MAGA Hats are all About Above the Line Thinking: Why the media picked on Nick Sandman but not Tommy Sotomayor

The MAGA hats were never part of the plan for below the line liberals, their intention was to rob Americans of hope through victimization techniques taught in public schools and to gradually take over the world. Literally, that has been their plan, so it was quite shocking to them when Trump ran for president and started making the MAGA hats a rally cry that robbed from liberals their hopes and dreams of a below the line life where they could hide from the glaring eyes of expectation and competency. It didn’t surprise me that the media made so much out of Nick Sandman staring down some old hippie type who called himself an Indian at a right to life rally, and tried to make the whole event into a white power type of thing to demonize the MAGA hats that Nick and his Catholic school classmates from Covington Kentucky were wearing. But what did surprise me is that over the same weekend Tommy Sotomayor, a black man wearing his MAGA hat got into an argument with a Hooters waitress and his video went viral, but none of the news stations covered it, even though YouTube had over a million hits on the video. People saw it, but the story didn’t fit the narrative that the below the line types were trying to create. Black people were not supposed to support Donald Trump, let alone run around wearing MAGA hats. And that caused problems that compounded into even more destruction for the liberal ambitions for controlling the world.

Donald Trump’s MAGA hats have become a symbol of above the line thinking, in much the way that wearing a suit and tie to a meeting filled with loser types sitting around with holes in their jeans and untucked shirts. It’s a behavioral representation of an idea for thinking above a problem rather than below. The efforts liberals have to use victimization as a means to advance a way of thinking is obvious below the line efforts and that was why that guy beating on his little drum claiming to be a “Native American” was propped up to be a victim of white privilege and due for some measure of respect just by his ancestral relationship to a group of people the left has sought to exploit to advance their below the line concepts for the entire human race. Nick Sandman because he was a white teenager from a Catholic school was instantly supposed to respect the rules of engagement and apologize for his very existence upon just seeing the Indian who moved in to confront him knowing that the progressive politics of Washington D.C. favored his intentions even if violence did break out. Nick was the villain just for existing and he had the audacity to wear a MAGA hat to a right to life rally of all things.

Tommy Sotomayor is a guy who goes around looking for controversy and he did provoke the situation at the Hooters restaurant after the black waitress confronted him about his MAGA hat. In spite of the obvious attempts at social grandstanding the point was well made, here was a black man with a group of other blacks standing up for their right to wear a MAGA hat and the effort was completely ignored by the very hateful below the line media. They couldn’t handle a black man fighting for the right to wear a MAGA hat in a story that was obviously much bigger than the one Nick Sandman was involved in. That story with the Covington Catholic kids made every news wire and radio station announcement across the country with stunning coordination, yet Tommy Sotomayor was ignored, essentially because he was a black man on the wrong side of the below the line progressive argument. It was a very interesting thing to watch.

Nick Sandman did a very good job in the aftermath of the ordeal, he is obviously a very above the line young man. He reported the death threats that his family had received since the news outbreak and other terrible threats that came his way which we all recognize as the type of bullying that our society has learned in public school where below the line victimization is taught to the masses for the obvious end result of reshaping the social structure from looking above the line toward problems, to living below. The whole narrative reverts back to the notion of white toxic masculinity being eradicated from the social sphere so that below the line thinking can be nurtured and a new power vacuum would be created for Democrats to fill as a perpetually tearful class of people crying out for more government services extracted from even higher taxation. The MAGA hats were never supposed to give young people like Nick Sandman hope just as the right to life types were supposed to have all legislation ripped out from under them and have their hopes of a society that valued life removed. These elements to the eyes of below the line Democrats and European progressives were never supposed to come to fruition. Even if a Republican did win the White House at some point in the next decade it would be someone like Jeb Bush who could easily be steam rolled over by below the line thinking. There would never have been a MAGA hat revolution otherwise.

But then there are people like Tommy Sotomayor and Kanye West who proclaim that the MAGA hats have given them power and the fortitude to stick up for themselves as individuals and as blacks. The shockwaves of that social movement is something that Democrats can’t deal with because they thought they had that whole demographic locked up into a victimization summation and that all blacks would stay there and be happy collecting their government services, and would keep voting Democrat. Instead they are wearing their MAGA hats out to Hooters and picking a fight with the establishment itself blowing the progressive narrative completely out of the water and you can know that it is very painful for them because of the silence. Progressives have no answer for it in any of the 30 to 40 people from the Democrat side of things running for president. They have nobody like Trump, and they have no message like MAGA hats to start a revolution toward above the line thinking as opposed to below.

