each other. It’s like saying that you want to maintain good air conditioning in a building that has no windows and everything is open to the outside. You can’t have both things. A country and a government can’t have below the line people always trying to undo what above the line people create.

The real fight in America is for the below the line people to not be left behind as above the line people desire to advance as a nation and grow into new and exciting things. With Trump’s MAGA hats and overall campaign message, the below the line people understand that if the nation values those types of things once again, that there isn’t anywhere for them to hide so they are of course very opposed to such a national position. That is the reason for the violence, such as what happened on the campus of Berkley this past week to the conservative activist who was punched in the face by another person quite violently, and with no real provocation. The attacker obviously is a below the line thinker fighting for their right to maintain that status. The MAGA hats are a very positive message that is a threat to all below the line people because it doesn’t just give them political cover in a big scary world, but it indicates that changes are on the horizon for which they are terrified of. That is the only explanation for the kind of evil shown in the Berkley video where the attacker just wanted to smash the face of an above the line advocate through sheer intimidation.

The attempted destruction of the young fellow Nick Sandman from Covington Catholic is another such case, he and his friends were just wearing MAGA hat souvenirs from a field trip they had taken to Washington D.C. when they were systematically attacked by below the line people, which ended up being a national story. The media picked up on it because they were trying to change the narrative of the young kids learning positive things in Washington D.C. to an indigenous person who had their ancestry robbed from them by white Europeans standing up to the MAGA hat culture. Only that wasn’t the real story, the aggressor was the drunk old Indian who was simply a below the line loser living off the efforts of his ancestors. From there the story fell apart in much the way that the Smollett story did. Both cases were examples of a below the line culture trying to prop up their circumstances against the efforts of above the line people to elevate the efforts of the nation. That is essentially what the MAGA hats mean, they are refusals to accept below the line conditions and to take the country to above the line thinking.

If there is anything great about Donald Trump that any point in history would agree with, it’s that he is overall a very positive person who insists on functioning above the line. President Trump may not have led a perfect life, but he has always tried to even if it took smoke and mirrors sometimes to get there. His popularity through the many storms that have been thrown at him are that people want to move into the direction of being an above the line nation. But yielding to the whims of below the line people isn’t compatible so Democrats know that the longer Trump keeps the nation looking above the line, the less overall power they will have which is the reason for the all out panic they are now experiencing. If below the line thinking, specifically victimhood, is taken away as one of their public sentiment weapons, the Democrats won’t have a platform to run on. If Trump is successful in encouraging a majority of Americans to think above the line again, Democrats will lose most of their elections in the future because they have become completely dependent on the victimization culture.

The MAGA hats are a symbol not of hate, but hope. But to people who want to hide their own personal failures in a below the line culture, those hats are terrifying, and they will fight for the right to be a loser. And given that understanding it may be needed to use the Constitution to justify a complete takeover of our current government which is a very below the line exercise. In that case it is more important to be an above the line culture rather than a nonviolent one. There is no value in being a passive recipient that does not protect value in society through attacks of below the line thinking. And under those conditions the need for violence is obvious and likely very much-needed.

 

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Guns in the Ohio Constitution

We have been hearing and seeing so much about what the Democrats want for America, from open border policies, to high taxation, murderous abortions, and abuses of the standing armies to raid private citizens in the middle of the night and throw them in jail just over political maneuverings, an obvious abuse of authority. I’ve always been a bit of a Constitutional hound, I trust mostly the decisions of the Supreme Court at the federal level, even when they don’t go my way. When I don’t like the direction of the country for instance, instead of taking up guns and overthrowing the government, like we are expected to do when things get out of control, I settle on elections. That’s why I supported Donald Trump for president, he was a needed change done in the most peaceful manner. However, after the arrest of Roger Stone, Trump’s first campaign manager into the 2016 elections and the obvious bad treatment of other people directly connected to President Trump by the FBI I have been going back and rereading the Constitutions that have founded our nation and thinking differently about what to do next. It started for me by asking what I would do if the FBI or local police were instigated to come to my door to arrest me, how would I handle it. That answer provoked me to revisit the law and consider the correct options.

