Why Ban Alex Jones: What Cody Wilson and Jesus Christ have in common

If you are like me the timing of the Alex Jones banning on YouTube and Facebook, along with other tech industry social media platforms was a bit odd. After all, he’s been very controversial for a long time. I enjoy Alex Jones. I don’t listen to every episode of his radio show but I’ll turn it on in the shop every now and then as background entertainment. I’m not into the conspiracy theories as much as I like the work he does to expose the pedophile culture and sex trafficking cases that nobody talks about, because it is a tremendous problem. I think Alex Jones does great work just for talking about these kinds of topics, such as the example below where a listener of his posted his show on their own YouTube account. I can’t promise that it will still be there when you read this, but it does show Alex Jones at his best I think. In a free market, Alex Jones certainly does his share of good, so why the sudden, “planned” aggression against him?

Well there are a couple of things going on, first the federal government is losing its case against the Trump administration. The whole thing is falling apart in front of their faces and the “state” is blaming the support of radio hosts like Alex Jones and Sean Hannity for keeping the Trump base alive and well. Sean Hannity is too squeaky clean to attack and he is employed by a fellow corporate media network, so they can only go so far with him. Their attempts to attach the #metoo movement to Sean Hannity haven’t worked because Sean doesn’t cheat on his wife and makes no otherwise flirtatious moves in that direction, so they really don’t know what to do with him. Bill O’Reilly is from a different generation and went down without swinging, but not Sean Hannity. Alex Jones however is much more anti-corporate, so he has few friends in the media. He has a lot of listeners, but not many corporate friends who want to take selfies with him on the golf course.

The other thing is that the Cody Wilson trials on his 3D printed gun concept have been winning at the federal level and it has the gun control advocates reeling. Cody Wilson has been featured on Alex Jones quite a lot and the belief by the mainstreamers is that they both feed the other, so that if one goes down they both will. The terrifying realization that has been exposed by Cody Wilson is that you don’t need a serial number to manufacture a firearm in the United States and you can’t change that now without some major intrusion on the Second Amendment. Cody Wilson as a promising law student figured out this little quandary and has made himself one of the most dangerous people in the world. And he didn’t do it by doing anything other than communicating knowledge. And Inforwars is one of the platforms that was cheering on his efforts. Once Wilson won a verdict in his favor and got the attention of President Trump—favorably, that is when the tech companies cut Alex Jones from their platforms. It happened within a few days actually. Obviously, there is great concern about what Cody Wilson has proposed and the gun control lobby wanted to lash out at someone, because they really couldn’t hit Cody Wilson the way they wanted. So they attacked the audience connection to the information.

Additionally, the kind of topics that Jones covers, like the pedophile rings, the massive sexual abuse that goes on, usually within liberal circles of power are important to discuss. Many people learned for the first time during the 2016 campaign that “spirit cooking” was something that mainstreamers were participating in, which goes back to many of the beliefs that Alister Crowley was advocating, popular use of drugs, sexual perversions, and the domination of the young sexually before their minds launch themselves into an orbit that collective society cannot reach. Their thinking on this matter is an old belief that collective society should stick together and worship the unseen with elements of sacrifice. Through sexual rituals and the actual blood sacrifices to the old gods of yesteryear, the pagan gods of Europe, the gods of Roma and Greece, of Egypt, of Asia, Africa, of the Vikings, that good things would happen for all.

Meanwhile science has shown us that the gods of old were idiots and that we don’t need to sacrifice anything to them—not even our personal liberty. That’s where people like Alex Jones and Cody Wilson become dangerous and a threat to the established order. Honestly the Jews killed Jesus for similar reasons, they had things all worked out with the Romans at the time and here comes Jesus out of the desert roaming around for years away from the controls of the big cities at the time and getting exposure to Buddhism from the east along the various silk roads. So Jesus comes back to Jerusalem and preaches a religion without a need for priests and aristocrats and they didn’t like it, so the Jews and the Romans got together and killed him hoping to show their control over a connection to God. It would take several more hundred years and many sacrifices of the new Christians to the lions in the Colosseum but eventually Roman would adopt Christianity to appease their restless civilization now being attacked from every direction as a way to unify their empire to withstand the threats, but they collapsed to the anarchists of their time, the barbarians from the north who swept in and sacked Rome and destroyed everything Rome had built over the last 500 years in a relatively short period of time leading that part of the world into The Dark Ages.

All Alex Jones has really been trying to stop is a similar progression from happening in the United States. Cody Wilson is doing the same, trying to get everyone to focus on the laws of individual liberty, because that is how nations survive as opposed to collective sacrifice and a retreat to blood-letting and superstition so that the powerful can hold power they’ve gained by what they think are powerful gods ruling over us all. They think these things because they are lazy and lean to the political left. What they don’t understand they fill in the blanks with their own imaginations leaving people who actually ask questions and follow logic a real threat to the existence of sacrificial cults.