I have several MAGA hats and I love them. They are some of the best hats that I’ve ever had because they represent to me the efforts of a president who has a desire to make America an above the line country again instead of a country of victims and despots looking for pity over every little sin in the past. The young man Nick Sandman obviously wants a shot at life-like anybody else and his MAGA hat is that hope. That same hope resides in a black man like Tommy Sotomayor and Kanye West. I’m sure there are lots of Hispanics and Indians who also love their MAGA hats because they understand that the notion of making America great again means that the country is heading above the line in its expectations instead of below where the filth and excuses reside. And that is what everyone who is below the line hates about the MAGA hats and why nobody covered Tommy’s Hooters experience. Because the truth is quite the opposite from what the media tried to create out of the Covington Catholic story. Once the facts where well-known, the evidence was not in the favor of the below the line Democrats and their ambitions for destruction all over the world.

Rich Hoffman

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

Project Blue Book on The History Channel: How the new science of intrinsic value is beating traditional Theory X academia

Watching the Project Blue Book series on the History Channel has reminded me of several topics that are quite important to our current times. One thing I have to say about stupid below the line people who have been critical of my articles on the topics of alien life outside of our planet is that it’s not my fault those people aren’t very smart. I am extremely well read and I make my living solving very hard, and complicated problems that many people count on for their livelihoods. This idea that humans evolved from some religious text and gradually emerged as hunters and gathers into complex city states without some outside influence is a pretty dumb idea if you consider the vast amount of evidence coming in on the topic, so I’m not accepting the government offerings on the relationship between mankind and space. I have watched governments lie about little things, let alone big things, so my thoughts on the matter are independent of the social trends. That doesn’t make them irrelevant just because I often discuss political matters every day. One doesn’t cancel out the other just because the government has created a narrative that is convenient to the power structure of below the line thinking. I am quite certain that the government has been lying about the human races relationship with extraterrestrial influences so that is the perspective I am functioning from based on huge amounts of evidence. But I also am not psycho over it either. If an alien spaceship landed on my lawn right now, I’d go out there with one of my big guns and get them off my property. I don’t care where they come from or what they want, so long as they don’t impede themselves on my individual life.

My thinking is that these travelers were always part of our world, from the earliest days of Greek philosophy to the founding of the American republic. They were interacting with the Indians, the Romans, the Egyptians, with every culture of the world the way we visit places like Fiji and the Caribbean. Slowly over time our culture became influenced by those interactions and our present government is doing the same thing that religious leaders from the past did, they put themselves between these travelers and the people of our world for the power position of control. If they could be the ones to bring forth new technology and ways of thinking, then they could be considered gods on earth. After all, who doesn’t want to be a god? Its one of those fantasy things that most humans have, especially below the line thinkers. So the cover-up’s of these travelers isn’t so much to protect us from them, but to allow the communicators to appear to acquire all this vast knowledge suddenly on their own. In our modern age it was the German obsession with the Vril Society that likely unlocked many of the modern UFO instances and catapulted our present society into space by use of rockets. The quick advancements of flying one of our little Wright Brothers fliers to a supersonic stealth fighter developed at Area 51 in Nevada had some help in ensuring engineers, German at first, that the conceptual ideas were possible, and that even traveling to the moon was within the realms of science.

The History Channel Project Blue Book series takes place during this period and I think it’s entirely feasible as presented. One of the spookiest books I have ever read was The Mothman Prophesies which took place in 1967 in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. I read the book because I thought the Richard Gere movie released almost two decades ago now was interesting but I had no idea it was about UFO sightings. And given the proximity to Wright Patterson Airforce Base near my home and has been at the center of alien UFO activity during the entire age of our jet propulsion era, the Mothman story was filled with lots of mystery that needed to be answered. I have always been skeptical about people who claim they have been abducted and I never just take a story at face value, but I am more distrustful of governments, so I am quite convinced that something was going on at Point Pleasant and that it had a relationship with the relatively close Wright Patterson Airforce Base and that all this assisted in building planes that could achieve supersonic and space flight. Reading the book I instantly recognized the Mothman as the Birdman of the Cahokian culture or the Thunderbird of Indian tradition. It is always the same character that could attributed to any number of cultures around the world at many different periods of history. That particular region of Point Pleasant is filled with mounds from an ancient culture of apparent giants who inhabited the Ohio valley before the Adena, Hopewell and Shawnee Indians moved into the area, and those people appear to have come directly to the Ohio Valley well before Christ was born and came from the mysterious people who built Stonehenge. These influences have been going on for a long time and the only thing that has really kept us from doing serious research into them has been our religious reluctance and addictions to below the line thinking controlled through our political structure.

