Compromise is a Dirty Word: Republicans and Democrats are not conducive to an equal and profitable exsitance

It was nice to see so many requests from the liberal left asking that everyone unite under a common cause of America for the day of July 4th. A call for civility is always a good thing, only behind a few layers of social acceptance crept an ominous villain which went unnamed—and that’s usually how it is with conservatives. All parties in the matter are not equal, the political and the left and the political right are not “equally” complicit in the crimes against the American Constitution, are not “equal” in their desire for social change, or even their basic value systems. One party is not equally aggressive, or beholden to an equitable measure of the responsibility for bringing about a day of peace so that all Americans could enjoy a few fireworks. And that assumption was very disturbing because it essentially lures conservatives to believe that they are equally complicit in the crimes of division, which of course they aren’t.

If in a married couple one member of the relationship is always trying to make the other behave in a manner that keeps the marriage alive while the other is always running around cheating and bringing bad elements into the union—both parties are not equally responsible for making the changes needed to make things work. It doesn’t take two to always compromise in order to make concessions for a husband and a wife to get along. If the husband wants to cheat it is not the wife’s responsibility to compromise with her husband and just let him surf dating websites for entertainment. She is not equally responsible to compromise toward his defects emotionally. The man might say to the wife that she doesn’t dress sexy enough to hold his interest, or that the wife is too much a sexual puritan to full satisfy his desires, it is not the responsibility of the wife to sacrifice all her beliefs so that the relationship can work. Maybe she doesn’t want group sex, maybe she doesn’t want to yield to anal sex, maybe she wants a sexual relationship that is more intimate and caring, not filled with so many taboo driven characteristics. It is in the value judgments of the two married people to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, but if the wife finds the request for sexual fulfilment disgusting, the burden is not for her to scrap her value system in order to get along with a defective husband. It is the husband who must figure out if his values are even conducive to being in a marriage if those are the types of things that he’s interested in.

A marital example is something that just about everyone can relate to and perfectly captures what is being asked when civility between political parties is suggested. It suggests that conservatives and democrats come together equally and put away their weapons just for one day while all Americans watch fireworks and enjoy American pie at their local parades. However, reality knows better and what everyone is fighting about is not a resolution that both sides will meet in the middle and join hands to live happily ever after. When the value systems of both sides are so opposed, the philosophy of the two cannot magically be bonded, reality has parameters for behavior where some things just aren’t conducive with each other. Good is good and bad is bad, they are not relatives to one’s position within the universe. Good behavior or bad behavior is good or bad here on earth or on the other side of a black hole on the far reaches of the universe. We would call that a universal truth. To use the marital example as a foundation of thought, if a man cheats on his wife or demands reckless sex in their relationship the violations against the marriage are the same here as they would be on the far side of the universe. Good and bad cannot be mixed together to form a stable reality.

Conservatives are not responsible for yielding to the ANTIFA protestors’ desires for anarchy. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires for open borders. Conservatives are not responsible for the progressive political platform on abortion where actual death of babies is a negotiating point—is life formed at conception or during the 12th week, or moments before the baby leaves the womb during birth. Conservatives are not responsible for the liberal desires to tax everyone and redistribute the wealth of their society to the lazy bastards who refuse to work and would rather be homeless. In the case of the relationship between conservatives and liberals it is the liberals who want to take from the value of conservatives to sustain the lives of others that is the problem. Conservatives are asking for individual rights not the rights of groups to exist, and that sums up the fundamental difference as to why the two sides will never get along. One side will have to conquer the other and a basic philosophic position going forward will have to be decided upon. If a man is going to cheat, he is deciding to bring bad things to the relationship which makes a marriage unstable. He might complain that the wife doesn’t do this, or that she doesn’t do that, but ultimately it is her value systems which set the restriction for which he is trying to bend. If the purpose of a marriage is to bring about children into the world and to nurture them into a profitable existence than what does anal sex have to do with the happiness of a family, other than the husband is dealing with his own perverted desires? The fight between conservatives and liberals are just the same, if the purpose of politics is to lay the foundations for a proper society, yet one political philosophy wants to support group think and social welfare while the other supports individual rights those two positions cannot be mixed together to make everyone happy. It’s impossible.

Everyone can think of people in their lives who are defective, where they eat too much, drink too much, or have destructive characteristics that harm themselves and others around them. Yet it is not the responsibility of the good to yield their values to the destructiveness of those broken people. You can try to help them by bringing them to the light, but you cannot yield the light to darkness and expect light to survive. The destructive people out there hell-bent on personal failure have nothing to offer, they can only take from value. They don’t assist value, so there can be no equal merging of the two sides. Compromise is never really a compromise because it is always value which is traded away, one side takes while the other gives, that is the nature of good and evil. One side has it, the other side takes it, so there is never an equal partnership and in order to share value with non-value the essence of that value is what gets stretched out and diminished in the process. Everyone wasn’t born equally right from their point of view. It’s not just a matter of democrats talking to conservatives to find common ground. It’s about discovering a philosophy that actually works and building a society that works on principles of good and rejecting concepts of evil that we are talking about and with such ideas, compromise is a dirty word.