The pedophilia culture is excessive and you can see it in most cultures where sports are involved or advanced institutions, such as the Catholic case that is now making the news rounds. People never call it that by name, but when sex with underage children, whether they are boys or girls is advocated in any way, it doesn’t take much to peel back the layers of pretty pictures to get to the ugly facts. It’s not just the Catholic church, but don’t forget Penn State, or the recent scandals surrounding NCAA basketball with Rick Pitino and the challenges of recruiting new athletes to their sports programs. There are a lot of bad, vile things going on, and those institutions didn’t want Alex Jones to be able to point those things out. But the final straw came out when Cody Wilson proposed that personal firearms could not be regulated by the state. It was in a similar way the same as Jesus stopping the vendors in the temple by overturning their kiosks. That’s when Jesus crossed the line and had to be killed, when he interrupted the selling of goods at the temple by the Pharisees.

To really look at things without the lenses of religion but using history as a map, Alex Jones is taking away the power of centralized authority by simply asking questions that the authority figures don’t want anybody to ask. And if they can’t get guns removed from society, they don’t stand a chance of surviving themselves. And that’s what they are really afraid of. What they don’t understand is that whether or not Alex Jones is on the radio, or whether or not Cody Wilson maintains his right to distribute gun blueprints so that weapons can be made in any garage, this movement away from mass sacrifice politically is ending. The beliefs of those people are ridiculously stupid and are collapsing. They have been collapsing for several thousand years now. And the more information people have about the world around them, the less patience they have for tyrants and perverted priests. And we are living in the information age. Trump is president, and it is only going to become more of all that in the years to come. Alex Jones is simply a vehicle for the information. He isn’t the information.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why the World Needs a Space Force: Thinking back to the moon landing and the vile music festival of Woodstock

It is a little surprising that there is so much mockery toward the Trump administration over the new fifth branch of the armed forces they are proposing called the Space Force. We’ve known and talked about it for a long time on this site and many others that progressives are actually a regressive group of people who desire with everything in their being to follow the human trajectory of the Vico cycle and to return to a world of theocracy, as mankind has done over and over again throughout history for what looks like many hundreds of thousands of years. That is the nature of politics, to control mankind in a sort of passive role under the rule of our planet and its conditions. Modern progressives in order to sell their warped desire to control all human effort simply can’t have people leaving earth and settling in space because once that happens they lose power and influence over the direction of all achievement. Out the window go the carbon credits, the taxing of farts from people and animals, the emissions of cars and capitalism, and the development of suburbia. By moving into space and settling on massive space stations as exotic metal minors on the moon, around Venus and Mars, the moons of Jupiter the concern of over populating the earth goes away. Humans can have all the babies they want, they can even double or triple their intellectual power with the use of artificial intelligence, all the concerns of today regarding human influence over that goddess mother earth go away. So why are liberals so against Trump’s Space Force and why is it so mocked?

The Trump administration had a nice little fundraiser where they presented several concept drawings for the new Space Force and I picked the design that was mostly red that looked a lot like the NASA emblem. As I made the selection I was proud to do it because it felt like a step forward that should have happened many years ago. The point of a blog like this as opposed to writing for a magazine or a newspaper is that I can bring my personal experiences into focus to share with readers which makes it an unusual platform if you are the kind of person with a lot to say. That happens to be an excellent description for my particular lifestyle as I cover a lot of topics that I am personally interested in, and even professionally involved. I was born one year before the moon landing so I’ve watched this thing come and go in strange ways. I was in high school as the space shuttle program was the envy of the world and I watched three eight-year presidents reduce NASA to an Islamic study group prior to the Trump administration. I’m close to aerospace in many aspects, its something I’ve always enjoyed and wanted to help advance in any way possible because I see it as the next great frontier. As I share often my favorite period of American history was the westward expansion into the American west during the gold rush period which created massive wealth for a new nation and I see the space age as a new period with the same level of potential, actually proportionally greater.

Just this past week my wife and I got a call about a hot new condo property coming available at Cape Canaveral where our family has some vested interest in providing housing to the great engineers who come and go from assignments at the Cape. Business was good through the late 80s and 90s but dropped off considerably during the second term of the Bush administration and was utterly destroyed during the Obama years where that socialist president pointed NASA to Russia and told them that if they wanted to study space, then ride with the Russians. No more Space Shuttles, and nothing was coming after. Of course, from the investment side of things you can’t plop down a half million dollars on a condo that no engineers are going to use because there’s no work at the Cape. But for this latest proposal it looks attractive because Space X has moved in and is routinely firing off rockets into space putting a lot of people to work with their fabulous Falcon 9 which just launched again the other night. And with the Trump administration getting behind NASA once again, things are looking good again at the Kennedy Space Center, and they should always have. If America is going to climb out from under the massive debt that Trump inherited of over 20 trillion dollars that money has to come out of new markets and revenue streams. Space is where that revenue is at, and the United States needs to be in charge of it, for the sake of the entire world. Seeing the situation up close it has been sad, but now the entire market is looking better and the next great frontier is there for us to enjoy as the next great adventure.

Talking about the moon landing which occurred on July 20th 1969, I actually remember it. I was just over one year old. I have memories of it and before which is unusual, for being so young but it was hot. We didn’t have air conditioning and I was sweating but I remember the day being hot and very sunny outside and the sounds of the television as the radio broadcasts came back from the moon and my mom talking about what an important day it was. Then I remembered the news reports a month later coming from the music festival in Woodstock on August 15th. It was ugly to me, to see so many people stuck together in the mud of a field listing to music that I have never liked—depressing loser music. As I became older I was able to think about those two events often and came to understand them as two choices of American direction. Woodstock was the progressive answer to the moon landing. The stuffy engineers in their suit and ties at NASA versus the naked hippies and drug induced losers of Woodstock. One group was saying yes to new challenges of human endeavor, the other was saying no, let’s go back to being a tribe of hunter and gathers erecting rocks to the gods and having sex in front of each other covered in mud while our language is reduced to tribal chants. The same debate rages today, those descendants of Woodstock are now running universities, magazines and television stations and are the foundation of progressive politics while aerospace development has been continually ridiculed by them in what we call the Mainstream Media. Those same stuffy suits still desire to explore what’s beyond earth like a teenager wanting to move out of their parent’s house and start of life on their own.

