Clipping the Wings of our Kids: Public education has been a purposeful disaster designed to usher in an era of communism in America

It doesn’t seem that long ago to me, but I suppose it is, that I wrote many articles, and did many radio shows talking about how public education and colleges were teaching socialism to our children.  I’ve actually been talking about it my entire adult life and even sooner.  I never liked public school not because I didn’t like learning.   In actuality I am far more educated than the average person; I have continued learning my entire adult life.  I did attend college, but I hated it—hated it passionately because I felt even back then that the institution was teaching anti-American ideas.  In my college days I read a lot of books, none of them were the kind professors wanted me to read and I spent enormous amounts of time in the Perkins at Clifton on the campus of the University of Cincinnati reading books I enjoyed, like those from Joseph Campbell.  So I came out of my “education” years protected by the primary afflictions that most American adults suffer through—the socialist indoctrination of our education system.  I had something to compare to because I did read a lot, so I was one of the few who never in my life not one time, felt that socialism was worth a try.  But in 99% of all education institutions K-12, then to college, communism and socialism have been taught and American traditions have been ridiculed and this has brought us all to a very dangerous place.  In my unique position I was clear eyed to point it out.  But only now do people finally see what I was talking about.

I always felt a little sorry for the reporters I dealt with over time when I’d tell them something about what was happening to our youth and they couldn’t get their minds wrapped around it.  This was especially problematic during the last decade when George W. Bush was president.  Socialism in public institutions was growing in an obvious way back then but people couldn’t get their minds around how much they had been taught to accept it—because it was too close to them.  It was like calling their mom fat.  It didn’t matter that she may have been, but to them it was their mom.  Their schools were places where they came to age on many aspects of their lives, where they obtained their first kiss, made their first friends, learned to color, read, and speak.  So people by their nature were very defensive of their schools.  They were even more protective of where they went to college because that brought to them many more coming of age experiences—so they’d defend the part they played with great protection, almost like their education experiences were like second parents and were beyond ridicule.  But I did it anyway and this caused much consternation—especially with members of the press.

Back when I was very involved in levy fights and public education issues while doing a lot of radio on 700 WLW in Cincinnati my political enemies would say to members of the media “why do you put him on the radio so much?  He’s in the newspaper too much and on television too much, you people in the media are giving him a platform to talk nonsense and conspiracy.”  Well, as it turned out, I was completely correct and when the media outlets did listen to my enemies, I simply turned to this blog site which has done so much more than their outlets to educate people on the truth of the matter and has been far more useful. However, what I was saying back then which was heavily scrutinized as a falsehood by mainstreamers has now been irrefutably validated.  We now know that socialism and communism have been the prime objectives of public education and now many of those long skeptical voices are talking about it toady where even ten years ago they wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.  Now they are talking and finally people are starting to realize that their tax money has been used by the state to create this public education system that just isn’t reflective of the American experience.

To be honest many people wonder why I like people from other countries so much.  It’s true; I do love immigrants coming into America.  One of my son-in-law’s is an immigrant and I watched him go through the naturalization process which I thought was very impressive.  Most people who come from other places in the world and have not had their wings clipped by the American education system intellectually are much smarter than the average American today, and they work harder.  I find I have more in common with those people than I do with my neighbors of 30 to 40 years.  The person who has gone through the American naturalization process within the last decade knows more about America and its method of economy than the average grade school kids do graduating from the 12th grade. The immigrant knows more about capitalism than the American student does most of the time, so I find immigrants more relatable to the American experience which I personally love.  What’s so sad about this condition is that the naturalization process is relatively short, yet what it produces in people is a much better result than 12 years of public education and four years of college.  It takes most Americans over twenty years to unlearn all the garbage they learn in public schools and they do a lot of damage over that span of time.  What happens in public schools is that essentially people get their wings clipped so that they cannot fly away from the imposition of socialism.  Their minds are stunted purposely for the benefit of the state to manage them more effectively.  From the position of state control, it is much easier to organize a population that can’t fly away intellectually, so they clip the wings of their young so they can manage them better from their perspective.

Yet the worst is yet to come. Most young people today would prefer socialism and communism over capitalism and they are now starting to vote.  This was always the plan of the left, going way back to the start of the Department of Education, which bloomed under Ronald Reagan.  The DOE was never put in place to educate our young people.  They were always intent to program us all into the ways of communism from day one in 1979.  The communist conspiracy isn’t a local one where the public school in our neighborhoods lead the charge, the problem has always come from the state with unfunded mandates designed to pull us all into a black hole of recollection designed to frustrate local participation while the state continued to impose its will on the education system as a whole.  Overwhelming school boards in this top down way, it has allowed communist teachings to seep right into every school through the teacher unions—which was and always will be a communist method of socialized management providing an unfiltered path straight into the minds of our kids.  Even down to the concept of “sharing” that we all learn in the first grade, it’s a communist method of instruction from the minds of intellectuals who would rather see America assimilate into the European view of the world rather than the philosophy that evolved on the world stage just prior to westward expansion in North America. “Make sure to ‘share’ those crayons in your desk with that sloppy stinky kid you sit next to in class.”