But too often we assume that the federal government has supremacy law over the states, which we know from the Tenth Amendment that it doesn’t which means that the Constitutions of whatever state you live in are important considerations as well, and I can say that the Ohio Constitution is not an easy thing to put your civilian hands on, which it should be. Anyway, I picked one up and for current reading. A previous copy I had from something like thirty years ago was missing so a new one was needed and once it arrived, I found a modern reading of it to be quite refreshing. Assuming that I have to say I know a few Ohio Supreme Court Justices, not well enough that we swap spit in the shower, but well enough to call them neighbors whom I speak with from time to time so I understand the nature of case-law which has been shaped by the Ohio Constitution over time, but what I want to focus on are a few very nice quotes listed in the Preamble of the Article I: Bill of Rights, which read very similarly to the federal Bill of Rights inspired by the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Specifically, I found the language of #2 of the Ohio Bill of Rights to be much more specific than the federal Second Amendment which we all hear so much about. It makes it quite clear what the intention of a society of gun owners is supposed to be doing and why they have the power to do it. There is no mistake about it, it says: Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary: and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the General Assembly. Essentially, if the government of Ohio gets too far out of control, everyday people need to be able to abolish it and start over. Things that come to my mind as causes for such a thing to happen would be massive debt and abuses of authority. Lucky for all of us living in Ohio, it’s a pretty well-run state, but part of the reason why is that there are a lot of gun owners who don’t have much tolerance for nonsense. We are not obligated to just deal with a bunch of spoiled brat government employees. If they screw up and over extend themselves, we have an obligation to end that government and start a new one.

Another part of the Ohio Bill of Rights that jumped out at me was #4 Bearing arms; standing armies: military power. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; by standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Now this was written in 1851, not that long ago. And when reading it I can’t help but think of the Roger Stone case and the corruption we have seen at the level of the FBI under James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Granted, these actions were not in Ohio, Stone was arrested in Florida and the core of the FBI characters were likely regulated by other constitutional parameters not specific to Ohio, but the intent behind the language could not be clearer. A standing army in times of peace tends to breed corruption, when a police state is established where they represent the arm of a corrupt government and they have power over people who don’t, bad things tend to happen, and we see it all the time. I find this portion of the Ohio Bill of Rights to be particularly potent in establishing legal precedent. Government even at the level of the Supreme Court of the state or at the federal level cannot trump this basic premise with case-law assumptions. Because if we have to abolish the government for whatever reason the grounds for doing so revert back to this basic foundation of law in Ohio for which we all agree is the law of the land.

Maybe this is why the Ohio Constitution isn’t more publicized. I’m sure I read these things before, but in the context of our modern times they are much more distinct than their federal brother. Later during the progressive era of 1912 there were amendments to the Ohio Constitution which complicate things a bit, but essentially the 1851 version is the law of the land, so why don’t more people know this stuff? It should be more broadly broadcast not just through the state of Ohio, but in other states trying to understand the foundations of their own government. I mean without question the State of Ohio evokes the privileges of eminent domain and public welfare rights in regard to private property as written in the 1851 Ohio Constitution, so why not apply the same to the #2 and #4 section of the Preamble where gun rights are the obvious emphasis? The obvious answer of course is that much of the Constitutions that make our country what it is at both the federal level and the level of the state are interpreted by government employees for the benefit of themselves. But behind it all is the expectation that the people for whom the constitutions are written are expected to enforce justice when needed, and in these modern times, it looks like its needed. There are worse things than violence in a society, and that is a civilization that is just asleep at the wheel and has lost itself to the powers of government reverting back to an aristocratic existence. It is far more dangerous to become an overly compliant society that has lost its freedoms than to take up arms to remove corruption from office. Just a few things to think about as we learn more about how our government really operates and what little respect they have for our current president or the people who put him in office.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Why We Should Bring Back Duels

I’ve said it before, but it is worth stating again, especially after the behavior of McCabe from the FBI. In reading the Constitution of the United States there is an element from that time which I think we should bring back, dueling. Pricks like Andrew McCabe have evolved thinking they are dominate players largely because we have a society that doesn’t challenge each other. When the Constitution was created, if one person gave insult to another the other person could demand satisfaction (a duel) which had a tendency to bring value to the exchange. People had a tendency to respect each other because if they didn’t then they might get pulled into a duel where death might become an option. So the general level of correspondence was higher among people, and the education level was additionally more of a factor. For our American Constitution to work the people it protects need to be somewhat intelligent and that was a byproduct of a society that understood the individual necessity for satisfaction. Dueling ironically seems to be a mandate for a civilized and intelligent society, because it increases the level of language and interaction between people. People tended to treat each other better so that they wouldn’t evoke a desire for another person to “demand satisfaction.”