By acknowledging a Space Force progressives know there will never be any going back because government in the context of American history never gets smaller, it only grows and if that growth is to encompass the level of personal freedom that conservatives demand, then the influence of American reach must grow to justify that potential. There is of course the addition of space tourism that is a market happening this year as well as many advanced satellites that are important to our culture that need protection, so a Space Force now only makes sense to meet the needs of a growing civilization. Yet people like Al Gore, and Michael Moore, and the greenie weenie Democrats truly do desire to turn off the minds of human beings with drug use, which is why they support the legalization of pot, and to have another music festival like a bunch of cannibals dancing around a rock in the mud praying to the gods to make it rain so that they can grow food. Today the god is no longer some Celtic tyrant, or Roman myth, but is the earth itself. But science says that the earth won’t be around much longer anyway. It’s only a matter of time before Yellowstone’s massive volcano erupts destroying much of North America, or something hits earth from space, or the sun grows to a size that eventually swallows our entire planet to a fiery cataclysm. The human race has a choice to survive and move into space to escape that fate, and we should take it. And we will need a Space Force to protect that advancement for the sake of our species. And I picked the red emblem as my vote for the patch that those new members of the military should wear while doing it.

Rich Hoffman

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

Peer Pressure Won’t Save the Political Left: Insight into how racism is used to distort reality

I don’t get a lot of comments and it’s certainly not for a lack of readership, most of the readers here are reserved to a kind of voyeurism which validates their own thought processes. And those who are against me don’t like that I engage people directly, and that I will often do so for years—so they don’t often comment. It’s not good to pick a fight with a guy like me because I can out write, out think and through sheer will, outlast just about anybody. There may be people out there somewhere who are just as stubborn as I am, but I’ve never met them. I reserve the right that they may exist, but they have yet to show themselves. Likely if they are there they are residing on top of a mountain somewhere and have decided to just watch sun sets everyday instead of doing what I do. But the comment below is from a long-time voyeur of sorts who decided they couldn’t deal with my comments on the recent white on black shooting in Clearwater, Florida centering on a “stand your ground” case. So before picking the comment apart, like this person knew I would, lets see what they said:

I’ve been following your blog for quite some time now and aside from your political ramblings I’ve found your other topics to be either laughable at best or appalling. This entry falls into the latter. Both men in this case acted childishly. That much I can agree on with you. Where I differ begins with the title. I think you couldve gone a different route to prove your point but instead opted to become part of the problem and not the solution. To say that blacks fundamentally are targeted because they don’t follow rules is both silly and absurd. To label someone a thug because they didn’t abide by the rules of the handicap parking space is just as outlandish as saying you, yourself, are a thug for speeding, jay walking, littering, etc…the list goes on. It has nothing to do with the skin color of a person as to be determined a thug by your own admission. So to say that blacks must assimilate if they do not want to be staring down the barrel of a gun is frankly stupidity. I would challenge that you wouldve even bothered to write on this subject had it been a white on white crime and before you go and try to pick my comment apart for entertainment/material for a future blog post. I have read other post made by you suggesting a racial bias on your part. I fail to see how you call yourself a leader and a international business man yet, can’t see the injustices that are spouted by you on a daily basis. Honestly, I’m surprised you even have a job in the public sector for behaving in a manner that I’m sure would make your employers shudder if they were to read this site. Good day sir!

The nature of this little comment in many aspects are completely dedicated to peer pressure, the reference in the first sentence to diminish the content is an attempt to make me feel self-conscious about the judgment of a larger tapestry of society—that my work here is “laughable,” and “appalling” as if such judgements might make me run for the security of a social blanket of approval. Then there is some commentary that is rather thoughtful about their opinion on the nature of black gun violence. But the last third of the comment is dedicated to attacks designed to put me on the defensive, such as suggesting that if the dead person had been white, I wouldn’t have even written about it. Then there is the veiled threat of social superiority toward my ability to make a living, as if to say that because I have a thought that is not one they agree with that I should not even be allowed to make a living. So it is worth doing to understand how such people like this are functioning in the world and why they think the things they do.

As any reader here knows I pick everything apart and white people have been the brunt of most of my wrath. Just ask James Comey, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton or that skanky prostitute in the Lee Wong incident locally. They were all white people and yet I never considered their skin color when criticizing their detriment to our society. Yet the critic of this published comment assumes that because a person is black, that they shouldn’t be held to any kind of standard otherwise its racism. If a black person does something wrong, such as breaking the laws of our society we are supposed to look the other way because of some sin committed long ago when slaves were brought from Africa to North America and that forever we owe something to people of color because of this heinous act. Well, I wasn’t there to commit those evils and just because I’m white I am not connected to my ancestors. If my grandfather got drunk and slept with crazy bar whores and slapped around women I am not connected to this sin. I am my own person and am not attached through ancestry to any sins of any past. And the same holds true for blacks. They aren’t owed something for what their ancestors went through. They are to be judged on what they do and say in the here and now. That is the way of things.