Yes it’s good to hear mainstream broadcasts like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News finally talking about this important issue, and I think under the Trump administration that the trend will be reversed.  But it’s going to be a mess for a long time because so many kids who are now adults grew up with this open socialism and communism being taught in our primary places of learning.  It would in many ways have been better for most people to be raised in a barn without all the garbage that has been poured into their heads now than having to unlearn most that they know.  It really is the biggest tragedy of our times, the massive amount of ignorance that handicaps most people because of their educations.  For me personally I am enjoying the validation that what I have said for so long is finally being recognized.  I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist.  When I get involved in something, I do it well and I always come out on top eventually, so it should have meant more to people when I lent my good name to this issue so long ago, because we could have alleviated so much pain and suffering.  Maybe next time they’ll listen.  At least I hope so for their sakes.

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

Liberal Men Just Can’t Keep Their Hands off Boobies: Trump is forcing errors in his opposition that is healthy for America

 

Again, if we rewind to Inauguration Day, 2017 where newly elected President Trump was ceremoniously being ushered in as the 45th occupant of the White House as socialists, Marxist college students and a barrage of angry women took to the streets to protest sometimes violently the election, where we saw something very unique happen in all of history.  I had a feeling it was coming, but just having someone like Trump in the middle of establishment politics has literally brought down the pillars of the corrupt old progressive institutionalism for the first time in over 100 years and we can all see a light at the end of the tunnel now. What we are learning is that when Madonna and Ashley Judd gave their animated speeches about how much they didn’t like Donald Trump, what they were really saying was that they had become bitter in their lives due to sexual abuse by really creepy men like Harvey Weinstein, John Lasseter, and Charlie Rose.  For Madonna she thought it was cute to seduce Hollywood moguls like Warren Betty and many others until she became just another aging woman.  When the sex no longer worked for her, she turned to progressive strategies embroiled in feminism, and sought justice for how unfair the world was—because she could no longer shake her ass and get all of Hollywood to jump on it.  Once they stood on that stage and proclaimed fairness, but nothing stuck to Trump or other conservatives, the women who had really been sexually harassed by people like Al Franken, John Conyers, and Kevin Spacey started to emerge.  If not for the Trump election, all these women would have stayed out of the spotlight and these secrets would have remained.  But because of all the voice and celebrity that was given by the liberal media to women who accused Trump and politicians like Roy Moore of sexual misconduct for purely political purposes, then the real villains were poised to be revealed by a barrage of scandals which had been building since men and women started working together.  It was bound to happen sooner or later, and when it did, liberal men in particular would be most vulnerable due to their reckless personal philosophies and lack of personal self-control.

In the same way that you don’t find NRA members out there committing mass shootings, conservative men tend to be respectful and don’t do things that get them into trouble with women.  By their nature, conservatives are old-fashioned like that, and that keeps them from bad conduct when it comes to the often confusing nature of dealing with the opposite sex.  Liberal men though, they are used to being impulsive and shunning personal responsibility so to them reckless sexual behavior is conducive to their lifestyle.  That is after all why they are liberal, because they lack personal restraints and need institutions to keep them in line.  And never forget that one of the strategies of feminists all along was to inject women into the workplace as a hostile takeover of labor.  For the most radical of women this was always a plan of theirs, to flirt with men, entrap them into bad conduct, then to take over their jobs as a gender.  Even as all these Hollywood men go down in flames, the most ardent bra burning feminists are scheming to take over those jobs with “girl power.”  However, once they have that power and find that there are no more scapegoats to hide behind, they won’t like it.  Be careful what you wish for ladies.  But the essence of the problem is the way that liberal men have behaved once they were put in close proximity to women in the work place. The lines between professionalism and sexual pursuit for many proved impossible to avoid, especially men who considered themselves progressive.

Now it’s like a raging brush fire, these sexual misconduct allegations are the flavor of the year as virtually every major Hollywood star, business tycoon, and politician has some situation of abuse, especially if they were liberal.  All that pent-up emotion that everyone makes fun of Republicans for having, well, this is why they pent-up their emotions.  You are kinda supposed to control yourself in life.  You are not supposed to be an open book that acts on every impulse.  You can’t just grab women by their boobies and run your hands up their skirts.  Even if they tell you it’s alright, you still shouldn’t do it.  It’s only a matter of time before they change their mind and will say later that the conduct was not consensual.  Usually they are just one new boyfriend away from such statements.  I mean in the case of John Lasseter at Disney, he is a smart guy who is good at what he does.  But biologically, he’s a liberal man working next to boobies and if there isn’t some code of ethics that he functions from, it would be very easy to take things out of context if he has a habit of hugging people all the time and letting his true feelings about things be known.  This is why men used to be “stoic” in their dealings with the world.  Watch an old western movie from Hollywood and you’ll see what I mean.  Being a modern man who expresses feelings, and cries, and does all that crap that they think women want to see and hear set themselves up for the day when the women change their mind and decide to come after you for sexual misconduct—because they want your job.

Of course most women just want to work and go home to their families, but the confusing rules of conduct between men and women have made it nearly impossible, because liberal men have through the media culture established the values.  Conservative men may think about it, but they don’t often do it, because by the nature of their personal philosophies, they restrain themselves—so we aren’t seeing them in trouble the way these liberal men are enduring now. The best thing to do is to treat all people equally no matter what sex or race they come from.  All people essentially want the same things out of life, they want to make a little money to fuel their lives at home—and usually there are kids, spouses, sex partners, parents—all kinds of things that are important to them.  They want to go to work, do what they need to do, and get home to their life without incident, and anybody in a position of power should understand and help them achieve those goals.  But when the message is that men should show their emotions, that they should be spontaneous, and even that they should use their power acquired through years of service to get what they want—then particularly liberal men will be vulnerable to…..as John Lasseter put it………”missteps.”