Rich Hoffman

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

Richard Branson’s Free Cash Idea is Rediculoulsy Stupid: Humans need to work more hours, not less as artificial intellegence enters the workplace

I think its amazing that people thought a decade ago that all my talk about socialism being taught in our schools and permeating the entertainment industry was an extreme position. Now that all the politeness has been stripped away from politics and people are revealing what they have always been as the masks have been ripped away, socialists are showing themselves. In the Democratic Party in the United States, they are starting to emerge as mainstreamers, and of course as the world struggles with the capitalism advocate and promoter Donald Trump people like Richard Branson are speaking their mind about the ultimate socialist plan, of actually giving people what they call a universal basic income. I have said many good things about Richard Branson over the years, I am a big fan of his Virgin Galactic endeavors, and I think the Virgin Airlines wing at Heathrow is fabulous, but I’m inclined to say that the English billionaire is an idiot who has either lost his mind or he just got lucky in his acquisition of wealth. Because a universal basic income will never get people off the streets and raise the living conditions of the poor. It will just exacerbate their essential problems, it will fuel their drug addictions, their alcoholism and their personal behavior problems of self-destruction. You can’t throw money at bad behavior which is why socialism will never work anywhere in the world. Money and its value is a measure of productivity, so you can’t cheat wealth. People are either productive or they aren’t. The solution to poverty is to take government out of wealth creation as much as possible and to provide as many people with productive opportunities. But even then, a certain percentage of any population will be too lazy to meet the needs of an expanding economy and throwing money at them for doing nothing won’t keep homeless people from littering or streets—it will just make more of them.

To be fair, Elon Musk also believes in this socialist universal basic income idea, and I think he’s brilliant. Not the idea of universal basic income, but in the ideas for evolved transportation systems that his companies are putting forth. I don’t fault people for having bad ideas given to them by faulty education systems and sentiments from cocktail friends who think they have this socialism thing all figured out because one of the few books they’ve read in life was from Karl Marx or some fan of the communist advocate from the middle 1800s. I don’t think anybody is qualified to talk about economic matters unless they’ve mastered The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Honestly, that should be the guidebook for which the world applies to all matters of their economies. Marx has always been a jealous envy driven person who was a peasant in Germany and died dirt poor in London as an enormously unproductive loser for which so many countries have tried to make work—but it never has. No economist from Oxford or Harvard, or anywhere will ever figure out how to make socialism work, because it goes against the basic human needs for productive intellectual output and the most foundational desire for personal freedom. Humans are not ant-like creatures that will coalesce around the needs of an insect society with a hive mind. Socialist advocates like Richard Branson may reveal their intellectual laziness by assuming that humans can be made to function in hive mind, but that is because they are not taking into account some of the most basic functions of being human—the desire for independence. Humans are not the social creatures that socialists assume they are, their most fundamental drive is toward complete independence. They may not achieve that in life, but that doesn’t mean deep down inside their most psychological foundations that independence from other human beings is not the driver of their basic behavior.

People like Musk say that he thinks there needs to be a universal basic income because from his vantage point artificial intelligence is going to take over our lives and there will suddenly be huge amounts of free time for people to enjoy in their leisure, because machines will be doing most of the productive work. The assumption is that companies won’t have enough work for people to perform 40 hours a week. This is where these visionaries in their respective fields are going wrong. They are looking at the page too closely relative to their respective interests—as billionaires in the industry of cutting edge technology. I am of the mind that we need to scrap the 40-hour work week and become 7 day a week creatures of productivity. It was the labor union movement, which was another socialist inspired creation that has been holding back the productivity of the human race and that the restrictor plate should be removed allowing people to be more productive not less. I thought it was very destructive that South Korea announced this past week that they are cutting the maximum hours that people can work in a week. They are reducing the number from 68 hours to 52, which will be crippling to their economy. What right does a government have in deciding that people can only make 52 hours’ worth of money? That concept would have never worked for me, I’ve never worked less than 60 hours per week my entire adult life, and most productive people I know are in the same situation. The message generated by such policies given by government is that productivity and work is not valued—that spiritual wellness is not connected to productivity, and those are just wrong ideas about the nature of human beings.

Even with artificial intelligence taking over many modern human tasks, the need for human productivity is not decreasing, its increasing. We shouldn’t be thinking of cutting down our work weeks to 32 or even 24 hours per week so we can sit around the house watching more Netflix and playing video games, we need to increase our work weeks to 70 to 90 hours to meet the onslaught of economic expansion that is becoming available due to growing market conditions. There are not enough people to do all the jobs which are emerging from the current 4% to 5% growth that is occurring in the United States. Unemployment is under 4% in America as well, which means everyone who wants a job essentially has one and to keep that expansion of the economy going, more productive output is needed. Artificial Intelligence and robotics will be needed for everything they can provide. But so will every living body available. The world needs to be working a lot more, not less to meet its fate in space and beyond based on the current rate of discovery and innovation. A universal basic income would cripple that notion and limit people to an income that the governments decide is enough—as they have done in South Korea. By taking away the dreams of enterprise and wealth acquisition, governments are taking away the incentive for upward mobility which fuels any economy—leading to disastrous results.

