Everything You Need to Know About the G7 Summit, and Peace with North Korea: Han Solo and ‘The Fountainhead’ tell the whole story–the Wicked Witches of Globalism are melting

Well, the Wicked Witch of Globalism is melting before our eyes, first uttered at the socialist G7 Summit where Justin Trudeau now famously complained about President Trump’s domestic trade politics only to be slapped down by Trump while in route to Singapore to meet with Kim Jong Un. I thought John Brennan’s comments in the wake were most alarming, which represent globalists from John McCain to Barack Obama, we are now seeing just how far their roots of ideology have permeated our intellectual foundations, and it’s a little alarming. Not that we didn’t know what was there, but its kind of like pulling out a huge snake that has been parasitically feeding off a sewage pipe coming out of our house. You know it’s there but removing it and seeing how big and ugly it really is can be alarming. What we are seeing from these globalists is truly alarming and is specifically why those of us smart enough to understand the complexity of these matters supported and voted for Donald Trump very early in the election process.

When people say they couldn’t predict what would happen at the G7 Summit, or that nobody could believe that North Korea would be unified with the rest of the world, they are wrong. I predicted all these things well in advance. Even as Kim Jong Un was launching missiles over Japan, I was saying it, and only I outside of the White House, that North Korea didn’t have any real threat that they proposed to throw against the world. They were always drowning in communism and it was obvious when the reports that Dennis Rodman was becoming best friends with the North Korean dictator that the kid wasn’t such a scary person. If Kim Jong Un didn’t have a private plane in his country that could take him 3000 miles away to anywhere in the world, how was he going to launch nuclear missiles into the heartland of America? Simply put, Trump knew that all the missile launches were a bluff and he called the kid on it, and now there is nowhere but toward peace for North Korea, and Trump smartly is giving the dictator a way out into the great world of capitalism.

This of course has the globalists very terrified. As I’ve said before I look at lots of indicators in our social fabric to tell the truth about what is really going on in the world and as many readers here know I was particularly interested in the box office numbers of the new Star Wars movie Solo: A Star Wars Story. The movie has done decently, not what Disney expected, but it’s not a failure in any regards, critically or economically. Yet I thought it was strange that there was so much fury and hope from the print media around the world, especially overseas, that the new Star Wars movie fail. It took, me a few weeks to figure it out, but I have, and its related to all this news about North Korea and the G7 Summit ironically. Solo: A Star Wars Story is essentially a kid’s version of The Fountainhead. I know the Kasdans who wrote that recent Star Wars film will deny such a thing, but there is quite a cult in Hollywood emerging, especially on the Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan side of the business toward the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Anne Hathaway is a part of it—(notice she hasn’t been working so much over the last few years, she did do the new Ocean’s movie, but not much else)—and there are many actors, producers and directors who secretly enjoy Ayn Rand’s work. Well, globalists hate Ayn Rand essentially because of the basic premise of the philosophy of Objectivism that counters their notions of collectivism. The many hit pieces done unjustly against Solo: A Star Wars Story were to essentially isolate the film from the fans and to take a shot at Disney for even daring to produce such a movie. But, Disney had to come to terms with the currents of the world for which the Trump presidency were unlocking, so they made their Han Solo movie with those factors in mind.

For those who don’t know the great American novel, The Fountainhead, probably the most powerful part of the book for me anyway is when the architect Howard Roark was invited to be a part of the World’s Fair team to design a new pavilion. Through the entire book Roark had been struggling to become an elite architect and here he was being given an opportunity to have his name next to the best in the business at the World’s Fair project. But Roark always demanding out of himself personal authenticity could not allow others to loot the value of his good work under the guise of collective assimilation. To his view the other architects were not at the same level of him, they were not as advanced and no matter what he did individually, his work’s value would be associated with the board of architects as a collective value they all shared, and to him that wasn’t fair, or accurate. Much of the same thing was going on in Solo: A Star Wars Story where the character of Han Solo was looking for that same kind of authenticity. His girlfriend in the film was very much like the Dominique Francon character from The Fountainhead. Qi’ra is a young woman looking for security in a scary galaxy. She has been raised and believes that the way to stay alive is to cozy up to the most powerful—so she ends up being the head of a gang. Throughout the whole movie she is torn between Han and her protection under gang rule. Much like Dominique throughout The Fountainhead had many relationships with men trying to find happiness, but always putting security before her own personal sanctity, Qi’ra in Star Wars is playing that same type of role, and critics noticed it and slammed the film hoping that the public would reject the story. That same type of intensity is now being thrown at Donald Trump for doing in real life what much of these rogue art pieces are attempting to do, and have been for over a century now, starting really with Ayn Rand during the golden age of cinema.