But even more alarming is this notion that a person’s employment should be attacked if they have opinions that drift from the media-controlled culture of today’s liberalism—that boycotts and marches with a wink toward potential violence should be utilized to keep dissenting opinions locked up away from others to see. That is after all what’s going on with Alex Jones and Google owned YouTube. So let me establish some advice to this commenter and to other reading this who might need some ground to stand on in a confusing world sometimes—confusing only because people like this are always trying to make things murky. Every person should strive to make themselves the best at something out of all others in the world. If you are the best at what you do you are always in demand. No matter what political opinions you might have—people will want to pay you for the things you can do that others can’t. I have many things that I am the best there is at and that is very valuable to the world of commerce. Now the world is a big place and there are a lot of people in it, so I understand what kind of statement that is, but I have worked harder than others for many years to develop those aspects of myself so I do enjoy the fruits of those endeavors.

The assumption from this commenter is that jobs are handed out as favors to people and that if someone misbehaves, that the job can be taken away. Or that if an angry mob of insurgents hell-bent on socialist democracy protest in the streets that a person like me might lose their ability to make a living. That is the threat that is occurring quite often these days, where CEOs must step down to avoid controversy, or men are losing their entire careers over the #metoo movement, and so on. I would propose that if such people are losing their livelihoods they weren’t very valuable to begin with and people wanting to take them down politically only needed an excuse, which radical protestors gave them. But if you are truly valuable, such measures will never work.

As to the nature of who reads here, I’m not writing these articles in the vacuum of space. I get many hundreds of readers every day and they come from all demographic backgrounds all over the world. People I deal with professionally obviously read my content, everyone does. Anyone who Googles “Rich Hoffman” runs across my many millions and millions of published words and knows my thoughts on things. But if they want access to those things I do better than anybody else in the world—the entire world—then they put up with it. However, and I do deal with hundreds if not thousands of people every week, most people agree with me on most things. They are just afraid to say so because they fear a social stigma. And that is what people like this really fear. They hope that they can keep people’s opinions hidden away while a more progressive society takes over and rules us all. But when people have an outlet, like I provide, then all that intention falls apart, and people choose freedom, logic, and order over anarchy, chaos and progressivism. And you can’t censor those who are living beyond the controls of peer pressure.

Rich Hoffman

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

Everything you Need to Know about Urban Meyer and Ohio State Football: The suggestions behind the controversy

The Urban Meyer situation at Ohio State is about much more than a domestic violence case between an employee of his and his now ex-wife. It’s about the basic assumptions of the state over individual rights and attacks on the necessity of leadership to inspire out of people all they can give toward a goal of winning. Ultimately, the Ohio State case against Urban Meyer is an attack on success in an overall attempt to lower the bar of expectations for everyone, and to feed the narrative that student athletes have rights and should be paid, and a whole host of progressive causes that are attempting to rot the very nature of American culture. But let’s start with Courtney and Zach Smith who obviously had a bad marriage from the start and explore what Urban Meyer’s responsibilities were to his direct employee and his then wife. Based on some of the evidence provided here from all sides of the story, If I were a judge on this case I would have to say that Courtney Smith realized about a year into her marriage with the Ohio State wide receiver’s coach that she wanted out. Zach was a typical football husband, he ran around partying too much, he slept with other women, and he was very domineering. Those were likely all traits that Courtney liked about him when they were dating but that changed when she started to become a mother, like it does for most women.

Courtney tried to get out of the relationship but found she didn’t have income of her own, and that the more she pressed the more violent Zach became to control his public image as a big man at Ohio State. Courtney started thinking of the complications of a divorce where she’d have to share custody with her husband and knowing that he’d be a bad influence on her children decided to go for a complete severance to push Zach out of her life for good. So she latched onto the #me too movement in an effort to get her case tried in the court of public opinion instead of a regular court where she didn’t have any money or celebrity to fight with, as what she thought was her only option to separate herself from Zach, put him on his heels for good in defense, and retain custody of the children. She didn’t care who it hurt even if it brought down an entire university and big-time college football program so long as her little babies were safe as a result. She acted totally out of typical biological female concerns and the politics of the present gave her a platform, and she took it.

Zach didn’t do himself any favors. He was an admittingly terrible husband who had no business being married in the first place, let alone producing kids he had no intention of being a role model for. He essentially made a marriage impossible giving Courtney little other option. She probably thought like a lot of women do that she could change Zach. But like everyone finds out eventually, if a guy is broken when you marry him, he’ll still be broken thirty and forty years later—and likely many ex-wives in the rear-view mirror. But what was Urban Meyer supposed to do about it other than what he did? Even with the knowledge of pictures of bruises on one of his employee’s wives’ arms, for all he knows the couple could be into some kind of Fifty Shades of Grey masochism. You often can’t tell when it comes to the sexuality of any couple what is destructive and what is healthy because sex is such a primal thing. As an employer it is best to stay out of the lives of the people who collect a paycheck from you, for the good of all.