What we’ll end up with after all these losers flame out is a better society that understands the rules of engagement much better.  Everyone will be happier with the results.  Women will learn what they need to learn.  Men will learn not to be such a bunch of emotional pussies yielding to their emotional predilections.  And politics will flush out their power players and will have a chance to replace them with truly sincere people.  None of this would have been possible if not for Trump.  The pressure of Trump forced all these errors in the liberal community, just like a baseball player might overthrow first base when a speedy runner is racing toward it. The pressure of a competent person in the White House is exposing all these weaknesses in our society and it is wonderful to see them all being uncovered.  We always knew these things were there, but nobody was able to do anything about them because the issues were elusive to our discussions.  But not anymore.  Finally, people are talking about these things and that is the first step to correcting them.

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

Ecstasy of Gold: The kind of day I had………………………

This is the kind of day I had today.

Life if great!

Now, just for fun, listen to Metallica play it.  Both versions work just fine by me.

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

 

The Grand State of Injustice Among American Institutions: Violance is probably the only way to fix it–I hope not

Like I usually do when I reload ammunition in my little workshop on Saturdays, I catch up on the radio segments of the Glenn Beck show where he has Bill O’Reilly on as a guest and they talk about the news of the week. That’s the only time I listen to Beck anymore. My interest is only in how those types of people see the world—which is a defeatist approach laced with Biblical fire and brimstone. Hearing them talk lets me know what we are up against out there as there are millions of conservatives just like those guys, which in times of peace wouldn’t be a problem. But these are not times of peace, goodwill and merriment. Not even the NFL is a safe zone for discussion these days so when pressed people often expose their vulnerabilities through discussion. Viewed in that way, Bill O’Reilly, the defeated former television star and Glenn Beck, another defeated television star from Fox News speak to each other with the assumption that they know how to win this war, which obviously, if they did, they wouldn’t be in such a state. But hearing them talk about the inaction of the Uranium One deal caught my attention, because they essentially let it be known that they expected no criminal proceedings and had lost faith in government to such a degree that it was their expectation that everyone would go free.

A few days after that broadcast Lois Lerner sought to permanently seal her records at the IRS where she was obviously guilty of using the tax collecting government agency to harass conservative groups which was a gross abuse of her power. Her actions at the IRS is evidence that government cannot be trusted with the management of our lives. They are supposed to be, but when given too much power without the ability to deal with it intellectually, they typically abuse it and make a mess of things. At that point, we all need a way to remove them from that power and to set things right. Typically, we have elections to fix the problem, but these days not even that works. So if all else fails, that is the primary reason we have the Second Amendment because once people like Lois Lerner get a hold of policing powers we are all vulnerable to the power of the state over our individual lives.

Look at the situation in the Senate, Roy Moore has a few women from 40 years ago claim he sexually abused them. Mitch McConnell who needs Roy to take that seat to keep the majority is rooting for the Democrat. While on his Senate right now Al Franken, a political enemy has done much worse, he admitted to sexual abuse and there are pictures to prove it. Yet the Senate has rallied behind Franken for some mysterious reason. What could that be? The truth is that to them, Republicans in the Senate see the whole thing as a game and they are only actors on the stage play of life. They do what their campaign contributors want them to do, and that’s the reality. They don’t represent us. They don’t care about us, and they are actually doing the work against us every day. If Mitch were sincere about his sexual harassment positions he’d be calling for Al Franken to step down, but he’s not consistent. In actuality, he wants Franken because it gives him a plot line of resistance. Republicans don’t want to lead, they want to follow—not Democrats, but their donors. And those donors do not love American sovereignty.

If we have learned anything from the Bob Mueller investigation of Russian influence of the Trump campaign, it’s that the system he represents has no definition and they think they have power over presidents elected by the people in a hard-fought election to alter the course of history. After six months of looking Mueller has found nothing and his investigation has gone nowhere, yet he looks and looks. All he really has is that an underling from the Trump campaign lied to the FBI about some time frame. If that is the standard of prosecution, then what about Hillary Clinton? She destroyed evidence. What standard of prosecution is there for her because she did much, much worse?

I literally could go on and on, and on about these types of conspiracies which have eroded away the faith that people have in their government. Even Chris Wallace (Democrat) fresh of a media award of high prestige said recently that Trump’s attack of the media is dangerous for us all. Well, how so Chris? Even over little things like the new movie release of Justice League, the establishment media attacked the film to no end hoping to scare Warner Bros. from making any more installments of the DC comic book characters. Why, because Zach Snyder is an Ayn Rand lover and his personal philosophy is something that the political left thinks is dangerous. The premise of the entire Superman trilogy which Zach directed is essentially the power of the individual, “Superman” the OVERMAN and how it helps the masses. Not that the masses are needed to make Superman. After Zach departed from the film the marketing executives at Warner Bros. tried to avoid the coming controversy by creating advertisements featuring the “we are all better together” motif, which was supposed to be red meat to the progressive Hollywood press. But it didn’t work. Justice League was all about the need for a Superman to fix the world—”Who is John Galt.” So the media won’t even let a movie alone, they attacked the film viciously hoping to sink its box office numbers to keep the message out of popular culture. When it comes to acquiring power the political progressives in both parties are on a crash course with reality and they are in every part of our lives.