I very much do believe in life on other planets, I even believe in life between dimensional planes of reality at both the quantum level and in higher dimensions above our own four-dimensional world. I believe those things because of the evidence that is out there. Our current science fields are still in their infancy so I consider that its only a matter of time before they catch up. One thing that is very prevalent in the science fields is that the studies by Daniel Pink in his great book Drive are very much at play. UFO researchers and mound culture investigations are driven literally by people functioning from intrinsic motivation—“I Type” personalities. They don’t do what they do for money, but because they are self-motivated to solve the puzzles. Scholastic scientists and government types are Theory X types, and “A Types” authority driven and stick and carrot motivated, meaning that they do what they do for financial compensation which ultimately provides corrupted results. A professor trying to get tenure and respect from the academic community, and ultimately for their schools need to publish findings and they expect those findings to stick for eternity and for science to build on those findings for the advancement of all science. But if the premise is wrong from the outset, then the entire foundation of academia turns out to be faulty, and that is what we have going on with the whole UFO investigation issue.

It is nice that The History Channel is willing to explore these topics but this is only the tip of the iceberg of thought that is really out there. However, while considering it we have to be aware that it is a long way from maturity. That is why we must remain intrinsically motivated in these explorations and to keep the analysis above the line. Project Blue Book is an above the line production the way the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind was, or The Mothman Prophesy. Just because the material may be uncomfortable to consider we can’t rule it unfeasible, especially when so much evidence is there to state the obvious. Lots of things in our modern life are hidden in plain sight and they stay in that condition largely because of our learned behaviors below the line and lost of intrinsic motivations as we age. But to the curious and evidence driven minds, there is a lot of mystery to play with and a truth we should all seek just sitting there for us to add to our human knowledge. And with each new show like Project Blue Book, we get closer each time to understanding the role we play in the great mysteries, so that in time they won’t be so mysterious.

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

Nancy Pelosi is such a Below the Line Person: Why neckties matter

Like all typical below the line people Nancy Pelosi was leaving Washington D.C. again over the same weekend that Trump provided a path forward on the border wall funding and ending the government shutdown. It was also happening has she left on her plane at Ronald Reagan airport that the Robert Mueller investigation denied an element of the Michael Cohen testimony, so the news wires were on fire with speculation and below the line theories. George W. Bush was delivering pizzas to federal workers amid the shutdown and made calls to end the politics that were causing the shutdown, however everyone including the former president showed vast ignorance as to what was the cause of all the issues, and understanding that it wasn’t politics, but rather below the line thinking that was fleeing responsibility at every juncture that was the real villain. And President Trump was behaving like the leader we all expect him to be in the middle of it. The issue wasn’t one of politics, it was about true intrinsic values and whether people were operating above the line or below.

What is the value of a necktie for men, a nice Trump tie for instance, one that costs over $200? We live in a time where neckties are not common in most office environments, but I have decided to go against that curve, I wear one every day—although usually I’m the only one. There has been a trend to wear in business an open neck polo shirt or even a button up with the top button undone, but no tie because it was essentially a measure to appease the below the line people and make work and business environments not so intimidating. To me the neck tie represents at least an attempt to indicate that as a productive individual that I am going to function as an above the line person. It makes it much easier for other people to understand where you are coming from when you dress to indicate that you are an above the line person. Intrinsically, Donald Trump understands this notion and the Trump brand including neckties serves as a backdrop to above the line thinking, which is well-known in business, but not so much in the realm of political theater. It should be noted that Donald Trump always wears a tie in nearly every media picture ever taken of him. This is because he understands this idea which was proposed in The Oz Principle. Not that neckties indicated that successful people were in the room, but that above the line thinking was needed more in the business world for it to succeed. Now that Trump, who had been very successful in business had decided to mix that thinking with the political world it was having an impact and his above the line thinking was challenging even the basic assumptions of the previous order, and people really didn’t know what to do with it.

In the case of the Mueller investigation, a couple of things are going on, the friend of my enemy is my friend kind of thing has taken the edge off quite a lot, but still Trump’s nomination of William Barr was a very above the line type of thing to do and it shows just how smart President Trump really is. While the media is questioning every little thing that Trump does as being mean-spirited and laced with malice it is only from their below the line perspective that they make such comments. Their hatred of the President comes from their desire to remain unfocused and hiding their evil behind chaos. But Trump has ripped away their covers causing them to hate him, and he really doesn’t care. Trump finally has a real attorney general who will prevent law and order from being influenced by below the line thinking. The law is the law and even people wearing neck ties are prone to evil, but stop the influence of below the line thinking into the realm of law and order it looks that William Barr will be able to do that and this decision on Friday night to comment on the nature of the Michael Cohen case is the first step. Law and order should always be above the line and that clearly was not the case at the FBI during James Comey’s management, and of course there is great fear from the below the line people that they will be discovered if above the line perspectives return to Washington politics, but so what. It needs to happen.