Yet Urban Meyer is being punished for what he didn’t know, with the assumption that he should have. Given that Courtney exchanged text messages with Urban Meyer’s wife making her part of the story, the expectation from the #me too movement is that he should have instantly acted on that information and terminated his wide receiver coach and turned Zach over to authorities. Here is where things go bad, because the assumption is that the state should handle these kinds of private matters between a husband and a wife—and if we accept this premise then all employers would then be expected to do the same. That means, and I’ll use myself as an example as an employer, that if I have an employee doing their job on a time clock and he goes home and beats the hell out of his wife for whatever reason, and I hear about it, I am supposed to turn him over to authorities for punishment. It doesn’t matter how valuable that employee may be to me as a paid employee for a process where he sells his time to me for the creation of a product, the assumption is that the state supersedes all those expectations and then takes priority over all matters of conduct. I can think of several cases right now of abuse that I know about, not within the employee and employer relationship but within our family where sticking noses into other people’s business isn’t the right thing to do. Obviously in the case of Courtney and Zach their marital dysfunctions were physical in nature, but in a similar way many couples suffer under mental abuse as well, where control by one spouse over the other is the ultimate gain. It’s not right for families to inject their imprint into a marriage even when their own kids are involved let alone an employer. Spouses have at their disposal the courts and they can divorce if they don’t want to be in the marriage. People outside the marriage shouldn’t get involved, even though they may have a child they love who is being harmed in the situation. All anyone should do is provide emotional support unless the situation turns violent and usually the signs of that are telegraphed far in advance. It is for the couple to work out, not the state.

Then there is this Project Veritas recording that was released by former players of Urban Meyer that is part of a trend these days to examine the ugly side of performance. This story fits with the story of the dysfunctional marital couple on Meyer’s staff because the outside attacks all have the same expectation. Ohio State paid Urban Meyer millions and millions of dollars to win football games, which helps with college recruitment, television contracts, merchandising and even political leverage. The student athletes suffer under lots of tenuous conditions in their pursuit of big NFL money, which most of them will never see, but some under Urban Meyer do. Like any employer Urban Meyer is expected to pull out of his employees, in this case the student athletes, whatever he can get to cause them to ram their bodies into other 300-pound people at full running speed in a hope to win whatever game they are playing that day. Winning means a lot of money and prestige and that is what college athletics are all about. Take away that drama and the sport loses its audience.

Urban Meyer obviously from what I can see was a good coach, he took a few extra steps here and there to make sure the people around him were well cared for, even Courtney Smith, even his players who were falling apart due to the rigors of their condition training. The success stories on the field often have lots of bodies lying around in the locker room that nobody sees, but as they say, the show must go on because that is the point of everything. But what is happening is that complaints are being filed under the guise of individual protection for the purpose of bringing in more state control and public acceptance. Urban Meyer because he is the head of one of the most successful programs in the country has a target on his back, and he seems to handle things well even considering the ridiculousness of these situations. It is not Urban Meyer’s job to intrude on the lives of all his employees because doing so invites major boundary violations that cause more state intrusion on individual rights. Telling Courtney Smith that she never should have married Zach when all she really wants to do is protect her kids from the bad influence of a corrosive spouse is a matter of her own personal management, and she simply pulled Urban Meyer into the story because she had no other financial resources to deal with the matter on her own. We can feel sorry for her and help her on an individual level, but we can’t change the rules of conduct just to accommodate her mistakes. But that isn’t what this story is about. The truth is that it’s about using Courtney Smith as a way to attack Ohio State and the performance of student athletes under the premise of the NCAA system, to change it with radical accusations whether or not the truth is involved. The attack is not on marriage, it’s on performance and the attempt to make such a measure extinct for the future.

Rich Hoffman

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

A Great CBS Interview with Cody Wilson: The heart of the entire problem of gun control

There is so much going on in this really good interview between Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson and CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. At one point during this tense interview for which on the surface is about whether or not individuals have a right to manufacture their own guns free of a federal system of control, Dokoupil asked Wilson to put away the philosophy books and consider how you’d feel is someone used the information and technology you provide for a mass killing, and it was there that the real issue of our day was discussed. CBS just as is very typical of all modern media and politics expects society and the direction of our evolution as a species to yield to the whims of sentiment instead of the foundations of logic and reason which cuts to everything that is wrong at this particular juncture of epistemological evolution. This problem is not only at the center of the gun debate in America but on essentially everything—is society better with a central government regulating everything or with individuals functioning freely and by their own impulses. The hypothetical proposal introduced by Tony Dokoupil obviously believes that a centralized government is needed for an advanced society to evolve, and to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on a weapon so to create mass murder. Yet where Cody Wilson is, is where I am and many, many others on the Second Amendment side. If you keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys, who is not to say that the bad guys do not then evolve out of the strengthening of the “state.” Obviously, we have our answer with how the FBI aligned itself with a political campaign in American elections and showed why they can’t be trusted to perform background checks and centralized gun control, because they will use that power against the people they are supposed to protect, and that makes this interview and especially important one because it articulates this essential dilemma quite nicely.

There were a few moments where the CBS reporter just didn’t have the next layer of contemplation ready. From his side of the thought process the real feat that was being exhibited was in the proposal established by Wilson, that the intentions of mankind cannot be legislated out of existence. That the desires of people cannot be regulated by taking away information. This is the hard truth that China is learning in its communist society. People desire opportunities and limiting their access to a potential activity through censorship doesn’t take away the yearning for information. If someone wants to make a gun, if it’s not Cody Wilson giving the information to that person, it will be someone else. There will never be an all-knowing centralized authority controlling all information. That was essentially the point of what Wilson was making. As human beings, people deserve to have access to information that has the potential to make them freer.