Back to Beck and O’Reilly and their mild despair over the inaction of our institutions to instill justice to criminal elements. What are we to do if those institutions fail us, as they have? Well, we have elections and vote in outsiders like Donald Trump and new governors in Ohio like Jim Renacci. We replace the old and corrupt with the new and the bright and let them be free to do their work. I am proud of Donald Trump, very proud. He has done a great job in his first year and for Thanksgiving this year I am most thankful that he has been willing to do this very thankless job of being President of the United States. Nobody but him could have done the job he did and our economy shows the effort. Everyone knows I’m a big advocate of reversing the national debt. I’d love to cut away all entitlements including Social Security. But if Trump can get there through growth, I’m good. So far he has injected trillions of dollars into the American economy and that will start to reverse that debt clock very soon. If he can manage to get his tax cuts, then we will be on our way to 5% to 7% growth in our GDP and that will pay down a lot of debt. But the forces of institutionalism do not want the situation fixed. They want collapse and a global unification under the umbrella of a New World Order. And they aren’t going to let us have our desires for nationalism just because we want it. They are ready for war using our resources to deliver their promise to their multinational donors. It really comes down to that.

If elections don’t work and law and order isn’t respected—then war with the establishment is the logical next step. And for that we need guns, which is the reason for the Second Amendment. What other recourse do we have if we can’t trust the laws of mankind to instill justice to those who have violated the principles of valor, honor, and civility among mankind? If the law protects Hillary Clinton but not some low-level Trump staffer, or Al Franken and not Roy Moore, and not James Comey but goes after Donald Trump for firing the corrupt FBI Director—what is the next step when the law has let us down? I’m willing to let Trump continue to do his work and I hope for a peaceful end. But you can bet that I’m not counting on it. And in my world view surrender is not an option. What comes next is something that Mitch and the gang won’t like. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. But how things are now is not acceptable. Not with me, and with many other people.

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

Al Franken and Donald Trump are not both guilty of Sexual Harasmsent: How the left attempts to build consensus through transferred guilt

I keep hearing this ridiculous notion that somehow the creepy behavior of Senator Al Franken is similar in the category of sexual abuse to the misconduct to Donald Trump, or even Roy Moore. Democrats need friends due to their terrible behavior problems, and they are certainly making them up as they go. They tried to get the sex abuse issue to stick to Trump and it didn’t and behind that reason is a hidden truth. Bill O’Reilly learned the hard way when he lost his job on Fox News trying to play the liberal game of appeasement of the political left. Once you admit to something they own you—”the left.” It’s their little Saul Alinsky trick, that they bait you into an apology, then use your admitted guilt against you to destroy you. In O’Reilly’s case, I think his settlements were truly to shut up the women because he figured he was rich and could use money as a weapon to keep the gold diggers out of his personal life. What he miscalculated was that his admission through payment was all the left needed to knock him out of primetime existence. Al Franken on the other hand as part of the progressive establishment can admit guilt because the fangs of the media are and have always been in his favor. His role in this ruse was to bait conservatives into following his example. Once he did, they’d massacre him, the way the very liberal Megan McCain did on a Fox News segment called Outnumbered. What Megan failed to grasp in her young little brain is that the big difference between Al Franken and Donald Trump is that one admitted to the guilt, while the other didn’t.

At the end of the great book Atlas Shrugged, the hero John Galt is tortured by the government so to lend his talents to the terrible problems they had gotten themselves into—as they failed to identify the true engine of the world. It wasn’t the government or any form of collectivism that made everything work in the world, it was individuals like John Galt. But Galt had withdrawn from the world and let the government rot without his input which put a glorious end to the theory that collectively everyone contributed to the successes of creation. In reality, only a small few did so the government tortured Galt to force him to comply with the orthodox of collectivism. If Galt had admitted that he was just another cog in the wheel and that everyone was needed to help everyone else, Galt would have lost his position of representing the truth. Not a truth made up by collective consensus, but the real truth, the one that represents the nature of all existence.
All liberal thoughts are based on beliefs, and beliefs can be manipulated based on mass opinion. For instance, if a group of collectivists decide that the color blue is now red, then they feel they have the power to redefine that definition based on collective input. After all, don’t they have a point, blue is blue because we all agree that blue is blue—as opposed to red. Using that logic liberals feel they can implement any definition for anything so long as a mass group of people believe it is something rather than something else. They can call abortion for instance a right of women so long as they can change the definition from mass murder to something else using the authority of the state to for a baseline for that belief, such as in Roe v Wade. Once left leaning philosophies had corrupted the American Supreme Court, the state was then part of the process of turning belief into reality despite what the real facts of the matter were.

They have done the same thing about racism, Democrats were the political party that wanted and protected the institution of slavery. But during the Civil Rights movement when liberals had their guy President Johnston in the White House looking to cut a deal with Martin Luther King to keep the peace in America—from abuses he and his party were guilty of, they had to build a consensus that got them off the hook for blame. It was the Democrats who were the Grand Dragons of the KKK, it was they who had the lynching squads and it was they who had inspired the Nazis to used target racism to build their cultures. After caving in to King’s demands as much as he could, Johnston and the Democrats of his party sought to build a consensus that it was Republicans who were guilty of racism and inspiring the Nazi arm of fascism. Most Republicans acted as Bill O’Reilly did, they figured there was no truth to the allegations, so they didn’t answer the charges and when they could throw money at the situation to shut up Democrats they did—because many of them were rich anyway, so they figured it was money well spent. What they didn’t understand was that in the eyes of liberals their silence was an admission of guilt, so they ended up endorsing the villainy by refusing to confront it. If John Galt at the end of that fictional novel agreed to lend his services to the government to keep the peace, he would have been guilty of complicity. Like observing a murder but keeping quiet about it because the murderers proclaimed that nobody really saw what they thought they saw. If the consensus says that murder is not murder, then it’s nothing. If a tree falls in the woods but nobody is around to hear it—did it really fall? Well, of course it really fell. Just having people observe it doesn’t mean a damn thing to reality. But to a liberal, they put all their faith into their ability to shape reality by popular opinion.