I would go so far to propose that birth rates need to increase around the world to post World War II levels just to meet the need for all the jobs and positions that will emerge out of the global economy over the next two decades. Artificial intelligence may end up everywhere, but it won’t be enough, we will need humans to continue to be productive, more productive than they’ve ever been. We certainly don’t need people sitting on their ass most of a work week collecting a paycheck from the government for doing nothing to help with their gross domestic product leaving all the employment tasks to artificial intelligence. We have the opposite problem that what Richard Branson assumes, humans aren’t less needed, they are needed more than ever, and a strong work ethic needs to be taught in our schools and through our media, certainly not what we have today. Our work weeks need to exceed 40 hours a week and the ceilings of wealth need to be raised as to what is expected. Minimums should never be a target for anybody—just doing whatever one needs to get by with. Wealth creation is an art form unique to human beings, the creation of productive output that generates income born of a human mind in pursuit of independent desires. Richard Branson obviously has faulty thinking in this category and so does anybody who thinks that socialism is going to become an international trend. I was right ten years ago when I pointed out the trend of socialism in our public schools and I’m correct now in saying that human productive output needs to increase, not decrease. Obviously its just a matter of time before the rest of the world catches up to that reality. I can promise they will, and when they do, they’ll want to read Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

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

We Need to Knock that Smile off Rod Rosenstein’s Face: The crimes of the FBI and why this is the biggest story in the world

The biggest story of the day is not that of the loser Jarrod Ramos who stormed the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland to kill with a shotgun the editors whom he had a long-standing dispute. Nor was it the fat assed losers in desperate need of boyfriends who were protesting the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s D.C. headquarters trying to shut down ICE as an organization so to support the open border fantasy of destroying America from within by overloaded illegal immigration. The story is not that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring giving President Trump a much-needed pick to keep the court thinking correctly well into the future. The real story of the day was the testimony of the weaponized FBI by its current bosses in the form of the arrogant Rob Rosenstein’s comments before congress. This wasn’t just a show for the voters, this was a peeling back of the curtain in the Wizard of Oz of the real villains of our society—radical ideologues using the law and our tax money to front a coup against our election system for which they are using the legal system as a cover for operation. When you can’t trust the FBI essentially every other story is worthless, because social chaos is bound to spawn off in the wake.

The reason the Russian investigation at this point is such a joke is because its entire purpose has been to divert attention away from the radicalism utilized by the FBI for the purpose of manipulating an American election. The arrogance on full display of Rob Rosenstein and the presence of FBI agent Peter Strzok gave us a glimpse into a very subtle evil that had been percolating for quite some time. For the FBI to drag the document request by congress the way they have, and to continue to use a phony Mueller investigation hoping to run out the clock on complete social breakdown, which is going on all around us quite literally, the FBI has attempted to cover up crimes it committed against American voters with a diabolical scheme that would embarrass any plot writer for the latest James Bond movie.

All the other bad stories that are happening, especially the one involving the shooting at the Capital Gazette cascades off the bad behavior of a society lacking civility because the basic trusts of our invented institutions are in turmoil due to massive corruption among their leadership. Under President Obama the FBI became weaponized and due to a fortunate accident, President Trump was elected which exposed the menace with the villains caught in the act red-handed. Up until that point we had only suspected that our institutions such as the FBI, the IRS and other government institutions filled with government labor unionized radical employees were up to no good politically. We certainly saw it in the case of Lois Lerner and during the Fast and Furious debacle involving Eric Holder and Barack Obama. We certainly saw it in the Benghazi failures when the Obama administration tried to blame the whole thing on a video by some filmmaker. This case against Trump has the same fingerprints all over it by the tampering forces of a rival political administration. Only this time we have the evidence and the arrogance of Rob Rosenstein to confirm our worst suspicions.

Watching Peter Strzok testify on Capitol Hill, studying his body language has he entered and exited his car says a lot about the FBI. Even after all that he has done he was protected by the FBI and he believed just as Rosenstein did that the institution itself, of the FBI, is bigger than the society they are supposed to be sworn to protect. You could see it on Rosenstein’s face when he answered the questions of Jim Jorden from Ohio referring to the body of congress as an equal arm of government. The question asked of course from Jorden was why Rosenstein’s department was so slow to submit documentation to congress as requested. Obviously, the reason is to have the DOJ run out the clock and hope that some spectacular news story will come along and wash all this evidence away letting the villains at the FBI go free. But that’s not going to happen. Even with all the big news stories of this rather crazy week, nothing was bigger than the FBI testimony in front of congress. As much as they would hope, Rosenstein’s defiance was the smoking gun we all needed to see.

While its nice to put your head down on a soft pillow at night and know that we have hired people to deal with the villains of the world—such as why the FBI exists to begin with, often that security is an illusion. When the FBI becomes involved in such corruption all the good they do on the child porn cases, the surveillance of terrorist suspects and the general well-being of our society, they undo it all with just one case of corruption, and in this case it’s a lot of corruption. What makes me the angriest is that a smokescreen investigation into Trump collusion with some made up Russians has cost nearly $18 million so far, and that is just to hide the FBI’s own role in criminal activity. They have wasted enormous sums of money funded by tax payers on a story to hide their own guilt which is far different from the $57 million spent investigating Bill Clinton, or the $26 million spent on Watergate. Some might say that those other cases were examples of political witch hunts too, but in this case all Donald Trump did to find himself under investigation was that he won and election. The institutions can’t believe they didn’t see it coming, that all their indicators pointed to an easy Hillary Clinton victory. Well, I called the Trump win well over a year out. I had no doubt he would win even in October when all the dirty tricks came out. Hillary Clinton wasn’t even a legal contender, so the FBI didn’t ruin her chances, the only reason she was a candidate instead of being in jail running for president of the United States was because of them. The FBI didn’t cause Hillary to lose, Donald Trump beat her fair and square yet the pain of that victory for the other side is beyond their comprehension, so they are wasting, by the time it’s all said and done, over $20 million to prove that they aren’t the idiots that they really are.