Corruption and putting up with it is a very below the line aspect to human nature, and the crimes of our moment are clear. Nancy Pelosi has been playing her part in it and she has no desire to really take Trump up on his challenges and to solve anything. The purpose of the chaos is to hide the malice that has been always there, so the hatred of Trump is like that of a child hiding under their covers and being mad at their parents for ripping away the sheets and telling them to go to school even if they don’t feel very good. Being liked isn’t important, but being right is, and to determine right from wrong requires value judgments which have been missing. Even to the point where our modern culture has attempted to influence our business methods in not even wearing neckties in public so that below the line slobs can hide themselves in society more effectively. By not allowing such a thing to go on, Trump has made himself the most hated person among below the line thinkers but what does he care. Life goes on whether or not the below the line types are participating.

Leadership is an above the line concept. Flying around vacationing in Hawaii while budget problems loomed, or traveling to Puerto Rico to hang out with lobbyists while the government was shut down were very below the line things to do. Then wanting to take a government plane to a tour of Europe during the same period shows just how below the line Nancy Pelosi truly is. Her only real desire was to gain the seat of Speaker, but she wanted nothing to do with the real responsibility of holding that seat because of her below the line thinking. That leaves her completely vulnerable to negotiating with an above the line thinker who doesn’t grovel at every little press pun. He can play them better than her and has been during the entire shut down leaving her looking really bad. But that wasn’t on purpose, it is just a byproduct of a below the line thinker standing next to an above the line person, the two aren’t equal and do not need to compromise with each other for the benefit of politics. Politics itself needs to come to grips with the true nature of this entire issue, below the line people do not mix with above the line, conflict will occur if these elements are present. And we can’t run a country with it being run by below the line people. So there isn’t anywhere from the below the line types to go, except to either get out-of-the-way, or be run over. That’s the way it is in business, and that’s the way its going to be in politics. Nature demands it, and so, thus it must become as such.

Rich Hoffman

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

It’s Not Sophomoric: It’s a matter of life and death–Trump is their last chance at peace, I hope they take it

Trump’s grounding of Pelosi’s plane sparks political outcry” one sophomoric response does not deserve another” was the headline at Fox News and was repeated from the mountaintops of every other publication. Well, yes, of course it does. Anybody who suggest otherwise is smoking crack. You can’t negotiate with below the line thinkers who have lost their intrinsic motivations in life. It’s impossible for people of value to contribute anything useful to a loser if that loser insists on being a loser. Nancy Pelosi started the whole thing by suggesting that the president cancel his State of the Union speech because of the government shut down. This after she already poked the fence by offering only one dollar for the border wall. Then she and many in her caucus flew down to Puerto Rico to attend a play with lobbyists. She then flew back in town and tried to appeal to the 800,000 workers who weren’t receiving a pay check before embarking on another European tour while the shutdown loomed without any negotiations toward a border wall or even reopening government. That’s not how the world works Nancy. Not even close.

Of course, an eye for an eye is appropriate, it should be expected. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a loser trying to empower more losers like Nancy Pelosi to have more power than she should or deserves. As my representative in this great republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!)—(people keep calling our system of government a Democracy when that’s not what it is)—Trump is behaving exactly the way I want him to. I don’t want to be pushed around by loser below the line thinkers and for the first time in my lifetime, except for maybe when Reagan stopped the air traffic control strike—I have a president behaving the way I want him to representing me in the White House. I want someone who fights back against the loser mindset, because I’m tired of people like Nancy Pelosi playing these games and winning because everyone else insists on taking the “high ground.” Below the line thinkers cannot be allowed to rule above the line thinking with a seat at the table. When she tried to stop the State of the Union speech at the House of Representatives, she invited this response for which Trump acted perfectly.

The closet that Republicans ever game to winning against loser Democrats in one of these shutdowns was in the 90s when Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole tried to stand up to Bill Clinton. The Republicans blinked first and it was embarrassing, so much so that when I had a chance to meet Newt during the 2016 campaign, I didn’t have much to say to him. I enjoy his news commentary but generally view him as a loser because he was beaten in the 90s when he was Speaker of the House during that shutdown. My wife was still so angry over it that she refused to even shake Newt’s hand, so we are not come latelys on this topic. Republicans typically represent above the line thinking by their nature, Democrats below. The two are not equal and if below the line thinkers are led to believe that they are, then they will have leverage in negotiations every time, and Republicans will always lose because just like in mathematics if you multiply a zero by a valued sum, you still get zero. Below the line thinkers cannot contribute anything to a negotiation because their positions are always loser ones, they are always a sum of zero. They always want to spend more money, erode the Constitution more by their positions, they always want to destroy what we have so that their below the line positions can be covered by value which is constantly eroding.