When it came to Trump he understood all these rules. When they accused him of being a sexist, he denied the allegations and he fought back putting Bill Clinton front and center within the argument. He smartly knew that the Democrats were doing far worse—especially with his entertainment background, so he was wise to deny everything because it put him in a position to refute the claims of his attackers. If he had apologized he would have allowed himself to be a contributor to the leftist definition for reality, in spite of the facts. I had a similar situation myself when I called a bunch of local socialites fat assed latté sipping prostitutes, and my words ended up on the front page of every newspaper and radio station in the Cincinnati market. A radio station put me on the air and demanded that I apologize for my statements because as they said, I had insulted every woman listening to their broadcast and reading newspapers that day. Well, on the air I admitted that those were my words, but I couldn’t apologize. The on-air talent at the time wanted to know why. I explained that I meant what I said, so how could I apologize? By refusing to admit that what I did was wrong, it took away the ability of the political left to redefine my actions as something else. Trump understood that concept which is why he is doing such a great job as president. He does not get pulled in and twisted as the other presidents have in the past, and that makes him great.

What Al Franken and losers like Harvey Weinstein are doing with their admissions of guilt are coming out in favor of each other so that they can redefine the nature of sexual assault. There is always more to their tricks than they care to share with other people. What happened was that liberals attacked Trump with a barrage of allegations, all of which he denied. But people who were really sexually assaulted by people like Al Franken had no choice but to come forward and articulate the hypocrisy. Once that happened the liberals had no choice since they were all so guilty but to circle the wagons and seek to redefine the meaning of sexual assault. To do that they have to make the sitting president part of the discussion—which he still refuses to do. That has left liberals like Megan McCain aghast at their options to build a consensus. But the two cases are not alike. Al Franken is in a place all by himself. He has admitted to guilt, and there is photographic evidence of it. Talking about something is not the same as doing it—and all Trump ever did was comment on attractive women. That makes him honest. But with Al Franken, it makes him a pervert who should step down from the Senate because he has admitted to sexual harassment. And that is the way of reality, folks.

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

Jesus Would Have Been a Communist: How Democrats have spread mass evil into every aspect of our lives

Even though this scene is from the fictional HBO show, Game of Thrones, it is based on real historical precedence.  Watch first before reading what follows.  In this scene the mother of the king, Cersie Lannister was stripped away of all her “material possessions” to be purified by the house of religion.  In all reality it was a power play by the church to take over the throne of power using her as a symbol of a conquered ruler.

I was having a very nice time at the Canterbury Cathedral book store.  Just hours earlier my family and I had a wonderful meal at Gordon Ramsey’s three Michelin Star restaurant in Chelsea and I was enjoying a life well lived from the opulence of that dining experience to the rugged, and bitter cold of a harsh London rain dumping enormous amounts of moisture from the Jet Stream above as it scooped up water out of the Atlantic in February and dumped it on my head as my wife and I strolled the streets of that ancient town and all its history.  3CDAB75F-D952-4E2B-9C53-0C3E50679143.jpegWe had toured the old cathedral which witnessed so much history over the last thousand years that I was a little bit in heaven walking through that book store with a mountain of books in my hands standing at the cashier as water droplets from the heavy rain outside still dripped off the brim of my leather cowboy hat.

I love life in the United States, but the bookstores are much better in Europe, especially England because people still read there as part of their daily life.  Television isn’t very good in England and most of the good movies are made in America, so England still has people who look at reading as a valuable trait, and I share with them that sentiment.  The cashier joked that she had not witnessed anybody yet in the year who bought as many books as I did which was more truth than customer pandering.  And to reward me for the large bill she rang up on the register she offered me a free book which she had stacked up on the table behind her.  It was called The Red Dean of Canterbury by John Butler and was a respectful biography of the communist advocate Hewlett Johnson who spread his message of a collective based Utopia from the very ground I was standing on and that message reached the ears of all the big communist leaders around the world from 1831 to 1963.  Johnson used essentially his high position within the Church of England to espouse the merits of communism as he paralleled the teaching of Christian belief with that of communism—as one in the same.  He used the church to advocate and strengthen the communist idea around the globe as he viewed God’s Kingdom of God on earth as the ultimate Marxist Utopia.  To him, and to many that he convinced over his life span, they were indistinguishable.

I knew much of the story of Hewlett Johnson before the cashier handed me that very good book.  I don’t mean that the content within the book was something I agreed with, I almost turned it away because of the content.  But the quality of the book was very good, the binding was excellent.  It had great weight which meant great paper quality and a lot of love had gone into its publication which I thought was odd for it to be offered for free to anyone who spent over $100 in their store. Because of my large order I joked with the lady as I held it instantly recognizing its fine quality if I could have six of them since my total was large enough to ask the question.  She of course took me too literally and seemed pained to tell me that there was a limit to one per customer.  I brushed it off realizing that my American humor was out of context here in the heart of the literary world, so I took the book and looked for the first opportunity to read it.