To retreat from this obvious stalemate that was when the option of non-thinking was introduced. The proposal of how Cody Wilson might feel if someone took his work and used it for malice, so that guilt might rule logic. That is currently how our entire political system has been functioning, and there is no civilization on earth that has survived well when such a thing has penetrated its culture. Yet there it was at the foundation of the CBS interview. We all knew that was the position of the political left, and at the heart of all gun confiscation, but the position has never been more grossly revealed with such nudity to conceal its ugliness. That is where the genius of Cody Wilson’s challenges to the modern court system has done such great work.

The question was never about whether gun restriction was about keeping weapons out of the hands of mass murderers. The desire was always to assume that more power given to a centralized state would make for a better world. CBS is perfectly willing to deal with the occasional bad cops in the FBI who will turn their head the other way and let off a political candidate they support, like Hillary Clinton so long as they are there to crush a political rival like Paul Manafort because just as the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s a political party that CBS happened to support had taken control of the powers of the “state.” If that “state” sometimes got things wrong and put the wrong person in jail, or killed the wrong people in a raid, or even destroyed the liberty of thousands or millions of people, that such collateral damage were acceptable for the greater good. But if one lone gunman like the one who shot up innocent people in Las Vegas recently during a music concert buys a gun and uses it to kill people, then the individual rights of people to defend themselves must be yielded for the safety of all. At that point life and death has new meanings so long as individual rights are surrendered for the greater good of all. The hypocrisy of that fundamental idea is what we are talking about in any discussion of gun control.

When there was no satisfactory answer to the quandary the CBS reporter did what all people do who advocate for more gun control, they asked for a non-thinking answer, forget about philosophy, how would you “feel.” The obvious suggestion is that our American society is supposed to be ruled by feelings and not logic, because that is the only way that such a sycophantic position can be accepted, by feeling and not thinking. What do your thoughts tell you to do? Where do those thoughts come from? Is it from God? Then you should listen to them and give up your rights and surrender yourself to the wisdom of the “state.” You should give up your guns so that the “state” can take care of you. Yet at the heart of that proposal is the fantasy of the weak to rule over the strong by way of bureaucracy, which is always the desire of the “state.” They can’t do that if the people they want to control have weapons equal to their military and police for which are employed by the state to mandate justice as it is defined by the courts—also controlled by the “state.”

I’ll tell you what, I like this guy Cody Wilson. He’s smart enough to point out the hypocrisy of the court system on the issue of the Second Amendment and he has the bureaucratic nature of the power the “state” locked in paralyzing self-analysis. The “state” always seeks to have philosophy always stuck in limbo because their fundamental epistemology is flawed within the proposal on gun control to begin with. The only way that anybody could justify such a rationalization is to not think, but to feel. How would you feel if someone took something you provided and killed people with it? The proposal is that you then shouldn’t do it. Cody Wilson under such a premise should not provide milling machines and blueprints for making guns because someone might use that information to kill mass groups of people. But then that same logic shouldn’t be applied to a government that we’ve instead given all that power to who then goes and kills innocent people and rules over individuals in an unjust way. And there lies the problem, the threat is there whether or not guns exist or not, because the desire to abuse power is part of the human experience. In our social evolution we have discovered that if individuals can protect themselves from such aggression that civilization can advance. But if that protection is then yielded to a state government, then the mass murders aren’t crazed lunatics who should be in an insane asylum, but are government workers protecting their pensions and their liberal ideology from the realities of the world, and they can and often are far more dangerous.

Rich Hoffman

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

El Mirador: Learning why centralized socieites fail and what we can do to change modern culture

I often make arguments that we should have never published our inquiries into history without knowing all the facts because our examinations into history are so shallow. Maybe after the field of archaeology and geology were older we might be better equipped to write history books, but we certainly aren’t there yet. The danger of course is that we have published incomplete results and then built religions and political philosophies around those assumptions, and they were incorrect all along. For instance, Europe was not the path for developing human invention incrementally from a hunter and gatherer state to building organized towns and cities moving through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, then the Industrial Revolution. That’s how it happened in Europe which was pretentious enough to assume that they were the center of the world but were in all reality way behind the times. While the builders of Stonehenge were building their monuments, the Egyptian culture was building advanced cities and likely trading with cultures all over the world. And there were likely very advanced cultures before the Egyptians such as the Sumerians which predated them by thousands of years. The evidence of this is being discovered all around the world in cities buried now by rising sea levels and jungle canopies. Such an example is the city of El Mirador in Guatemala just six miles from the Mexican border.