What’s worse is that the FBI wasn’t just willing to provide legal cover for criminal conduct, but they have been willing to attack and destroy political rivals from within Trump’s circle. Using the FBI as a weapon against justice is beyond reprehensible and to watch Rosenstein and Strzok smile and at times laugh at members of congress during very serious testimony indicates that they know they are at the top of the legal ladder and they have no fear of falling off. That is a serious problem. It is the biggest story in the world right now because if there cannot be justice in the United States, there cannot be justice in Mexico, Indonesia, Japan, Russia or all of Europe—anywhere. If our FBI in America is that corrupt, then what chance is there for anybody anywhere? That is why the punishment for these offenses at the FBI and their role in criminal conduct must be punished in the harshest manner possible, and we need to knock that smile off Rosenstein’s face, because behind him are thousands of ankle bitters just like him wanting to be the next top boss, and if he gets away with all this corruption, there will be no way to fix it later with those waiting in the chain of command for their opportunity to do much worse if left unchecked.

Rich Hoffman

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

A Note to the Political Left: You want to fight, I’m more than ready

31% of people polled in a recent Rasmussen poll believe that we are headed to a second civil war in America.  I am one of them and when and if it happens, I offer myself to help win it on behalf of traditional America.  Just let me know.  It would be fun, and is greatly needed.

I am an excellent communicator with a great vocabulary. I’ve done radio broadcasts, television, given public speeches, written a few books and conduct myself at a high professional manner in business. Additionally, I have a martial art background, am a professional bullwhip artist and am one of the fastest gun owners on the draw from a holster to target that there is in the United States. No matter what kind of confrontation I find myself in, I can deal with it easily. I can debate any topic with any person at any time and any place in any format, and I know that 99.9999999999999% of the time that will be enough. For that rare time that physical violence does erupt, which the older you get and the smarter you get is much less often—that I can take care of the situation. The reason I bring this up is that I know how to avoid conflict and prefer debate over violence any time. But I also know where the limits for debate are and when physical violence is unavoidable—and I am quite certain that the situation the political left is in currently, a year and a half into the Trump presidency, that likely violence is the only thing that will work against the threats that are being made against conservatives. Liberals cannot and will not listen to reason about the things that are going on in the world because their entire political platform is about avoiding reason and functioning from pure emotion—how they would like the world to be, not how it actually is, so no matter what format they choose to fight on, they are going to lose leaving them to retreat to the most primal of threats—physical violence.

I have said often what the purpose of public education is. I know a lot of school board members both current and former, and many of them want to believe that they can have some positive impact on public education, but they really can’t. The way public education was designed from its inception as a government instruction tool it’s primary concerns were not to make children literate or to learn math. It was to shape them into peer groups for which they would be controlled for their entire lives. The children were always meant to confront bullies in school and to learn later in life that when a neighbor, a homeowner’s association, a boss, an IRS official, a FBI agent or a mob of leftist protestors confront them that they were to yield to that bully. The reason there are bullies in public schools is because the system is designed to bring them forth and to confront the masses to teach them conformity to the system as a whole—not to nurture individualized feelings.

In addition to the things I mentioned above I had a very unusual period in grade school, from kindergarten to my senior year in high school—I never once in all that time yielded to a single bully so naturally I stepped into adulthood unbroken completely—which is an unusual vantage point. I learned these lessons very early in life when getting a paddling from the teacher and being sent to the principal’s office were supposed to be the scariest things a kid would have to endure. I’ve told this story before but it’s very relevant to this situation, in the first grade there was a really scary bully that everyone was terrified of and the teachers avoided because he was impossible to deal with. He had terrible parents and they knew there was nothing they could do with the kid. Yet he was learning in a classroom environment with all the other kids. He was twice the size of all of us and he was just mean. He was smoking cigarettes in school in the first grade! So he was hopeless and everyone knew it. But the suggestion was that we would all have to learn to live with him and learn to like it. We were supposed to go out of our way to appease the kid so that we wouldn’t get beat up. Well, not me, he happened to sit in front of me and I didn’t like the way he smelled or spoke, so we never got along. And one day he turned around to punch me in the face for smarting off to him and to defend myself I poked him in the eye with my scissors, as a raw reaction to his aggression. I got into a lot of trouble, and essentially the rest of my school years I was in and out of the principal’s office not because I was a bully, but because I refused to yield to them. The bullies never got into any real trouble, but I sure did. I was the good kid that was supposed to be molded into a productive citizen that would learn his place under the rule of the bullies. I did learn to be a productive person, but I never learned to yield to any bully. That has given me clarity to speak from regarding this present problem.

The political left is largely untested radicals who were nurtured from their youth to be bullies in their adulthood, not individually of course, but as pack hunters. Their greatest weapon is the kind of mass force that was experimented with during the Berkley Riots of 1965—where the students were used to drive social issues in a left leaning direction by essentially using mobs as a bully to instigate fear into the voting public. They were created in our public schools and deep in their subconscious have key words programmed into their minds which are activated by media buzz words for which they act like robots upon hearing them. And just like that they are trying to kick out Sarah Sanders from The Red Hen, or confronting Mitch McConnell outside his Georgetown condo and are roaming the country under the hoods of ANTIFA threatening to rape, destroy and vandalize any Trump supporter because they have the sense that the mood of the country has finally turned away from them and they may very well lose the next election cycle to even more Republicans.