Globalist have been using that big scary North Korean threat as a reason to scare everyone into some big joint global unification where the values of socialism could be assimilated with capitalism. At the G7 Summit the GDP of all those countries put together if the United States is removed from the mix hardly adds up to an equal share. The unspoken value is that without the capitalism of America, the socialism of Canada, Mexico, Germany, France—essentially all of Europe cannot match. It is essentially the Howard Roark scene in The Fountainhead where Roark quits the World’s Fair board, or when in Solo: A Star Wars Story Han tries to get Qi’ra to go against her boss at the end of the film and run off with him to live a life of freedom, which she of course turns away from tragically in a pursuit of security.

When Trump told Justin Trudeau to take a hike on Saturday while climbing on Air Force One to fly to Singapore to make peace with Kim Jong Un the world went into a panic, the globalists who need everyone to recognize that the path to everything means that individuals must toss away their personal values in favor of the collective sum of eternal assimilation—the age-old question, are we the bulb or the light that emits from it emerged without a cover to hide it. For globalists, the light bulb can be changed it’s the light that comes from it that matters. But for individualists, if there is no bulb, there is no light. Without America, there is no economy. Without America, the socialist’s failures can’t hide behind anything. And without war with North Korea, there are no villains to hide all the maliciousness of groupthink—such as in China, Russia, and all of Europe to camouflage their intentions. That is in essence what The Fountainhead is all about, what comes first, the fountain which gives forth the water, or the water. Without the fountainhead, the water cannot spring forth, it remains locked in a state of nature. It takes the brilliant mind of individuals, not boards of collectivists to unlock that potential and that is what has everyone in the global community terrified.

With Trump’s brilliant response at the G7 Summit and the wonderful actions taking place presently in Singapore the world just changed in favor of the fountainheads, and the globalists are melting. For them it’s a far bigger problem than just political ideology, it’s a scary ripping away of the covers for which they have been hiding. We now know that John Brennan as the former director of the CIA was a communist and is comments over these past few days reveal everything that I have just said. He knows that this is the end for his movement. With peace in North Korea there is no cover story for which the world stays on the board of the World’s Fair and allows the few to give value to the many when it isn’t deserved. And in Canada, a country with the amount of population of one American state, they have no economic power without the capitalism of America. Like the situation in North Korea Trump is calling their bluff and refusing to sanction the socialism of Canada—and panic is now in the air because now people will see the truth. And that truth is a wonderful thing for which many of us will see for the very first time. America has always been the world’s fountainhead. Globalists have worked really hard to hide that notion from the world insisting that we all join hands and share in the wealth. But the truth is, without America, there is no world—without the merits and values of capitalism, nobody does anything. North Korea is learning that, and now, so will everyone else. And that is the miracle for which we are currently observing.

To see the whole picture, we must observe how entertainment reflects politics, because epistemologically they feed each other. We can make observations about entertainment media that directly correlate the situation at the G7 Summit for instance or the miracle of North Korean peace. Only in the case of North Korea, as I said I predicted this a long time ago, and without question, Trump knew it too. The difference between individuals making decisions and watering down the effect of thought through collective assimilation is what we are talking about here. How can Trump just step into a meeting with Kim Jong Un without armies of people to prepare him for the task? The answer, because he’s good, and individually, he knows more and is more effective than the collective assimilation of the masses which call themselves experts. It’s why Howard Roark quit the board of architects in The Fountainhead. “No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.” Chapter XVII Part 4 p. 738. This to the collectivists who call themselves globalists these days is the most dangerous phrase in the vocabulary of mankind, for people to realize this nature in themselves and to act on it. That’s why Robert De Niro used curse words on a big award show on NBC during live television, and its why John Brennan is literally having a panic attack. Because people are learning the truth, and the fall of North Korea is not good for them. It’s the worst news in the world. But for the fountainheads, it’s the first time in the history of the world that a big name political figure has stood for them and defended their right to exist free of the assimilation of collectivists. And that is a real game changer.

Rich Hoffman

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

Donald Trump is ‘The Fountainhead’: Individualism is a higher concept over collectivism


I thought it was the biggest story of the week, and I wouldn’t be completely forthcoming if I didn’t know why he said what he did—specifically.  (CLICK HERE TO SEE WHY) But what a bold proclamation it was for Donald Trump to be interviewed by the very liberal Kristen Powers of USA Today and for him to mention that he liked Ayn Rand and specifically, The Fountainhead and the hero of the story Howard Roark.  We know that Paul Ryan likes Atlas Shrugged, and that Ted Cruz is a fan of Rand’s work—not just that he likes it, but that he is inspired by it.  Yet only Donald Trump could say the things he did about Ayn Rand and have it not be the story of the week by the political left.  Here are just a few of the articles talking about Trump’s Rand comments.  It might be remembered that I’ve been on the radio with the guy who wrote The Federalist article and it was rather hilarious to see how bent out of shape he was over the Powers story.