El Mirador isn’t older than Egypt, Sumer or the Indus Valley but the city which was about the size of Los Angeles predates any previously Mayan culture by over a thousand years. Starting at around 600 B.C. about the time that Buddhism was taking over the oriental world and gradually shaping the ideas that Jesus Christ would adopt to begin Christianity, El Mirador was a massive city functioning in many ways at a level that modern cities function. It was advanced in the way that we think of irrigation capabilities and food distribution along with science and global understanding. Prior to uncovering just the tip of the iceberg of secrets at El Mirador the assumption was that the Mayan people rose to power a thousand years after the birth of Christ, and that the Aztecs rose to power about a hundred to two hundred years before Christopher Columbus brought Europe to the New World. All that is wrong, the Maya have what they call a “Classic” period while the discovery of El Mirador has unleashed the need for a new category of understanding which we are now calling the pre-classic period. It was assumed that the Maya like many other civilizations gradually moved from hunter and gatherers into a more focused society centrally built around government, and what this shows at El Mirador was that the Maya were much more advanced much earlier than anybody would have previously guessed.

At the same time in North America there were apparently empires of giant people, likely from the Mediterranean area who had vast empires and traded with the Maya in Central America. And the same cultures from the Stonehenge region had migrated into North America much earlier than anybody had previously thought as well before Christ was even born. All these cultures were mixing and sharing mythologies and economies. The pyramids at El Mirador were obviously influenced by the cultures of Sumer and Egypt. There were pyramids in North America just as there we huge cultures of pyramid builders in Mexico and show a definite exchange of information with the developed world of the Middle East and Northern Egypt. For El Mirador to be such a large city in an area that did not even have a river near by requires extensive understandings of science that was much more sophisticated than what has been previously accepted by historical understanding.

Another thing that El Mirador makes obviously clear is that even such a large city complex dating much earlier than previously thought is buried in plain sight. The jungle has essentially taken over and made El Mirador look like a series of hills, when in fact the hills are giant pyramids. The rate of erosion and forest growth is such that in just a few thousand years all traces of that society are almost erased. There are likely hundreds if not thousands of cities all over the Americas in just the same situation and we have to also be open to the possibility that there were many cultures that were just as advanced if not more so traveling the world and trading goods and ideas well before the Egyptians. We just don’t see the evidence of their rise and fall because it occurred so long ago that the rate of erosion has wiped them away from the earth’s surface.

I was with my family recently at Ohio Caverns located just a bit north-west of Columbus and was examining a stalactite there that was over 200,000 years old. It had been there before the last Ice Age brought giant glaciers down over Ohio and changed the direction of many rivers and streams. It was there before the birth of Tecumseh or any Indian migrating from either China or England. It is entirely possible that in that range of time there were cultures that constantly rose and fell over and over again. The Egyptians were not the first but were likely just the latest for which evidence still exists. Because unless science seeks to preserve the remains of ancient cultures, they quickly end up becoming a society like El Mirador—covered by a jungle completely in just a few thousand years. Another two thousand years and it would be completely eroded away. And why not think so, the dates for the ancient monuments at Göbekli Tepe show occupation there from 9000 BCE to 7000 BCE just a few thousand years out of the Ice Age in the region of Turkey. Are we supposed to think that nothing was happening prior if we must accept that humans were showing advanced signs of culture that early in the process?

The point of this article is to convey that while many want to make politics out of the state of the American Indian and assume that they were a culture that had something taken from them the evidence shows that what we think of as tribes of Indians either in North America, or in the plains of Africa are always survivors of a previous attempt at civilization that rose and fell for whatever reason, usually the causes are that centralized societies collapse on themselves for all the political reasons we discuss in our own modern age. They may sustain themselves for several thousand years but eventually they fade into history only to rise again somewhere else in the world time and time again perhaps even longer than that stalagmite mentioned at Ohio Caverns. Just because we don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there.

We should start considering that archaeological sites like El Mirador are young and that likely there were sites predating it either under the ruins or still waiting to be discovered under erosion, flooding, sandstorms, or natural tree growth from forest vegetation, like what we can see from El Mirador. The question that must be answered is one that I am pretty sure I know from my work in politics, it is that centralized societies fail when they don’t properly utilize individual development of their people and we see the Vico Cycle over and over again throughout history.

Where centralized societies are able to study from each other and build magnificent societies they never last and usually fall away into history within a few thousand years only to pop up somewhere else in another part of the world. The natural regression is just as we see in modern North America where groups of anarchists such as ANTIFA emerge to destroy the previous culture only to become a tribe of collectivists once again, which is what the North American Indians were when Europeans stumbled upon them in the late 1600s. The pyramids of massive cities such as Cahokia and the empires of the Maya who built El Mirador and were obviously trading with societies up and down the Mississippi River and the Ohio River valley when Christ was born had long been forgotten only to leave a bunch of little villages of hunters and gatherers to meet the Pilgrims from the Mayflower when they arrived at Plymouth Rock.

It is important to understand the cause and effect of centralized society, it’s not just a modern political issue. The reason to study these types of things is so that we can correct the behavior. When studying El Mirador we are so amazed that we have discovered that Mayan civilization predates our previous assumptions by over a thousand years that we forget to consider why they fell apart as a society. We look to the Greeks, the Romans, the English Empire, the Ming Dynasty, The Egyptians, the Mayans, Incans—we look everywhere in the world and we see the same elements over and over again. What causes the rise and fall of a civilization. Then we must attribute that to what we are living today, what makes America great and the rest of the world not so. And can we stop such a thing from happening in North America as it has happened everywhere else in the world time and time again? I think so, and that is my interest in these things. The key I would say is less centralization and more individualism, because we certainly don’t want some future society to find American cities under massive forests like we have discovered in regard to El Mirador and to go through the whole process yet again learning nothing and making mistakes over and over.