Trump clearly has the right to ground her military plane for a public relations exercise when he has done the very above the line thing by staying at the White House showing that he was willing to negotiate all along with the House of Representatives over the border wall funding. And I’m glad he did it. Very glad! To my way of thinking Nancy Pelosi and her House socialists can get it this way or through violence. I haven’t written much about the new socialist radical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because I view her as just a stupid young kid. But if she thinks she’s going to rally a bunch of stinky millennials to a national gun grab and tax expansion bringing socialism openly to our capitalist nation, well she’s in for a fight much worse than just grounding Nancy Pelosi’s European vacation. And we’ll have far worse than a government shutdown. We’ll have an armed insurrection that rivals the previous civil war in this country, and a lot of people will get hurt. I don’t go around looking for violence but if these new House socialists in the Democrat party think they are going to take over our government without violence and shots fired, they are living in a fantasy world. It ain’t going to happen, let me put it that way. They can talk tough in the city streets of Seattle and New York, but step into the heartland in Kentucky and start rattling cages and empty cars will return to Washington D.C. and the Beltway types will cry into their lattés. I can promise that.

Trump was elected by me and people like me to do this very kind of thing, to stop Democrats from taking over our government and to sift out the RINO Republicans who had been giving up above the line thinking so they could negotiate with below the line thinking. I didn’t hire Trump to negotiate with Nancy Pelosi. I hired him to destroy her. Not because she’s a bad person, which she is—she’s a bad person because she’s a below the line thinker that has lost her intrinsic passions which makes her a social menace. It makes anybody functioning from those attributes a similar menace, it’s not just because she’s a woman or anything, it’s just her character. And now she is the leader of many such characters, and she has made a move against my president and ultimately me. So she needs to be slapped down and I’d go so far to say, destroyed. Have no illusions about it, below the line people cannot be negotiated with. They do not have an equal seat at the table in our “democracy.” We don’t even have a democracy. We have a representative republic and Trump is my representative. He’s been staying in the White House to negotiate wall funding and he’s not there to play games. It’s for the health and safety of all involved to listen to him because if he isn’t successful, and law and order doesn’t prevail, then people will start getting hurt. I’m not going to allow Democrats to take over my government and plant a socialist takeover of our capitalist country. How’s that for “sophomoric?


The news outlets assume that the outcome of all this is something we’ve seen before, but I would suggest not. We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of history, Republicans cannot negotiate with Democrats when one side is clearly functioning from above the line thinking and the other, below. When Democrats like Nancy Pelosi play the kind of games they are now, they need to be slapped down so hard that they can never get up again, and that is my message to the president and what I expect him to do on my behalf. If he isn’t successful, which I think he will be, then Nancy will have much bigger problems. So for her own health and safety, she needs to listen to the President and keep her mouth shut. Because the next alternatives are not good for her socialist caucus. We are not in a battle of ideas. We are in a battle of life and death—and there’s a big difference. Law and order protects them, but if they continue to attempt to erode that law and order—then there will be nothing to protect them. Do you get the meaning, “Nancy?”

Rich Hoffman

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

The Nature of Intrinsic Value: Why Nancy Pelosi comes out looking like a phony while Trump does genuine

Its one thing to identify below the line thinkers and to associate them with losers, but what’s needed is to understand what makes them the way they are. Why are they losers just for thinking in a negative way aspects of their existence which brings everyone else down? A few great examples are the current teacher’s strike in California, the government shut down and the Nancy Pelosi desire to keep Donald Trump from giving his State of the Union Speech in Congress. Can anybody imagine what would have happened if Republicans controlling congress had not invited Barack Obama to give the State of the Union speech? And that’s kind of the heart of the matter, losers are people who are functioning all the time below the line, and usually the reason they are in that position is because they have lost their intrinsic value for the things they do in life. People who only do things for money for instance are creepy because we recognize that they are not driven toward accomplishments that are aligned with their intrinsic values for their part in economic activity.

I have been going through old notes of late to solve current problems that were conquered long ago, but in the wake of current circumstances, have great meaning. In that regard I have been thinking of Daniel Pink’s work in the great book Drive, which explores the relationship that people have with intrinsic value versus carrot type motivations. For instance, since many people wonder about it, this blog site is an intrinsic state for me. I love writing, but I do it for free to the public because the value of it personally exceeds what anybody would pay for it. This leaves my motivations a mystery to people who are still functioning from the point of view that financial rewards are the only reasons that people do what they do. In that book Pink uses the example of Microsoft building a fantastic encyclopedia with many of the great minds of our day as paid contributors. I remember that project, I loved it. But along comes Wikipedia which has unpaid contributors building the whole thing and that business model beat over time the Microsoft encyclopedia concept. As the Internet has matured it has unlocked much more of mankind’s intrinsic desires than the predictable modes of thinking that preceded this current revolution. These days YouTube videos done by amateurs are outperforming large feature films and television broadcasts because the intrinsic value is undeniable. When people do things because they love them, it shows and people quickly gravitate toward the passions that come from those products.