When I wrote my article about Donald Trump being quite a lot like the famous Ayn Rand hero of The Fountainhead way back in August there was a considerable amount of scorn about it from friends I have in the “Objectivist” community.  They couldn’t believe I said such a thing—because to them, Trump was a progressive—a statist—a tyrant in the making.  They couldn’t think of him as a Howard Roark or even attribute to him the kind of intelligence that would be most at home with Ayn Rand’s heroes.  But with Trump, that was all I could see and that he was the best opportunity to take the United States to a level of philosophic understanding that could only so far be found in an Ayn Rand novel.

Everybody thinks they are an expert—yet they get caught all too often in the superficial elements of Donald Trump’s personality.  I see in Trump a man who has paintings on his Trump Tower ceiling and has an apartment, and private airplane covered in real gold.  I see a guy who has a stunningly beautiful wife and a wonderful family and can notice a fingerprint on something he cares about from twenty feet away and it drives him crazy.  I hear in him a guy that says he is his only foreign policy advisor, and that he consults……himself—and I see a guy so much like Howard Roark that no other character in all of literary history comes close to describing the real Donald Trump—the guy who sleeps in Trump Tower and likes to put pictures of himself on the wall of his office.  Trump loves himself and is all about the “Pronoun I,” and to me that is extremely appealing.  CLICK HERE TO REFER TO A PAST ARTICLE ABOUT THIS VERY SITUATION AND THE NEED FOR IT IN POLITICS. 

I have spent millions and millions of words on these pages talking about how stupid collective assimilation is in anything—that the biggest mystery and key to success in most things is individually led leadership.  My favorite part of the novel, The Fountainhead was when Howard Roark declined to be on the architectural board for the World’s Fair.  He insisted that he contribute his designs as a solitary figure, not as a part of a collective board.  Ayn Rand was onto something very important there pertinent to the American economy and it was unique to her.  Liberals and the public in general think wrong on this matter—and it starts in public school and our churches.  The assumption is that two heads are better than one, and that fifty heads are even better yet is one of the biggest mistakes the human race has made so far in our written history.  I have yet to see a company that functions well under this philosophy.  Many movie production companies and many Silicone Valley operations believe in collective enterprise—but what they are presenting is an illusion—because most of their successful projects are still led by very strong individuals who are clever about the way they extract the individual effort out of their teams.  But it isn’t the collective mass of a board of directors or the worker bees of a project that lead to its success—like the striking fools at Verizon believe in their union behavior—it’s the solitary efforts of individuals.

I know exactly what Trump is doing with other people because I by default utilize many of his same strategies—so it’s easy for me to see the man behind the façade.  I do see in Trump a man who loves art, who enjoys the fine things in life as an individual and certainly marches to the beat of his own drum—but he has learned to pull other people into his vision with the opportunity to share with him greatness.  Most of what he does is utilize raw leadership tactics—which is why he’s popular to begin with and has a level of celebrity that is bullet proof—because his skills are so highly specialized and beyond the mechanisms our society has established to suppress challenges to its static system.

The world is burning with socialism—once you leave the shores of the United States, socialism is literally everywhere.  Collectivism is the mode of conduct that the world uses to establish its morality—and it’s wrong.  Nobody is more important than you dear reader.  However, you best serve others by serving yourself—and if you truly love others you seek to preserve them because it would hurt you to see them in demise.  I read just last night a comment about Republicans and Democrats that went something like this—“if the elephant and the donkey have let you down, turn to the lamb.”  It was a religious argument about politics essentially saying that Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, and that a person should turn toward the church—the sacrificial lamb.  Well, that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time—nobody should surrender their life to the whims of the galaxy or even the universe.  Jobs are made by individuals for other individuals to build their lives around, decisions are made by individuals for the impact that they might have on the world around them—humans are thinking creatures who make magnificent structures by thought alone and Donald Trump is one of the least apologetic yet most successful among us to utilize this essential function.  We have to stop this whole sacrificial notion—its barbaric.

When I hear Trump say that he’d like to marry his daughter and see that he uses the beauty of his wife Melania to club rivals over the head, I don’t see or hear a self-centered maniac who is selfishly dangerous in his sexual promiscuity—I see a guy who as an individual appreciates the beauty of a fine women as a work of art and loves how it inspires the individual in him to do better and work harder each day so that he can be near them—and I don’t think it’s a sexual thing.  When I hear him say that as a 70 year old man that he will be the healthiest specimen to ever hold the White House and that his big hands are evidence of a large penis that can bag and tag fine women and leave them happy about it—and that those same hands can drive a golf ball over 300 yards—I hear a man who won’t back down from any world leader for the sake of collective assimilation.   I hear a guy who will walk into the United Nations and say as Howard Roark did in The Fountainhead—you either do it my way, or I’m out.  To the consensus builders who think this approach is appalling, they’d be right from their point of view.  But their way has cost the United States everything and everyone else in the world very little—because they brought nothing to the table to begin with.  The battle of our day is literally over the benefits of collectivism and Individualism—and how the two are not compatible.  Trump stands by individualism vehemently and that is something that we’ve never seen attempt to enter the White House and I think we either find those traits in ourselves once again—if not for the very first time—or we perish into oblivion.  There is no middle ground and this philosophic argument is all about absolutes.