Violence is all the political left has, they don’t have ideas, they don’t have a strategy, and they don’t have a future. All they have and all they ever had was fear driven by emotions. If they fail to evoke fear in their audiences, they have no impact legislatively, and as we all know, all rules in society should be made by reason, not emotional fears. The strategy of the old conservatives who hold a Bible in one hand and tell us to have compassion for our fellow people on the other side of politics are wrong. You cannot appease a bully when they are programmed to do nothing else but destroy. Like that bully I mentioned and many that came after him, there was no talking to or reasoning with the guy. He had to be destroyed, because that’s all he understood. And that is what we are dealing with now, people who will destroy you if you give them the chance. They are not ever going to listen to reason, they will never seek peace from thuggish aggression—because they don’t know anything else. We have to deal with them the only way that anybody can, with the offer of debate, but the moment that doesn’t work, violence. I certainly know the difference between the two, debate and violence. Debate is always preferred, but this fight before us isn’t a rational one. All the political left has in their arsenal is fear. And without that they have nothing. So when an opponent is intent to use the only weapon they have left, you have to meet them with at least an equal force. That means the time for talking is over, they will have to be beaten into oblivion in order for peace to ever have a chance. You must take away the only weapon they have before anything can change, and that takes courage, and the self-confidence to do so.

I can only speak for myself in this matter but when I hear the political left threatening violence against Trump supporters it makes me want to confront them and actually beat them into submission. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I have all the tools to engage them with methods other than with violence, but if they think we are going to yield to them out of fear, they have a lot to learn. I would say, again, speaking for myself, it is impossible for them to beat me. I’ve been threatened in every way possible in the past and been through more than enough to know what happens during physical confrontations and there is nothing that worries me about anything they have to offer either as individuals or as mass groups. If you know how to defeat such people it doesn’t matter if the threat is one or a million, they can all be beaten—easily. Nobody is going to hurt me under any conditions. And nobody is going to hurt my family, friends or associates. There is no way for them to make a person like me comply to their brute force tactics and peer pressure. Being very Kantian philosophically they are inclined to believe that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, that the event didn’t happen, because for the event to happen, they as a collective would have to accept that the event occurred. But reality says that if a tree falls in the forest it doesn’t matter if anybody heard it or not. It fell, and it happened regardless whether everyone agreed that the event occurred. That is the game that political leftists are trying to play with the Trump presidency. They are in denial that it happened, and they are willing to use whatever force necessary to deny its existence, not just from us, but from themselves. So for the good of mankind and of reality, we must take away their weapons and meet them with force equal to or superior to what they offer. And they must be destroyed, utterly, and completely as a philosophic species and be reborn as children of reason. That is the only option there is in 2018.

Rich Hoffman

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

Why a Space Force is Needed: Answering the call on the doorsteps of history

I understand and sympathize with the frustrations President Trump must be feeling. I think the creation of a Space Force in the United States is long overdue. It’s more than time for such a thing, especially as commercial ventures move more into space. There will be rescues needed, and general maintenance as Space becomes more of our national dialogue. Yet the small-minded continue to relish in the feces of their entirely limited scope. I read maybe the dumbest thing I have read all year at the link below. It will take me dozens of smart books to wash the filth from my mind, yet for discussion points I have to recommend it to you dear reader as well, for context. Essentially mankind in its current form is of two minds, one is always looking for the next great thing and is inventing itself to that doorstep. The other is desiring to do what mankind has always done and that is to retreat back into the forms of the primitive. Those two desires are clearly at cross purposes, they are not compatible intellectually to inhabit the same space on planet earth and that is very obvious with Karl Grossman, the author of the article at the following link—and of some of the video examples shown below.

I certainly don’t care about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Mankind hadn’t even walked on the moon when that treaty was made with other countries. It was way too soon to put language on paper. Space must be in the future of humanity, because earth won’t last forever. Earth is a jealous mother cleaving to its children in a very unhealthy way, but mankind must rebel away from it anyway, and that Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that Karl Grossman is so excited about is worthless. The people of the earth are not egalitarians, and they certainly aren’t socialists. There cannot be a treaty of shared interests with countries that are not all functioning from the same general philosophies and until that happens there will be wars among people. Countries will fight it out just as there are arguments at family dinner tables over ideological based observations. In the meantime, for the sake of peace, the United States can’t chain itself to some stupid treaty with the communist nation of China over how to develop space.

It’s essentially the same argument that we still have about the moral nature of western expansion in the United States, did the primitive Indians have a right to hold mankind down to the prayers to the gods for their sustenance, or should capitalism, the railroad, and the boundless imagination of people unleashed by the desire for personal wealth unlock those mysteries for the name of science? I certainly know the answer and it’s not even close, I’ll take science any day. I am certainly a fan of pushing all the hippies, and progressive losers out of the science fields and replacing them with adventurers and fortune hunters—because all science needs money to function, and it is in science that mankind unlocks its next doors of exploration. Space deserves our attention, as many adventures await, and I don’t have any sympathy for the sentiments of the overly cautious who want peace over understanding, and a preservation of nature over wealth creation. Nature is always in a state of decline, and its end is guaranteed. But the ability to think and change its circumstances is very specific to the nature of mankind, and it is one of the most positive elements in the universe. I have no doubt that we could and likely will look to the ends of time and back again and we won’t find any form of life that is as unique, and special as the human mind. Because the human mind can not only navigate its environment for basic needs of survival, but it can contemplate the nature of existence and make course corrects that benefit all life everywhere.