We met up with my daughter and her family at The Old Weavers restaurant for a bite before calling it a day.  That particular place was over 500 years old and had a very picturesque view of the River Stour which flows by directly outside the window.  To get into the place I had to duck my head as people were obviously much shorter in 1500 AD when The Old Weavers was built.  Across the street literally was the Franciscan friary of Canterbury where to this very day the Anglican Franciscan’s are still functioning much the way they had since 1200 AD.  So it was a good place to start reading John Butler’s fine book and I did so here and there the rest of the day.  Our diner turned into shopping in town so as I waited for the girls to do their collection of “bits” I sat on benches around town reading the first couple chapters of The Red Dean of Canterbury. I was a little surprised that the under Hewlett Johnson’s watch the old friary was sold to the Dean in 1959 and it has functioned in that original capacity since.  As I read my book and watched the modern monks helping the poor around town my first thoughts were that everything was good in the world.  Thank goodness for the good work and ministry that the monks performed, I thought it was quite a service.

But that was only on the surface.  Underneath all that good intention, which is something I have always felt about churches in general, is a collectivism that I rejected personally a long time ago.  Another book that I bought in Canterbury was a fabulous book about Martin Luther the rebellious protestant who challenged the Catholic Church and its vast European empire with a new decentralized version of religion.  I grew up Lutheran and was actually very close to my church’s pastor.  Most every Sunday I worked directly with the pastor from the front of the church pouring wine and feeding bread to members of the congregation as he went behind me blessing everyone. I was heavily involved in church scholarship from say 13 years old to about 16 so I’ve been a part of that life heavily before, but I was always skeptical of it.  Skeptical because the concepts never seemed right to me, all the notions of sacrifice and altruistic behavior seemed foreign to the concept of American capitalism.  And the church (my church) put itself often in perpetual peril with the bank that held their mortgage—much like the monks did in England.  They made a choice not to worship materialism and the money which represented value in capitalist societies—because to them the only value worth anything was the values of the church.  My dad was part of the church leadership and tried for over 30 years to keep the business end of the church flowing since none of the pastors or the members of the Lutheran leadership in Cincinnati had any love for money—they ultimately were destroyed over time to the notion that God would provide—when God didn’t.  Not all churches are short-sighted, some actually make a lot of money—which is good.  But my experience was very similar to what I witnessed in England with the modern monks and the history of the church at the center of all politics around the world starting essentially in those very places where I was reading The Red Dean of Canterbury.

Reading that book three decades after my own experiences with the Lutheran Church in America and having the ability to walk through so many historical sites in Canterbury as I considered them was very revealing to me.  I am, and continue to be, very weary of religion because most of them around the world originate in the east, including Christianity.  If Jesus Christ were born today he’d be a communist—or at least a socialist which is why all those damn hippies from the 60s were wearing their hair long and always talking about Jesus Christ being a superstar.  The tenets of global Christianity reject American capitalism and the money our “material” culture represents.  I can’t help but notice that the communist and socialist movements are undeniably an unspoken organization of Christian Marxists which have penetrated our societies in a very confusing ways.

The vast evils that the Democratic Party have been able to inflict on American society are that they exploit this duality for which most of the conservative right Bible thumping voting base functions.  For instance, most conservatives believe in personal property and the merit of making money.  But they also tend to believe in the messages spoken by the church which can be essentially termed Christian Marxism, shedding away personal property, the merit of community over individuality, sacrifice (like abortion which is mass murder on a grand scale), and a pandering to the poor.  Modern American Christian people find themselves in a paradox for which they are locked in indecision and Democrats exploit that indecision for their own desires to expand the influence of Marxism, even into the church so that congregations will take those values into their communities and attack the foundations of capitalism.

I purposely started off this article talking about my personal enjoyment of buying books, which are material items, eating at Gordon Ramsey’s very expensive restaurant in London, and shopping in Canterbury where my girls were able to indulge a bit while traveling—because those are all elements of capitalism which are good and far superior to Marxism.  Being able to pay $1500 for a meal at a 3 Michelin Star restaurant doesn’t mean I should be flogged in the streets by the poor because they want some of what I have.  There are few people in the world who work as hard as I do, so if I want to take my family to an expensive restaurant, or buy $600 worth of books in a Canterbury bookstore, I can.  Money is a tool to use in my life to live life and experience the many miracles of existence.  Being poor is largely a decision and if young people don’t learn to work hard and make money early in their lives, they will always be victims to the message of Marxism, all their lives.  That problem is compounded by the paradox that it is essentially Marxism that is taught in churches, even today.  Most of what goes on in Bible school can be found on the pages of Karl Marx’s works.