While progressives contemplate a world managed by a few elite academics who distribute fairness across civilization like butter on a piece of bread—Trump is nothing like any of them.  Yet he can sit down with the very liberal Kristen Powers and give USA Today an interview on Ayn Rand and the world didn’t melt into a whirlwind because honestly they haven’t caught up to the events of his previous day—or the things he does and says tomorrow.  Yet there it is, and I’m proud of him for saying it.  And it is my sincere dream that Donald Trump could step into the White House and treat it like Howard Roark—bringing to not only America, but the world, the values of The Fountainhead.  If there was ever a time for it—it is now.  If not now, then perhaps never again.  I don’t think we’ll get another shot before socialism destroys our civilization—globally.  As a I watch modern artists like James Cameron talk about his new hippie driven movies like Avatar and Disney make Star Wars into a much more progressive mythology—it is obvious that they are missing the secret ingredient that Ayn Rand so eloquently brought to life in her American novels—individuals trump collectivism.  The first Star Wars films were about this idea and even Cameron’s Titanic was about this issue—and ultimately the love between Jack and Rose was very Randian. 

Why did Jack let Rose lay on the door at the end of the movie essentially sacrificing himself—he did it because he loved her and to preserve that love he had to save her.  He didn’t do it to benefit society—he did it to save his love for her.  Ayn Rand called this the Virtue of Selfishness—which many people misinterpret—but it is the ultimate driver for how we work as a human species.  And nobody running for office understands that love better than Donald Trump.  Most modern artists get this delicate interpretation wrong—because they value the sacrificial lamb concept established by religions to falsely place value in the collective whole of society. But they miss the point of living entirely.  For there is only one reason that childbirth is such a traumatic experience, and an epic journey that launches us into existence—it’s because our individual lives mean something and we each can contribute something to the work of art that is “life.”  There are very few people who really understand such a delicate balance—and clearly Donald Trump is one of them.  We are in new territory philosophically with this election—and hopefully it’s not too late.

Rich Hoffman


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

Superman, Batman, Zach Snyder and ‘The Fountainhead’: How to define a Trump supporter

With all the press over the new Batman vs Superman movie the director, Zach Snyder told The Hollywood Reporter that one of the next projects he’s working on is an updated version of The Fountainhead.  The faces of nearly everyone in the liberal community of media and entertainment nearly melted off.  Snyder is a highly respected film director and is at the top of his game.  But it doesn’t surprise me that he and a growing contingent of Warner Bros. directors and screen writers are showing themselves as Objectivists—Ayn Rand’s philosophic dispute against Kantian collectivism.  It’s no secret that I was very supportive of the film makers of Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a successful cliff note to the great American novel—Atlas Shrugged.  That book is what America is all about and could have only been written here by our culture.  Ayn Rand was onto something with her work and I personally think The Fountainhead is one of the greatest novels ever written and I’ve read Finnegan’s Wake—and I understand it—just for reference.  Finnegan’s Wake to me is probably the greatest novel in the history of mankind as far as its scope—but within it there are way too many Kantian limits.  Ayn Rand takes away those limits and delivers us to a time before Plato and Aristotle’s great debate—to a time when mankind was contemplating that it was not the gods of Mt. Olympus who ruled the universe, it was the minds of mankind.


This is extremely important to understand because the candidacy and potential presidency of Donald Trump is the kind of story which might be a sequel to one of those Ayn Rand classics—he is a clear combination of characters from both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Trump’s popularity is very similar to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels even to this day nearly 60 and 70 years after their release.  Atlas Shrugged is the most reviewed book in the Library of Congress behind only the Bible for a reason—people are curious—but the life around them built largely in the summation of Kantian philosophy doesn’t assimilate well to what they feel in their heart and souls.

I know people from every side of the argument regarding Donald Trump.  I know the Glenn Beck Tea Party types, I know hard-core Objectivists, and I know traditional Republicans and I see their difficulty in understanding Donald Trump and his supporters.  Some of them like Glenn Beck and even Ted Cruz are staunch Atlas Shrugged supporters—they love Ayn Rand—yet they don’t understand her—because religion clouds their thinking on the philosophy of the matter.  Ironically, that is their same aversion to Donald Trump—that he’s a godless heathen who lives for himself counseling only himself not seeking the advice of God in times of crises.  Trump declares that he relies on his own mind to make decisions—which is a very Ayn Rand type of thing to say—and Beck along with Cruz followed by a contingent of Tea Party supporters are frazzled by such a proclamation.  Establishment Republicans hate Trump because he isn’t Kantian enough—meaning he doesn’t think in a Platonic fashion deep enough for them.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES)  Then of course Objectivists aren’t sure what to think.