Listening to critics of Donald Trump’s Space Force reminded me of my school days where as a Star Wars fan who often wore t-shirts to school paying reverence to that classic movie, kids would make fun of it. The more they did of course, the more I wore them because it was never my goal to fit in with those imbecilic losers. I understood why they said what they did even back then, before I had literature and adult understandings to define the elements for me. Public schools were always built to support the old order of aristocratic Europe, the kind of thinking that kept mankind chained to the Vico Cycle—where questions like, “do you believe in Atlantis” were met with sneers. Those old order people would say, “of course not, we invented the wheel at such and such time, we had the Bronze Age here, and the Iron Age there, so of course there couldn’t have been an Atlantis.” Only what those fools never considered was that under today’s current sea levels are old ocean fronts containing major cities of the old world and one of them is likely Atlantis, a place that jumped forward and reverted back again to the dingy thinking of the socialists and progressives—people probably called by another name by a Karl Marx figure who infected their society the way the modern version infected our present society with diseased thinking and fearful sentiment. Kids in grade school made fun of Star Wars because fans dared to think the unimaginable, was there life on other planets, why would anybody want to travel into space—there were no girls there to kiss so why do it. People should keep their feet on the ground, turn in their guns and trust mother government to chain mankind’s feet to the earth and be done with all these fantasies of life in outer space. I always knew better, I mostly wore Star Wars shirts because it was like throwing Holy Water on a demon from the apocalypse.

Conquest is not a bad thing, before a human mind can conquer what it doesn’t yet know, it must destroy the things that hold back knowledge and that is often the rules and superstitions of the previous order. Just as there is a need for a Coast Guard to help in international shipping, and an Air Force to provide not only air cover for the United States, but to refill airplanes in long distance transit, as we move into Space and host long distance trips to Mars and beyond there will be a need for a professional organization to assist in the travels, when things do go wrong which they will. That doesn’t mean that mankind should sip tea in the streets of Paris and look to the art of the past and declare that genius would progress no further, but that all minds should dare to go to the next place discovered by adventurers and unleash new thoughts and practices for which have not yet been invented because necessity hasn’t yet demanded them. The old jealous types who cleave to the old are not trying to save the earth or humanity through peace, they are only trying to lay cover for their own timidity and internal fears of the unknown. And that is precisely why we need a Space Force now, and not a minute longer, because space is a place that we must explore and eventually escape to, in order to bring value to the thoughts that placed us on this doorstep of history. To turn away now would be to become the next Atlantis for some future civilization of head hunters and tattooed freaks cleaving once again at the primitive values of the known. And we don’t want to see that happen, that’s for sure. I’m ready to wear my t-shirt for the new Space Force and to boldly help wherever possible.

Rich Hoffman

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

Trump Says that He’s the Smartest: Why the “many” hate the good for being good

When President Trump spoke at the Duluth, Minnesota rally on June 20th 2018 he said something remarkable. During the contents of the speech he stated that he was “smarter” than his opposition, which is entirely true, but it’s an unspoken rule that most people in his position never state publicly. And they always should have. There is nothing wrong with being smarter, faster, bigger, better looking than your opponents—but there has been a quiet evil that has circulated through the human race essentially since its inception, and that is a kind of egalitarian approach to existence. If someone had talents over others the implication was that it was a kind of duty to suppress those talents to spare the emotions of other people. But in doing so a very malicious evil was unleashed and that evil is at the heart of the Democratic Party—particularly its most progressive branches. That evil essentially is a severe hatred of the good for being good.

When Trump stated that he was smarter than his opponents, those people constituted previous presidential administrations, the entire FBI, and CIA, other leaders around the world, highly educated political pundits, political strategists who have been in the business their entire lives—Trump stated that he was smarter than they were, and he further drove home the point by stating that he was elected president and they weren’t for proof as to their assertions. What he stated was one of the greatest unspoken rules known to mankind and Trump uttered it as if he were talking about the weather. When I first heard it I thought, “this is about time that someone say such a thing, especially at the level of the president.” Essentially, that way of thinking is why America is superior to the rest of the world and why the trade deal talks and any other aspects of our economy can easily beat back any nation—because as a capitalist country we are filled with “better people.” They are better not because they are white or male, or any physical condition. They are better because they are free people allowed to develop beyond the limits of the greater civilization and that is the key to most successful ventures in life.

The reason our public schools our ineffective is because their essential aim is to apply egalitarianism to the student body. While we all know stories of the very attractive prom king and queen, most students will fall into the murky middle category and won’t aspire beyond the egalitarianism that they learned in their public educations. Such a social system may worship the star quarterback or the kid who dominates in basketball and wins the school many state rewards—but the public school becomes a microcosm of the macrocosmic society where such celebrities are worshipped but common people never aspire to be really be one themselves. This approach to learning is not conducive to the type of capitalist system that America is, so the education that we provide is worthless to those types of people who refuse to accept that they are in an egalitarian system.