Church lost its appeal to me long ago when after many years of telling me that I was born into sin and that I needed an institution of an official religion to be saved from that nature.  I called bullshit.  I am not an atheist by any measure, but no church on earth goes to the extent that I do to satisfy my personal spiritual sanctity.  I am no sinner and just by being born I’m not condemned to such an insane policy.  I literally think that in America a new religion based on the Christian premise of decency should evolve as a kind of Power of Positive Thinking type of evolution, instead of the crimes of the rich against the poor and the transitory nature of all life with an ever-increasing eye on the afterlife.  Marxists have latched onto Christian concepts to help sell their European collectivism to a greater audience and one of the biggest advocates of that effort, Hewlett Johnson was not shy about it.  Most people in his position, like the current Pope of the Catholic Church won’t talk about how similar their religion is to Marxism.  They don’t figure that the comparison is applicable because Christianity has been around for a much longer period of time.  Marxism is relatively young by comparison, but they are alike.  They are born out of the same notion of sacrifice being the value of existence.  Sacrifice is not; productivity is—doing things, thinking things, and always inventing things. Morality emerges best in productivity, not in sacrifice which is quite an extraordinary thing to say because for 300,000 years, likely longer, mankind has never accepted the basics of that statement—except in the United States for about 100 years—from 1790 to 1890.  Like the monks in Canterbury, feeding the poor is equivalent to feeding the problem, yet we do it because we think Jesus will love us more for it.  But in actuality we are making the poor worse because we don’t encourage their individuality to excel, we teach them to retreat and turn toward the church for guidance—or the great congregation of society to rectify the situation.

It’s a complicated problem if we try to merge the values of politics with those of religion.  But that is essentially how the Democrats attack the conservative right, by exploiting this duality of values to the point where we all just blank out.  We love money in America; we love expensive vacations, nice cars, and our big televisions, cell phones and the commercialization of Christmas.  But we feel guilty because institutional churches still rooted in the philosophies that gave birth to Marxism in the first place tell us that the way to an afterlife is through Jesus, because we were all born into sin and he is the only way to eternal life. The Jesus of the institutions was a hippie loser who was basically one of the first communists in the world—according to our history books written by modern scholars—who are mostly all Marxists themselves.  Just as John Butler loves Hewlett Johnson and reveres him as a hero of the modern communist movement.  I doubt there is a bookstore in America who would give out copies of such a nicely made book like, The Red Dean of Canterbury.  The production values of the book alone would be cost prohibitive for American audiences.  But in England where those people have been conquered 1000s of times over the centuries, they looked toward the Dean of Canterbury for guidance and his advice which many listened to was to become nice Christian Marxists and get ready for the afterworld.  But I think they all miss the point, because American capitalism has evolved into the real answer.  If Jesus were alive today I think he would have voted for Donald Trump and would have liked the church the modern president attended as a child by Norman Vincent Peale.  There is a lot more good that comes from wealth and hard work than ever came from monks handing out donations to the poor.  Flowing altruism through institutions is the point of emphasis for the church and would ultimately become the focus of communist and socialist governments.  But in America we rejected that notion and it’s about time that we declare our independence not just from governments, but even Marxist philosophies no matter how they are presented to us.  I think it’s time that we make Jesus a capitalist and take away the values of the church from the Marxists who have set up camp in the houses of religion for the perpetuation of global domination of communism—and I think it’s time that we do that now.

Rich Hoffman

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

Justice League was Phenomenal: Atlas Entertainment made a daring, and bold movie for Warner Bros., bravo!

The critic’s war with the DC movies produced by Atlas Entertainment and distributed rather boldly by Warner Bros. isn’t because the movies are bad.  Relative to film history, the Zach Snyder directed films with Christopher Nolan serving as executive producer are damn good movies.  Modern critics are suffering from the same problem news pundits and political hacks are in the Beltway industry, they are frustrated know-it all institutionally trained, and they want to make their big mark in life by tearing down other people—because they can’t do what they talk about.   I read several of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews by many smug newspaper reporters trying to save their dying industry by bitching about the new Justice League movie.  They couldn’t be more wrong, and there is no way any of them could ever produce such a magnificent movie. Justice League on many levels is a breathtaking film.  It is one of the greats directed with great love and epic vision and respect to film history.  I didn’t realize that Hans Zimmer wasn’t scoring this one until I heard the unmistakable soundtrack of Danny Elfman and the very intelligent resurrection of the 1989 Batman theme.  The music alone represented a kind of time capsule of all the great themes of these DC characters even going back to 1979’s Superman at one point.  Justice League paid great respect to the last century long love of these charters who are a massive part of our American mythology and the critics just don’t seem to understand what train they are on.  Their hatred can be summed up with two words……..Atlas Shrugged.

I certainly didn’t miss it, and I wasn’t looking for what wasn’t there, but obviously Zach Snyder and the fine people at Atlas Entertainment are Ayn Rand  fans—and why shouldn’t they be?  Ayn Rand was a great American philosopher who made great arguments in defense of capitalism during the middle of the last century.  But Marxist supporters hate her.  They hate her great American novels—particularly Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so any semblance to those literary references will draw the fangs of Marxists everywhere and it is that which has caused them to despise the work of Zach Snyder.  For example, let me provide some context.  Even though I was not a fan of another movie by Atlas Entertainment that was released last year, Suicide Squad, Steve Mnuchin was one of the producers and essentially went straight from that project to Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary.  I watched that film flying back from Europe earlier this year and I thought it was terrible, even though I like Mnuchin personally. The film for me really fell apart in third act, so the critics had something to pick on with that one.  But Dawn of Justice was pretty incredible and I simply love the R rated Zach Snyder director’s cut.  The people making these films look clearly to me to all be Ayn Rand fans which I share with them.  I wouldn’t say that is the only reason I love these Atlas Entertainment produced DC moves, but it’s a good place to start.  I would say that the dividing line between people who hate or love these new movies come down to whether the viewers are Marxists or capitalists.