Not long ago I compared Donald Trump to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead and Objectivists sent me private messages concerned about my sanity.  They declared that Trump was not ideologically pure enough to be an “Objectivist,” and he certainly wasn’t the hero Howard Roark.  But a real life examination into the way that Trump has lived proposes a direct comparison.  Trump has always had a very Roark-like certainty about hm.  I don’t claim to be an Objectivist.  Personally, I think mankind is at a stage where we need to deep dive Rand’s thoughts expanding on Aristotle’s original concepts—but perhaps either going back to a time well before Greek philosophy or into a new period that mankind has never been before.  I am personally concerned with flushing out these kinds of thoughts over my years.  I see Objectivism as a first step in that process and Ayn Rand was certainly onto the scent.  However, Rand’s books were relatively simple-because they are exploring complex concepts and needed a host of adult characters to drape those concepts off of—for instance, there are no children in Rand’s books, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged—which makes it easy for the characters to act on their authentic natures.  The world is neatly aligned in a way that represented Ayn Rand’s time period and her personal decisions which was to not have children with her husband and to carry on lavish affairs of her own with other men and force her husband to watch essentially.  In the end Rand was a bit broken-hearted with some of her decisions and it hurt her following regarding Objectivism.  That doesn’t mean she was wrong—it just means she wasn’t completely right.

I think the life of Donald Trump would be a sequel to Ayn Rand’s classics—and I think his third wife Melania is the key to his present success.  I think Donald Trump fits right into the pages of Rand’s heroes with John Galt and Howard Roark and that is essentially why people are so bothered with his presidential candidacy.  Objectivists would obviously disagree, but they share with most religions an almost sanctimonious relationship with the purity of Ayn Rand’s characters that they have become Holy figures to them similar to religious fanatics who insist that the life of Jesus Christ as it was written in a book 1700 years ago is testament to the precise way that we must all live today—and that the interpretation provided over the years and nurtured along by Immanuel Kant followed by many others—like Karl Marx would formulate political philosophy around the values of altruism.  Donald Trump was a great person before he met Melania—but after she became his Lady of Tubber Tintye.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She was his hero’s journey much the way Dagney was brought to such a figure in John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.  In that case Galt was the type of treasure found in the classic story of The King of Erin and the Queen of the Lonesome Island.  In real life, Melania was the treasure that Donald Trump found and what we have today is a presidential candidate who has successfully completed a hero’s journey equivalent to a classic novel and he is here to bestow upon mankind the boons of his adventure.

While many people think their version of reality is the correct one, the established political people have their Kant, while Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and their Tea Party followers have their Bibles and the Ayn Rand at war within their very souls trying to fit a square peg into a circular entrance.  Conservatism to many of these people means “obedience to God.” The education class has their Marxism—which was formed by Kant to proclaim that Trump is too stupid for the right to “rule” because that is how archaic they still think of mankind—as a species that needs to be ruled over by an aristocratic elite.  And Objectivists hate all of the above, but they don’t think of Trump as equivalent to John Galt or Howard Roark.  Yet to know Trump through his many years of work, he is clearly willing to stand his ground for the authenticity of his creations, like Roark did at the end of The Fountainhead.  There aren’t any other people on earth in any positions of authority or wealth that have ever done as Trump is doing now—and that is to risk it all for a chance to fix everything for the sake of American authenticity.  He’s not retreating from the world the way that John Galt did to let the system collapse on itself the way that Ayn Rand suggested.  His stand is a much more masculine one—and one not yet defined by any art or literature—at least those known in establishment circles.  Donald Trump is the next step in that eventual evolution.

Trump supporters have been lied to and manipulated by all the groups mentioned above, religious groups, political groups, activism groups—everyone, and they still see things sliding into an abyss.  They have been told that they are bad because they are a particular color, that they are bad if they think well of American sovereignty, and that they are bad if they aren’t willing to give the skin off their very backs to those too lazy to make their own way in life—and they are the majority.  People like Trump were allowed to the table of power so long as they brought their check book, but they weren’t invited to help fix anything.  For Donald Trump I think love brought him full circle and into this political theater and the instincts of the American people understand it in spite of what everyone is telling them.  Trump has great love for his wife, his children, and of course himself.  People don’t comprehend it yet, but they know to trust it because literally everyone else has let them down.

From what I know of the new Superman movie with Batman, the debate is going to be precisely what I have been talking about.  Superman represents the type of Ayn Rand hero that evolved under American philosophy—essentially Objectivism.  Batman represents the law and order of a Platonic society—which migrated from Kant to Marxism riding on the back of organized religion—all denominations.  Can Batman simply let society fall in line behind a man who is superior in every fashion—and could destroy the world if he cared to in a moment?  That is the theme of the new Zach Snyder version of Batman vs. Superman—arriving in theaters soon as of this writing.  But filmmakers must make their livings looking five years into the future to anticipate the trends of that future time.  Given Trump’s impact on the world of politics it does not surprise me that Warner Brothers is looking to Snyder to provide an update to The Fountainhead.  Even though many might fight the words I’m saying about Trump today, our civilization will be looking for answers in the years to come and only Ayn Rand has offered a plausible explanation into the nature of Donald Trump so far in the entire history of the world. 