Many people consider it barbaric to have a gun duel to the death, they think that the act of violence is a true breakdown of social behavior. But I would argue not. It is far worse to have prickly passive aggressive losers like Andrew McCabe operating behind rules and regulations instead of the ethics of respect and justice. The reason the FBI became such a corrosive force in modern America is precisely because they don’t respect the people they are supposed to be protecting. They are the ones with the guns and power, why do they need to respect some lowlifes under their care. The relationship they have with society thus became corrupted because they lost sight of what their role was with people. When there are no mechanisms to demand respect, one side gains too much power while the others are forced into subservience. In the days of the duel, this exchange equalized law and order, it didn’t corrupt it.

Of course, the great mistake was that people of law thought they could eliminate such a need by replacing violence with legal books and lawyers, but this has only served to distance valor from every day activity, and valor is at the heart of ethical behavior. Without being able to protect your name, it leaves such things up to the courts which takes away all the personal responsibility and thus then corrupts the society at large. Such a system allows people like Andrew McCabe and James Comey to have the illusion of power without the actual check for such things under the assumptions of valor. Valor is in taking responsibility for defending your name and the people who rely on you. Going to court to sue someone or to defend your name in such a way removes the valor from the process and greatly reduces the quality of the effort.

Not that people should go around fighting each other all the time. A few times in a lifetime is probably all it would take as an earned reputation tends to keep hostile agents from constantly challenging you, such a society is far more civil because of the emphasis on valor and honor than our present society of legal defense by lawyers and books. Such a system allows masters of the law to appear much more powerful than they really are and invites to their minds the temptation to become corrupt. If someone could have dueled Andrew McCabe at a dinner party for some reason or another it is unlikely that he would have evolved into such a corrupt figure. The origin of his corruption is in the lack of valor in McCabes life. Being a lawyer who can hide behind mountains of paper and procedure has lessened the ethic behavior of our society, not made it better. Early legal minds assumed the opposite would happen, but that has not been the case.

Most young men go through some form of dueling in their lives, whether it’s the fight with a bully after school, or a fight over a girl, it is the way that males test each other. In this age where progressive influences are attempting to paint such behavior as toxic masculinity, we should not be surprised to see the behavior of the males of our society deteriorating rapidly. Without some way to evoke valor in our society the values of people deteriorate rapidly. In the time that the Constitution was written duels were still quite common. The legal minds of those times tried a different approach but that has turned out to be detrimental to our civilization. Fighting another human being can be a terrifying experience and when someone challenges you, it’s up to you to overcome those fears to protect the valor and ethics of your individuality. Without that means of doing so, values disappear from society. The law by itself is not enough, it has empowered corrupt people to rule over others without the fear of overcoming another person and facing your own terminal end.

Most of the time, when a fight occurs between two people, after the conflict friendships usually form because the relationship is cemented in respect. Legal battles are not conducive to those types of exchanges. A fight between two people is a way of establishing valor and respect and once that is robbed from society the expectations of civility is much lowered. Having to face down an enemy with a gun in a fight to the death is a pretty terminal endeavor. There is the likelihood of not going home to your bed that night and that your life could end right then and there. That makes people behave better than they would if the conflict is just a bunch of name calling and legal assumptions. The terminal nature of a duel is a needed ingredient in a society of any kind.

Even though we have all been taught since the time we were little that guns are a barbaric sentiment and that our legal system is far superior to a duel in a dusty street, I would argue that the opposite is the case. We were better off and more respectful of each other when we could call someone out and demand satisfaction for their smearing of our good name. In order for a society to value something as well written as the American Constitution is, it requires a society to be knowledgeable and respectful of each other and the best way to do that is not to hide behind a legal system to resolve differences, but to fight it out among each other when those circumstances occur. When such moments of valor are robbed from people you get corrupt people like Andrew McCabe running our institutions and that is not a good thing. It is far more dangerous to have passive aggressive activists such as McCabe manipulating the law behind the scenes than to just have a duel in a city street to resolve a conflict. The duel is a much more honest and ethical resolution and perhaps its time we bring it back.

Rich Hoffman