To put it in a more proper context, currently there was some controversial comments by Donald Trump about the nature of Nancy Pelosi continuing to get a check from the government during the shutdown. The reason it scored points with people was that people understand President Trump is intrinsically invested in the job as president. He is currently not taking a salary and when the Clemson football champions came to visit the White House Trump bought them all hamburgers out of his own pocket which set off a firestorm of anxiety. Trump in the eyes of below the line losers had committed the worst kind of crime, he had blown their cover story all these years. Nancy Pelosi would never dream of giving up her salary as Speaker of the House because she is not functioning in her job from the perspective of intrinsic power. For her the financial compensation and the power that comes with it is very important to her, because she is personally lacking intrinsic value, so the monetary compensation is a motivating tool for her. But as we know from the book Drive, typical carrot type motivations are not the driver of human behavior in a positive way, in fact, it usually gets you worse results because intrinsic value is pushed out of consideration making the overall product produced inferior, and too expensive. On the other hand, Trump loves his job and it shows, his intrinsic value as President is something people can relate to, especially in this modern age where intrinsic value is being unlocked in the increased freedoms that technology is bringing us. You don’t have to go through the New York publishers if you want to be a writer in 2020. All you have to do is have the intrinsic value to do so and a site like this one will outperform a typical news and opinion site by a factor of 1000s because the paid writers aren’t doing what they are doing out of intrinsic value for the subject.

That’s why teacher strikes these days have lost their power. We are living in a time where education can easily be done online and by less than human resources. A striking overpaid teacher only demonstrates to the public that they don’t have intrinsic value for the children in their care which is a major turnoff to any voter. Many people these days may be photographers, artist or independent researchers due to the freedoms that online activity and smart phones have given them. While they may have jobs that pay them money and thus their bills, their real intrinsic value is often in their recreational activities. National Geographic may not be paying them to be elite photographers, but modern photo taking is made much easier allowing people with an intrinsic desire to photograph the world to do so without all the special skills that used to be required and the path to a paycheck that used to be associated with that endeavor. Intrinsic value has always been there, but it has only been recently where technology made personal preferences much more of an option that humans started expecting those choices to be part of their everyday lives.

When it is wondered why people are more interested in their smart phones than in the real world with real people in them it’s because the customization that is afforded to modern smart phone users gives people more intrinsic options than the real world typically does so its more interesting to them. People more than ever are driven by intrinsic needs more than financial ones and that is an aspect of these government shutdowns that just isn’t being covered. People don’t have much sympathy for workers striking or marching in protest because they aren’t getting a paycheck because it shows a victim status of below the line thinking which in the new age of intrinsic motivations is increasingly a negative impression. If someone is off work or not getting paid, then they are free to do what they really enjoy, and that is what the public sees more and more. That’s why Trump was popular in spite of the government shutdown while Nancy Pelosi comes out looking more and more phony, because she is functioning from motivations that are not aligned with intrinsic value. It’s good to get paid for the things you do, but if you are only doing them to make money, people are quick to think of such people as a phony because they have options in life to exhibit intrinsic value, but instead of functioning from that vantage point, they are complaining about what they don’t have and why they don’t have it. And nobody likes that type of person which is a newly identified condition of our present circumstances.

Rich Hoffman

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

A Quiet Place: Hollywood’s disfunctional relationship with guns

I thought the 2018 movie; A Quiet Place was a really good horror film that was compelling. However, it was hard for me to sit through because if I had been in that story, I would have only have lasted about 30 seconds. In the movie the main characters revolve around a family that has survived some kind of alien invasion and the antagonists are some really terrifying creatures who are completely reliant on sound to move around. This leaves the survivors of earth to move about in complete silence to avoid being eaten by the creatures. I thought it was an interesting concept that made for an entertaining narrative experience, but I couldn’t help but ask the question, why didn’t the dad just shoot the creatures and kill them on day one? The movie would have been over in the opening scenes and many more people would have lived.