 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche before Ayn Rand likely started the chain reaction—but prior to them in all of known history only gods of some mystic realm held such power of mankind.  It was the job of human beings to appeal to the egos of their deities.  Trump is not that kind of offering.  He is something else that nobody has ever seen before in politics—or philosophy—and Trump supporters feel innately that they can trust it—because they still hope that its possible in America to step beyond the shackles of Immanuel Kant—even if they’ve never heard the name before—and live their lives as free people for the purposes ascribed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels.  Zach Snyder as a filmmaker has his hands on that pulse—and is working on The Fountainhead to show it to us for later analysis.  For decades in the future we will still be coming to terms with this time period—and it will be through our art that we understand what has happened.  In hindsight, we’ll be glad that it did.  But we will rely on art—as we always do—to define it in our lives—even if the Trump train is moving too fast now to do anything but vote in favor of that gut we have in our stomachs.  That is the very definition of a Trump supporter.

Rich Hoffman


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

FROM THE PAGES OF AYN RAND: Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Angelina Jolie and the great Sergio Leone

The first time I was on television was on a commercial for the restaurant I worked for when I was only 16 years old.  I was a part of the filming and of setting up some of the shots and it gave me the opportunity to work with a crew from Channel 19.  The commercial just happened to air that week during “Tough Guy Week” where nightly they played movies from the toughest characters in Hollywood, people like Steve McQueen, Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee and best of all, Clint Eastwood.  I had been familiar with Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns before, but on the night that my commercial aired it was the same night that For A Few Dollars More played on television, so I ended up watching the entire film so that I could see how the commercial turned out.

The “Man With No Name” character in the Sergio Leone westerns—the trilogy A Fist Full of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, Bad, and the Ugly starring Clint Eastwood was a benchmark in tough guy films.  There had never been another character like the one that Eastwood played in those westerns in all of human history—including stage plays from the Renaissance.  Eastwood’s character was a brand new concept that few understood at the time—but loved.  That love continues 50 years later and has had an impact on cinema that has only escalated.

Eastwood would continue to work this personification of a male Übermensch conceived by Leone for several more films—particularly High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider, The Outlaw Josey Wales and Sudden Impact.    To a smaller degree Eastwood played the same role in the contemporary comedy Every Which Way But Loose as a bare knuckle fighter.  Eastwood’s characters were so popular that they spilled over into other films like Star Wars where the characters of Han Solo and Boba Fett were direct embodiments of the Leone westerns that were only 10 years old at the time.  Kevin Costner would take on a similar Übermensch role in The Bodyguard which was the romance drama of 1992 that women swooned over.  Arnold Schwarzenegger would adopt Eastwood’s screen presence in films like The Terminator, Commando, and Conan the Barbarian, and following Eastwood’s movie production pattern at Warner Brothers did a comedy with Danny DeVitto called Twins—where his  Übermensch character could be played off the hapless antics of a much smaller man.

Progressives in Hollywood of course hated all this attention on these tough guy films and the actors who played them.  In 1989 Tim Burton tried to make a common everyday guy into a tough guy with his Micheal Keaton Batman film which attempted to stop the trend of these superhuman character films that were out of reach for the common man.  Progressives did not want these Übermensch types to steer the American public away from their social messages of interconnected reliance on each other, feminist causes, and sexual experimentation in gender roles–so they tried to get the situation under control.  The most obvious attempt was in the Batman films by Warner Brothers.  While the first film was visually stimulating, the sequel fell apart leading Val Kilmer to play in the 1995 version of a Batman reboot.  The movie was good, but Kilmer wanted nothing further to do with the role—likely from internal pressure within the Hollywood community to stop making Übermensch films.  The next Batman film was with the progressive George Clooney playing the caped crusader, which bombed and was a terrible film filmed with progressive slanted messages—which the public rejected.  This would cause Hollywood to return grudgingly back to the Übermensch concept by plucking the older material directly from comic books.  There was some experimentation with Spiderman to take the Übermensch concept and make him more altruistic which fell apart after Spiderman 3 in 2007 completely imploded on itself as Hollywood had lost the formula.  Christopher Nolan would dig deep into the roots of the Übermensch and get it right which has launched the current superhero parade of films from Ironman, The Avengers, The Hulk, Superman and all the good stuff that’s coming.