As much as I loved Dawn of Justice, I did not like that Superman died at the end—and that clearly had an impact on the box office, which fell short of $1 billion dollars in worldwide revenue.  I could clearly see the frustration of Warner Bros. on the screen of Justice League.  The movie was only 2 hours long and it could have been four.  Warner Bros. from their perspective need billion dollar releases so they can compete with Disney’s Marvel universe—which is finally fading.  They obviously put down some creative clamps on Zach Snyder with Justice League to meddle in some of the creative input designed to maximize profit.  I was also worried that Snyder had to leave the film during post production due to a death in his family.  I wasn’t sure if that was going to show up in this movie, but it didn’t.  Josh Whedon stepped in to help finish the film and the results were impressive even with the pitfalls placed in front of it.  If this film is considered a trilogy of the new Superman movies starting with Man of Steel, then Dawn of Justice and finishing with this bold Superman who has come to his complete fulfillment in Justice League these films are some of the greatest work ever done in film—as a body of work. And I can tell you why critics didn’t like Justice League, because the point of the entire film was that Superman was dead and the world was afraid feeding the terrors from all over the universe to come to earth and destroy it as just another conquest.  Just like the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, Superman was referred to in Justice League as “the engine of the world” which is taken right off the pages respectfully of Ayn Rand’s great classic.

Marxists cannot come to grips of with the Ayn Rand concept of raw individualism.  You can see the hatred rather dramatically in the Hollywood Reporter review of Justice League.  Superman is the engine of the world and now that he’s gone the world is literally falling apart not just from aliens, but from internal philosophies that are all too similar to our current politics.  The failures of progressivism are on display in Justice League in not such a shy way, and industry critics are aware of it.  Here is a short clip from that THR review, notice how it ends.  It sounds an awful lot like a Washington Post article about Donald Trump—clearly there is a political element to the review process and Marxists don’t want the public to have their philosophy challenged in their movie industry.

“We’re not enough,” Bruce Wayne/Batman declares upon experiencing a setback with Steppenwolf. “The world needs Superman.” And so it gets him, well over halfway through the film. Suffering from psychological and memory issues, he needs to be reminded of who he is by the ever-earnest Lois Lane (Amy Adams) while he wanders around his native farmland, shirtless, until finally coming to his senses with the declaration, “I’m back now, and I’m gonna make things right.” Atta boy.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/justice-league-review-1057114

From there Superman pretty much goes and kicks serious ass in a very satisfying way—the way it has taken three movies to arrive at.  In Justice League Superman has his Indiana Jones moment from the great classic Temple of Doom when the hero is unleashed from a dark spell to just kick the crap out of the villains—and it was fun to watch. I think the notion that not even the great team work of the world’s lost gods left behind on earth from an era of greatness was enough really irritates Marxist film critics.  And I say that because if you were to go to dinner with any of them and get to know their personalities, I’m sure they are capitalist hating despots to their very core who are so consumed with Marxist fantasies, that they just don’t understand the rules of life.  Individuals make the world go, not collective group think.  We are not all better together; we are better when great personalities clear the way and make things possible.  Even though it was the team of the Justice League who all brought something to the table to resurrect Superman from his deathly slumber, it was out of their personal necessity to survive for which they had to do it—and that was something The Hollywood Reporter review just couldn’t stand.

As much as I am a Hans Zimmer fan the choice to put Danny Elfman at the helm of making music was a fantastic choice.  The way Elfman pulled together all the themes of the characters not just from the latest DC films, but from the last forty years was very cleaver—as if all these characters and their histories were converging on this very moment.  When you go see this movie be sure to stick around for the end credits—Lex Luther is putting together his Legion of Doom to combat the Justice League which can lead to a whole array of future films that gives all these great heroes something to do.  Wonder Woman was great in this movie, Batman was fabulous.  The Flash was extremely funny and brought a lot to the table. Cyborg, and Aquaman were also very good additions.  The plot to Justice League actually reminded me of the first Lord of the Rings film Fellowship, and everything was done on that type of scale.  It was just a wonderful movie going experience.  The film looks like it’s going to hit $110 million in spite of the Marxist reviews and that’s great.  Because Warner Bros. needs to be paid for their risk in letting Atlas Entertainment make such a great film that goes against the current Hollywood tide of Marxism.  There was a scene in the movie where the Flash asks Batman, “what’s your superpower.” Batman says, “I’m rich,” which was a very Ayn Rand thing to say, and it was appropriate, and true.  Justice League is not only fun, but I’d say it’s important to the mythology of our species and it’s about time that filmmakers tell such stories without apology and even a little boldness at what really constitutes the engine of the world.  Group think or individuals—and in Justice League the answer couldn’t be clearer.  On a scale of 1 to 10 I give Justice League a massive 100. If you want to send a message to the Marxist Hollywood critics, put a little money in the pocket of Warner Bros. and reward them for their ambition and stamina in bringing Justice League to life.  Because they deserve it, as do the fine people at Atlas Entertainment.

Now………bring on The Fountainhead the way it deserves.  I will be the first one in the theater when it’s released!  Go Zach, Go!

Additionally, to get insight into how the critics game works read this Variety article that was published early Saturday morning 11/18/2017 ahead of the box office takes from Saturday and Sunday.  They are clearly trying to shape the story instead of letting the market do what it needs to do because they don’t like the message–they are out to sink the film because of the content.  As of this writing, I think Saturday and Sunday word of mouth will show an uptick and will be well above Variety’s hit piece projections.  Read that article for yourself:

Box Office: ‘Justice League’ Heading for Disappointing $95 Million Opening

Rich Hoffman

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