Trump obviously never saw himself as equal to others, he has spent his life putting himself above the average in everything he did. If you are a rival of his, that would make him an enemy. But just like in the capitalist system of a nation, such relationships make the world a better place for everyone. If someone has worked hard to be better than average than why should they not reap the benefits of that position? But in all aspects of the egalitarian movement which has constantly attempted to attack America’s capitalist systems, trying to be better than others is considered a value judgment, and egalitarians just can’t have any judgements made, because that mutes the point of their entire existence. This is why they hate those who are good, because they are good. Good is a value judgment which implies superiority over the egalitarians and a society dedicated to equality for all is dedicated to the cause of leveling the playing field for everyone.

The way they aim to do this is to rob value from value so that everything comes out to zero. It is a grand scheme of the egalitarians who happen also to be among the laziest of our society. The real reason they push for equality is that they are too lazy to compete with others for the title. Even though some may never reach the category of being the best at something, when everyone competes, everyone individually gets better. But the lazy wish always to rob the value of individual achievement to relish in their own identity. For instance, when a star athlete scores a point just before the conclusion of a game, people in the audience often say “we won!” No, “we” didn’t win, the athlete under great pressure and poise gave the team a victory. The team didn’t do it for him. The people on the sidelines didn’t win the game, they benefited from the heroics of the individual who scored with seconds left to play. Everyone playing the game isn’t equal. So long as the athlete at the conclusion of the game sanctions the team spirit as a whole, the individual will be praised. But if they put the light on themselves the way they deserve, then there will be great hatred for the athlete because they are not allowing others to loot off the victory with unearned merit.

One of the evilest things a person can do is to sanction evil by running away from how good they are so to avoid the appeasement of the lazy—so that we don’t hurt their feelings. By allowing egalitarianism to destroy good by forcing it away from people’s minds we allow evil to triumph over good—the good defined by effort, honesty, and achievement instead of sacrificing those elements to the lazy, the stupid, and the malicious. When good people who are the best at what they do allow the worst of our society to believe they are equal to the good by not showing the comparison they are allowing evil to win, and that is not acceptable.

What makes Donald Trump such a great president, is that he does not sanction evil by robbing it from the good. He is often very quick to point out great individuals who are doing good in the world, but he refuses to sanction evil by equating it with the good which is why there is such vicious hatred of him by the left. Donald Trump really hasn’t done anything to any of them—other than exist. And when you really break down what they hate about Trump it’s that he insists to always push for being the best, the best country, having the best wife, being the smartest in the room, having the best economy—and that attitude is strengthening the powers of capitalism, not robbing from it the way egalitarians have always dreamed. They are not mad at Donald Trump because of anything he did, other than the fact that he wants to do good, and for them that is the worst thing in the world because it sets a standard they are too lazy, and too stupid to live up to.

Rich Hoffman

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

Being the Best Dad in the World: The secret is in priorities, tenacity, and judgment

I had a really nice Father’s Day this year. My grown-up girls came to see me and treated me to a really great day and I had a chance to see all the grandkids and we had a tremendous amount of fun. But I didn’t know it until the next morning what they had written about me on their social media accounts which was the best thing of all. It was my oldest daughter who wrote the little testament below, but my youngest had a bit to add which I share only as an example for others to follow. One thing I will openly admit about myself is that I work extremely hard literally every minute of every day to be the best that I can be. Being the “best” is a value judgment, so I am certainly not one of these people who believe in living and let live kinds of people who profess that no judgments about others should be made. I judge everything, literally, and I see that as a very healthy thing for the human condition, and as a father I didn’t hold back with my kids. I always put them first no matter what I personally might have wanted to do and made sure that they lived in a stimulating environment while they worked out their intellects protected by the very many bad people in life from within our families and out side of them, so that they could developed into the great people they are today. They are now at the age where they can appreciate all that effort and they let me know how they felt on Father’s Day.

Honestly, I think I may have been, and am the best father in the history of fathers. Again, I aim to push myself in everything I do, I want to be the best at everything—so if I’m going to go to the truly ominous step of bringing lives into the world, I did make several conscious decisions to ensure that those lives would get a very special treatment from my job as a father. If I was going to do it, I was going to do it better than anyone had thought was previously possible and looking back on it now, with all the difficulties of raising specifically girls in a world that is trying to push them in all kinds of inauthentic directions, I am very proud of the job. I’ve never claimed to be humble in any way, so I don’t mind showing off a bit how proud I am of my kids and how much they care about me because I hope it serves as an example to others that a successful relationship with their children is not only possible, but its encouraged.

So what makes a father so important and how could one become the “best?” Well, don’t listen to any examples from modern movies. Don’t look to literature, comics or your next-door neighbor. Don’t look at politics or even to the limits of your own upbringings. Most of the time, the parental influences from the previous generations fall short of greatness because they were taught that they were supposed to be meek and weak, and humble before God. Speaking from experience if I had been the kind of person who waited for God to solve my problems my family wouldn’t be what it is today. Thinking of one example, I was working three jobs, one full-time, two part time and one of them was a grill cook at Wendy’s near Kings Island. My neighbors across the street from my home where my kids lived were drug dealers and they had a teenage son that offered my kids dope while they were riding their bicycles. My wife showed her anger at this and instead of the kid yielding to the activity out of respect, he invited over to his house every thug in Mason to gather on their front lawn and yell at my wife—essentially to force her to stay inside the house and not to watch their activities. They were trying to scare her into silence.