Meanwhile James Bond went from an obvious Übermensch in the late seventies and early eighties to a much more “progressive” and less secure secret agent in the 90s which nearly destroyed the character when Timothy Dalton took control after Roger Moore and showed that Bond wasn’t always so sure of himself—which audiences didn’t like.  The Bond franchise is still struggling to find itself as fans still love the old Roger Moore, Sean Connery version of James Bond over the newer—less sure of themselves—James Bonds.  Personally I find the new Bond films by Daniel Craig to be nearly unwatchable.  I enjoy them for the stunts, but the Übermensch Bond is not there.  Progressives love the new Bond and promote it actively—but it just doesn’t take to the American consciousness.

Then there is Quentin Tarantino who loved the old Leone films as much as I did and resurrected the Übermensch concept with a new spin to appease his producer Harvey Weinstein—he cast the lead as a woman and gave the origin for the special mystical power of the Übermensch to the East as a tribute to martial art films from the past.  The result was a fun romp through a bloody series of films where the heroine Uma Thurman was essentially playing Eastwood’s “Man With No Name” character from the Leone films.  It doesn’t matter in the least that Thurman’s character was a woman—what matters is that she was an Übermensch.  Angelina Jolie would take the Übermensch type of character into her portrayal of Tomb Raider where she played the video game character Lara Croft.  To this day even though critics panned the film as not very good, Jolie is known as Lara Croft even though she has made dozens of very good films.  It was her confidence—and Übermensch character in Tomb Raider that fans will always remember about her.

So what is the point of this little history of films produced by Hollywood?  Well, most of these stories lean back on the Leone films which were real breakthroughs at the time and indicated that mankind changed forever.  Human beings want their Übermensch in spite of what political or social forces wish to acknowledge.  And the first filmmaker to really get it right was Sergio Leone.  Without him, it is unlikely that any of the above would have happened—and Hollywood would be just another industry failing in America under progressive leadership.  Instead, Disney now has control of the Star Wars franchise and the world just spent a week wondering if Harrison Ford’s broken leg from the new Episode VII set would hinder his ability to resurrect his Übermensch Han Solo once again.  Disney is rumored to be planning a Boba Fett film which will essentially be a science fiction spaghetti western inspired directly from Sergio Leone—and it will make a ton of money—and progressives will be left scratching their heads wondering why.

So let me give you the secret dear reader.  Let me explain to you the reason why this trend has emerged and given birth to a comic book culture that is taking over today’s youth steering them away from the pacifism of progressivism.  When Ayn Rand spent approximately twenty years writing two books—one, The Fountainhead and two, Atlas Shrugged, she took Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch and completed the work that the German philosopher was unable to due to madness.  In The Fountainhead was the first real attempt to provide an Übermensch to ever occur as a fully functioning character.  The novel published in 1943 was part of a growing trend for human beings to grapple with the Übermensch concept.  In just 1938 the first Superman comic was produced based on a 1933 fanzine trying to take the overman idea as proposed by the socialist George Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche’s direct influence of Hitler’s National Socialism and complete the destructive nature of the incomplete philosophic principle.  The Superman comic was a direct reaction to the type of sentiment which led to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal ideals in America and had a bit of a liberal spin on it.  Ayn Rand further flushed out the Übermensch concept and put them on the pages of her novel, The Fountainhead—which to me is one of the greatest novels of all time.  Rand would then further perfect the concept into Atlas Shrugged which 60 years later is still selling like French Fries at McDonald’s.  It was in these two books that the Übermensch found the right philosophic balance and emerged as a new way of thinking.  It was this concept which found itself into the Sergio Leone films thus inspiring modern Hollywood in ways that would be inconceivable otherwise.  If not for Ayn Rand, her early work as a screenwriter for Cecil B. Deville, her casual associations with Walt Disney, and John Wayne and her deep work in philosophy with the fresh eyes of an immigrant who had seen the worst that communism had to offer—the movie For A Few Dollars More would have never happened, and likely Clint Eastwood would have remained an obscure actor doing bit parts on television shows.

Without Ayn Rand’s fleshing out the concept of the Übermensch there would not have been a Star Wars, there would not have been an Arnold Schwarzenegger in film, and Kill Bill would have never even gained the ability to be made.   Without question there would be attempts, but they would have failed.  When direction was given on how Han Solo should get up out of his chair after killing Greedo in the cantina, or how Boba Fett was supposed to walk down a hall, reference was pointed back to Clint Eastwood—“do it like the characters in the Leone films.”  And it was Ayn Rand who invented the type of Übermensch who appeared for the first time in The Fountainhead so that Clint Eastwood could have some sort of reference on how such a character should behave—since one had never been seen before in the history of the world.  Ayn Rand took the speculative theory of what an Übermensch was supposed to be and fleshed it out in her novels.  Filmmakers like Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood then brought that Übermensch concept to Hollywood which has changed the world.