This movie reminded me why I’m not in the movie business. I had the same conversation after The Blair Witch Project came out many years ago where I asked similar questions. I never get lost so becoming lost in the woods and being hunted down by some strange monster is just something that I can’t relate to. In A Quiet Place if I had to deal with a situation like that defending my family against some strange creatures that suddenly appeared and ate people maliciously for every sound they made, I would have simply shot them with one of my big caliber guns. There was a scene at the end of The Quiet Place where I was literally jumping around my living room screaming at the television for Emily Blunt to shoot the alien creature as it had her family trapped in her basement. It was a compelling scene for anybody who isn’t used to firearms and for Emily who is a citizen of the United Kingdom she acted as if she were more terrified of the gun than the monster. All she had to do was pull the trigger and the thing would have been killed and her family would be safe.

I’ve been to some of those Santa Monica dinner parties and spent the evening with actors and actresses like Emily Blunt and listened to their diatribes about how guns are so bad and honestly, I couldn’t handle it. Associating with people like that wore me out. And I could see John Krasinski who directed the film working with the screenwriters Bryan Woods and Scott Beck to string out the narrative of the movie into a compelling two-hour event based on their experiences with the soft tissue Hollywood types that frequent those Santa Monica bars at midnight on any given day. It was just over halfway through the movie that we learned that the dad actually had a pump 12 gauge shot-gun hidden away in the house. But in reality, the dad should have had that gun with him for the entire film and been using it to kill the monsters.

Emily Blunt looked way too comfortable holding that gun on the monster at the end of the film and not pulling the trigger that it revealed so much about what is wrong with Hollywood today. The movies are made by scared, timid people who are lacking real experience with firearms, and it was pretty sad. Guns are not part of their culture so when one is put in their hands, they appeared to be more scared of the guns than the terrible monsters. But in reality, if guns were more a part of the story then the dramatic tension of the horror film itself would have been different. If a story like A Quite Place were real, people all across America would have just shot the things. There is no way those blind bastards would have taken over our country the way they did in the movie. Normal people just aren’t as terrified of guns as the Hollywood filmmakers were.

Prior to watching A Quiet Place I watched the Bruce Willis version of Death Wish, and that was a fun movie that was lacerated by the entertainment media because it was a very honest homage to the old Charles Bronson Death Wish movies. Now in those days I could have worked in Hollywood where the story tellers were not so terrified of guns, but understood them as a narrative advancement. For instance, Indiana Jones would have never have been the great character he was if not for that one scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman in cold blood just because he didn’t have time to run all over Cairo looking for his girlfriend if he was wasting it fighting him. Back then, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were still on the outside looking in within the film industry so they could do things like that in movies. But once they were invited into the Hollywood social activist club they stopped doing those kinds of things in their movies and people gradually stopped watching. A Quiet Place walked that fine line between ultimately using the gun to solve the problem of the story but they took the entire movie to arrive there. Because the human sacrifice count was high enough the Hollywood community gave A Quiet Place a pass, but to me it was pretty disgusting. It was a movie made by Hollywood types about a world they are afraid of, but for the rest of America where guns are as common as a glass of water, the movie was a useless exercise in stupidity.

The dad played by the director was a pretty good character, but of course when he needed a weapon at the end of the movie, he didn’t have one and he was killed. If he had been carrying his shotgun around, that stupid monster would have been dead quickly, and efficiently and they all would have lived happily ever after. Guns are a huge part of American culture and when Hollywood shows their ignorance, movie goers let them know it. Even though A Quiet Place was considered a successful film critically and at the box office the real numbers show it only made $188 million domestically and $152 million internationally. $340 million is not very much money for a movie at the box office these days, the movie would have done better business if it had embraced the gun culture more instead of trying to appease the anti-gun Hollywood types.

The last scene of the movie A Quiet Place was a hoard of the alien monsters converging on the house as Emily Blunt smiled at her children with her cocked shotgun ready to shoot them all. OK, so where was that attitude at the beginning of the film? The point of the entire movie seems to be to get the parents to overcome their aversion to guns so that they can defend themselves. Because the sonic device that the deaf daughter only appeared to agitate the monsters, it didn’t kill them. Only the gun did. So that is my problem with this whole Hollywood vantage point. They literally want their cake and to eat it too. They want an anti-gun message when the gun is the only thing that people want to pay money to see. But to appease the Hollywood gods who drink too much in Santa Monica bars, the filmmakers have to avoid using the gun as much as possible, until the very end of course.

That’s the way you do it.  Death Wish was a great movie!