We only had one car and I always left the car with my wife so that if something happened with the kids she could take care of it. But on this day there was a yard full of roughly 30 teenage thugs in front of our house making it so that my kids couldn’t play in front of our house. She had tried to call the police, but at that point the police were clearly on the side of the drug dealers. I found out later that the local police were getting a cut of the money from the family because I approached the mayor on the issue and that’s how I learned it. So the police had labeled my wife as one of those neurotic types who called the police too much, so they wouldn’t come to break up the activity, and the teenage kids seemed to know it feeding their aggression. That left my wife with only one option, she called me at my Wendy’s job and asked me to come home and solve the problem. So I left and rode my bicycle the 8 miles it took to get back to my house, while it was pouring rain, and I arrived about 20 minutes later to the scene of the spectacle. My daughter who wrote the nice little article shown here had my bullwhip ready to give me because she knew I was going to fight all those kids and she thought I’d need it. I grabbed it and set to challenging all those kids at the same time to a fight. I unloaded on them in one of the most epic rampages I’ve had in my life. It wasn’t the only one, but it was certainly one of the best. I had no idea at the time if I’d be arrested for charging onto the property of a neighbor and threatening to kill all their punky kids. So I figured I better make the whole thing count.

As it turned out the parents of the house wanted nothing to do with the police coming to break up the fight and having it known what they actually had at the house in the form of drugs. The local cops obviously knew, but the police department itself really couldn’t afford for this house to be exposed in the news, so the mom came outside and called all thirty of those kids into the house, for which they strangely obeyed. They left me standing outside with my bullwhip ready to kill someone, all by myself with the entire neighborhood watching. I stayed out there pacing around for a half hour fully expecting the police to arrive as someone would have surely called them. But the police never came and eventually I went back into our house to speak to our family.

When my kids talk about some of the crazy stories from them growing up, this is one of them, although not the greatest. But for me it was one of those father moments when I thought I was going to go to jail for doing all the right things. If the house across the street hadn’t been “politically sensitive” I obviously would have for threatening to kill 30 minors. A few of them were over 18 but most were between 15 and 18 and what I was doing was certainly against the law. But I had to do what had to be done to protect my family. As a result of that escapade we went into a two-year cold war with that family and several others who lived on our street, but my kids were free to ride their bikes in front of our house without anybody bothering them. Eventually, the police told us that if we wanted to live in a nice neighborhood, that we should move to one instead of trying to make the place we lived in Mason a neighborhood to our standards. I took the issue to the mayor’s office of Mason, but he had no stomach for any of it, which pointed obviously to a much deeper corruption within our community that we otherwise wouldn’t have known about. I always thought that our neighborhood was nice and that the community of Mason was on the uptick, which it obviously was looking back on things, but there were lots of middle class people living there who wanted drugs, especially pot, and that family across the street was happy to bring it in for them, and the police were happy to help as long as they were able to get their hands on some extra cash.

Being a great father means sometimes you have to do things like that, even though your own personal comfort is certainly not a consideration. In my situation, I was literally working 110 hours a week and we only had one car so I was riding a bicycle to all these jobs. I never had extra money in my pocket for snacks in the vending machines, I could never afford to treat myself to anything, except for the many books that I did buy to read during my breaks so that I could get smarter and work myself out of such a tough position. Being a good dad means you put the kids first in front of everything, because if you bring them into the world, you better make sure they get everything they need, even when it doesn’t seem fair that a father should have to go so far. Over the next twenty years after that event, there would be many more challenges, some of them outright scary. But kids expect fearlessness out of their parents, and its especially the job of a father to give it to them, so that they know when they lay their heads down each night that someone is shielding them from the evils of the world, so that they can intellectually develop properly. At some point they need to become those people for their own kids, and it is a much easier job when they have some example to live off of and I consider myself a great dad because even with many events like the one described, I still took time to make sure my kids felt that the world was a good place that would bend to their will, if they had the will to do it. So for me, it was greatly satisfying to have them tell me their thanks on this particular Father’s Day in 2018.

As a person I’ve had a very adventurous life and it has at times been very dangerous. I’ve been involved with real life mobsters, (long story from a long time ago) been in conflicts where people died, been in trouble at just about every level of our court system, worked with politicians at all levels, worked every kind of job imaginable, had to defend myself countless times, sometimes violently. I’ve been around the world and seen a lot of different things, I’ve been at the top of the world career wise and at the lowest of the low barely getting by. But at no point in all those experiences did I not put my children first. For example, often I would work a 16-hour 2nd and 3rd shift on a Saturday and instead of sleeping I would go with the family to Kings Island for the day to show the kids a good time. At 4 PM I went back to work as they went home and I had no sleep, and I’d do another 16 hours of work after that. During all this I wrote a few books, and still pursued creative projects and the kids noticed, and as adults they appreciate all that effort. And that is the best Father’s Day gift of all, and for me I am happy that they are happy. Because that’s what it was all for. In that context I can say that I was the best father that anybody could hope for, and that type of effort is what it takes to call yourself one.

Rich Hoffman

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