Rich Hoffman

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

Standing Proud with Donald Trump: Yes, Putin is more trustworthy

To answer John Kasich’s question which he asked on television about Trump’s Helsinki Summit with Vladimir Putin I am more in President Trump’s corner now than I ever have been. It wasn’t Putin who was the bully on the national stage, it was the American intelligence departments that had been weaponized by hostile forces to work against all Americans using their own money to fuel the Deep State strategies. I took much of what Trump was doing as foreign policy and attributed it to the great American game of Poker. Obviously, the rest of the world composed of the media were playing Candy Land so they had no way of understanding how Trump could speak one way to Germany then another to Russia. It really depends on what cards you have in your hands, what is on the table from the dealer and who has what chips for which you are trying to inspire a bet. Its elementary negotiating stuff and Russia is a player at the table and Trump wants to deal, which he should. But there was a lot fishy about the Robert Mueller investigation dropping the indictments of 12 Russians on the Friday before the summit as if they were trying to force Trump into picking sides. The media was oddly in sync with the Mueller investigation in attempting to paint Putin as the vilest enemy on planet earth. The investment that many from both the Republican and Democratic parties had in making Putin out to be a villain was oddly forced. Then I saw the New York Times cartoon that they had produced trying to show Putin and Trump as gay lovers. With so many forces working together to paint a picture about Vladimir Putin the question I had was why?

Trump is a great strategist and if I had been in his shoes, I would have done the exact same thing. He knows that the FBI was weaponized against him and that the swamp of Washington D.C. culture was looking to impeach him just for winning the election. If he listened to their urgings in publicly dismantling Putin for some Russian interference in the American election of 2016 then he would have validated the efforts of so many who worked against him. What if the Russians didn’t have anything to do with meddling in the election? Why should we believe an intelligence agency that tried to overthrow a winning president and covered up the crimes of Trump’s political rival? Why should any of us trust anything the intelligence agencies say about anything—because they have been caught lying many times now? I thought Putin’s offer to let the Mueller team come to Russia to interview the supposed hostile agents mentioned in the Friday indictments was a good one. If anybody really wanted to pursue justice, Mueller would have already been on a plane to conduct the interviews in Russia. But we all know that the indictments were not to pursue justice, but to take the eyes of law and order away from the crimes of the FBI and put it on some misty villain on the other side of the world. And Trump was supposed to be so patriotic that he’d back the American intelligence agencies to support the story against even himself all in the name of national unity.

Patriotism does not mean you support villainy if it is coming from your own side. Trump would not be a patriot to go to meet with officials from other countries and stand by what he knows are criminal elements from his own country. By doing so he makes himself a fool and in America it is individualism that rules, not subscription to groups and institutions. There are serious problems with the American intelligence community, many of them need to be in jail for what they did, and in order to deal well with Russia Trump needed to show that he could admit as much. Which then forces Russia, North Korea, Syria and many other hostile places around the world to step forward with similar admissions. It wasn’t unpatriotic to admit that America had its own problems with its intelligence community. To chastise Putin would be to show Trump as a liar. Yet the institutionalists behind the American intelligence community thought it was Trump’s obligation to sacrifice his individual integrity for the good of national patriotism and to sell their version of the events to the world by using Russia as the punching bag.

Yet for Trump to condemn Russia for meddling in the 2016 election the President would then be admitting that his victory was the responsibility of a foreign power. The whole point of this made up story by American intelligence was to justify why Hillary Clinton had lost. It couldn’t have been because Trump worked harder and ran a better campaign. We must never forget that the Russian dossier which was personally handed to the FBI by John McCain’s office, which was originally started by that same FBI funded by the DNC was created to tie Putin to Trump in a negative way. The only problem with it was that the entire thing was made up, just as the meddling story was. Even if Trump wanted to, he couldn’t attack Putin over Russian guilt because honestly there isn’t any real evidence that they were involved an anything significant. The real guilty parties in election meddling was American intelligence that once were caught tried to pin the blame on Russia because they were the last country on earth that anybody thought would be in a position to defend themselves from the accusation.

That is the reason that nobody involved in the conspiracy stories about Russian meddling in the 2016 election wanted Trump to meet with Putin—because it would blow up their story. Putin obviously wants to clear the air by inviting Mueller to Russia to pursue his indictments. Everybody knows there is nothing there so of course the FBI won’t go, which says everything. Yet the criticism of Trump was that he didn’t patriotically stand by his own intelligence agencies while on foreign soil. If a family has a child molester in its ranks, it is not being loyal to the family not to address the issue and call the police on the bastard knowing what he is doing to little kids. If a family member is an alcoholic and is beating the crap out of his spouse, it is not a condition of loyalty to turn the other way to protect the family name. It’s contributing to evil. And the same holds true of Trump. Putin and Russia in general may not be the best people in the world. But it’s not Trump’s duty to contribute to a false story just to show loyalty to the American intelligence agencies. They are obviously guilty of many bad deeds and if Trump wants to sell himself to the world as an honest negotiator, he must call a spade a spade and why shouldn’t he? That same intelligence agency has tried to destroy him. Why would he be loyal to them and help them off the hook they put themselves on? The answer is he shouldn’t. And he didn’t, even under great pressure. And that is what makes Donald Trump the greatest American president the world has ever seen and history will remember these events very favorably.

Rich Hoffman

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