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

Tear Down the Statue of Liberty: Understanding what immigration should be and knowing real history

As a very strong advocate of President Trump and his policies I am in a good position to defend the reasons that we want to build a wall. Only stupid people thinking in a negative below the line way would think that the reason is racism. The actual cause is to inspire more above the line thinking which stupid people are terrified of, so their only defense is to accuse above the line thinkers of racism. But in all honesty the need for the wall at the American southern border is to defend the values of the nation from those who don’t share those values and it has nothing to do with racism. Even deeper than that however is the need to defend America from its domestic enemies, any below the line thinkers who seek to destroy the concept of America who are now gathered under the clear tent of Democrat politics. I’ve had the benefit of watching my son-in-law go through a naturalization ceremony where he had to swear as a new American citizen to defend our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, and it was quite serious when placed in that context. Well, the Democrats have positioned themselves as clear domestic enemies and they are on full assault, so its time that we make it clear what this fight is really about. Don’t negotiate with them, destroy them!

The Statue of Liberty is a part of recent American history, there is a lot more to the concept of freedom and liberty that were in place well before the French gave us that statue which resides in the harbor of New York. It was commissioned in 1886 by President Cleveland at the start of the progressive movement in New York City so any references to the Statue of Liberty and the role it plays in immigration are tainted at best. Elis Island where the Statue of Liberty resides then became the first immigration station in the United States from 1892 to 1954 where roughly 12 million immigrants passed through on their path to citizenship. This is why progressives are particularly fond of the Statue of Liberty and keep using it as a reference to illegal immigration at the southern border, because the whole concept of a processing station with the Statue of Liberty looming over the process is one born in the heart of progressive politics in America to begin with in the very recent past.

It was Emma Lazarus who wrote the famous words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty,

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

She was part of the movement that was trying to raising money for a permanent home for the Statue of Liberty as it had been touring around since the French gave it to us. She was close personal friends with the progressive economist Henry George who wrote the terrible book Progress and Poverty, which ultimately inspired Emma to write what she did. That is why progressives in our modern era are so quick to point at the Statue of Liberty and attempt to unite the entire country behind their cause. Personally, I think we should tear down the damn thing. If you want to put up a symbol of American values in the harbor in New York for the world to see, it should be someone like John Wayne who much more embodies the values of America rather than the statue of a French designer who was part of the progressive era as it was born in New York society to grow like a massive disease to attempt to destroy American civilization.

There is a reason under capitalism that people are poor, it’s because they are lazy. In a capitalist society, which is something Henry George was debating, effort is the key to earning a good living. If you have that basic approach, you can do well in America. If you don’t, then you won’t, or wouldn’t until the progressive era corrupted politics with all their social reforms that made it so that people were less inspired to work hard and more inspired to think below the line such as is common in the labor movement which is another progressive era invention. Henry George and Emma Lazarus were some of the first people in America to propose a land tax which came directly out of this quote from his 1879 book Progress and Poverty:

Take now… some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: “Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city—in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage-coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?” He will tell you, “No!” “Will the wages of the common labor be any higher…?” He will tell you, “No the wages of common labor will not be any higher…” “What, then, will be higher?” “Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession.” And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.

–Translation, Henry George is proposing that the hard-headed businessman must be compelled to donate their riches to the “community.” That the wealth they create isn’t a value of its own which makes a town into a city or electricity to replace the candle. What the Statue of Liberty represents isn’t freedom, but compulsion as proposed by early progressives who are below the line thinkers trying to hide their negative vantage point behind do-gooding.

The below the line progressives and their modern Democrats are what early Americans fled from in Europe yet they followed with immigration the efforts of those frontiersman and adventurers who came before and built New York City with ambition and capitalist yearning. Below the line thinkers like Henry George saw this wealth and wanted to tax it, and his little girl friend Emma Lazarus adopted his ideas and stuck them on the side of a statue the French gave us as if they understood American capitalism and that is how the first immigration station started in America, which was a disaster from the beginning. Immigration is a fact of life when something has value and people are leaving areas of low value to seek a better life. But Emma missed the point, her entire quote was inspired by an economic below the line thinker who wanted to tax land owners as his great contribution to thought.

Resistance to illegal immigration isn’t to protect America from a “browning” of it from people south of the border, but in ensuring that the people who do come into America want to protect its Constitution and not to overthrow it. Hidden behind their proposals are the below the line efforts of the Statue of Liberty founders who were not rugged American capitalists. The debate isn’t about preventing all people into America through immigration but in letting in the best and brightest, not the perpetual poor, lazy, and drug addicted. Some people you don’t want in your country. People lacking value are some of them, and its time to have that debate instead of retreating back to some stupid words that Emma said on the Statue of Liberty. In fact, its time that we just take that damn thing down and use some other symbol of American value that is more properly representative of our present circumstances, like a gun that is there to protect the land owner from bleeding heart progressives like Henry George from using public resources to steal money from those making it, because he thinks he’s morally inclined to do so and to distribute that wealth to below the line thinkers who didn’t earn it to begin with. The debate is really about values and who has them and who doesn’t.

Rich Hoffman

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