There is no going back now.  It is only a matter of time that society acknowledges their intense desire for the Übermensch.  The evidence is obvious from the intense interest in comic book films, space odysseys, and an 84-year-old Clint Eastwood who is still tougher than men a fraction of his age.  It’s not the muscle which produce the toughness, it’s in the mind—the beholding of the Übermensch concept—something that became very real to me the first time I really came to understand it watching my first television commercial on Channel 19 during “Tough Guy Week.”  The world has been forever changed for the better in a tug-of-war between the Übermensch and the progressives who despise having to even hold a rope against the strength of such characters.  They have no choice.  Their years of progressive philosophy inspired by Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx are coming to an end in failure.  What is coming are the philosophies of the Übermensch brought to man’s mind through films inspired directly from the pages of Ayn Rand.


Rich Hoffman



If You Love Your Kids, Don’t Send Them To College: The Real ‘Fountainhead’ Frank Lloyd Wright

When I think of college the very first thing I think of is intoxication, experimental sex, and liberalism.  I would never in a hundred years tell someone I care about that they should go to such a mental meat grinder as American modern colleges—because those institutions are not about learning—but are rather about following the advice of Princeton President Woodrow Wilson who said colleges were tasked to make children as less like their parents as possible.  Colleges as they are today are about reprogramming 19 years of love and emotional investment out of a child with the destruction of their individuality and through progressive scholarship—to be reborn as a collective oriented species.  Colleges are run by a class of human being called “the academic of intelligentsia” and they are a sinister group that holds much responsibility for the current destruction of The United States.

That is not to say that all young people who attend college become mindless drones who vote for Presidents like Barack Obama, campaign against gun rights, strive for social evasion through intoxication, and have difficulty maintaining relationships because all their sexual standards have been ripped away leaving nothing to cherish in their bedrooms.  I know of a few.  In fact most of my closest relationships all have advanced degrees and have survived the experience—but not without scars.  Unfortunately for a vast majority of college bound young people, they will not survive intact, and will be crushed under the mantra of progressivism taught in those schools into something unrecognizable from the miracle their youths were destined otherwise to produce.

When it is said that Americans are behind other countries in academic achievement—in producing engineers, scientists and other advanced degree oriented professions I would say to fret not.  Let India, China, Japan and other countries with collectivist cultures produce nice little pets who do what they are told under the terms of employment.  America can always hire that talent away from those other countries—it does not need to produce them in American colleges.  America needs to produce solid individuals who create jobs so that those jobs can hire the pin headed collectivist to work nicely in their cubicles under the guidance of their boss.  America needs to concentrate its energy into making more entrepreneurs and it won’t do that by copying the academic model of Europe and Asia.

To get feel for what I’m talking about, the context is explained wonderfully in one of my all-time favorite novels, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.  In that great American novel the main character Howard Roark was openly molded after the great real life architect Frank Lloyd Wright.  Frank Lloyd Wright, (1867-1959), was an American architect, a pioneer in the modern style who is considered one of the greatest figures in 20th-century architecture. He was born in Richland Center, Wisconsin. In 1887 Wright went to Chicago, where he became a designer for the firm of Adler and Sullivan. In 1893 he established his own office in Chicago.

Wright created the philosophy of “organic architecture,” which maintains that a building should develop out of its natural surroundings. His designs for both private and public structures were boldly original, and he rebelled against ornate neoclassic and Victorian styles. Wright believed that architectural form must be determined by the particular function of a building, its environment, and the type of materials used. His interiors emphasize spaciousness, which derives from open planning with one room flowing into another.

Wright initiated many new techniques, such as the use of precast concrete blocks reinforced by steel rods. He also introduced numerous innovations, including air conditioning, indirect lighting, and panel heating. His works include the Millard House (1923) in Pasadena, California; the Johnson Wax Company Administration Building (1939) in Racine, Wisconsin; the First Unitarian Church (1947) in Madison, Wisconsin; and the Price Tower (1953) in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. In 1959 he completed the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City.

Wright also spent much of his time writing, lecturing, and teaching. By 1908 he had originated most of the principles that serve as fundamental concepts of modern architecture. His work profoundly influenced the development of contemporary architecture in the United States and Europe.[1]

Ironically, contrary to what academics care to admit, there is no evidence that Frank Lloyd Wright ever graduated from high school.  He was admitted to college under a special arrangement, but left the school without taking a degree after only a few classes.  No college in the world could have taught Wright to think so far outside the box as he did, and in fact nobody has been able to think as originally as he has to date.  In colleges all over the world architecture students study Frank Lloyd Wright, and they copy some of his elements in modern building techniques, but they cannot think like he did.  Those other students would be what the novel The Fountainhead calls the Peter Keatings of the world, the fools destined to live in the shadows of everyone else their entire lives, who go to school, get good grades, do what they’re told, and die unspectacularly as decrypted caricatures of a mind that had degraded each year of their lives from age 4 to 75.  For that matter I have told almost the same type of story about Walt Disney.  (CLICK HERE to see a list of some of the most successful names who have not received college degrees.)  College is not necessary for success, only for keeping the coffers of progressive politics alive—to fulfill the dream of people like Woodrow Wilson who wanted to engineer young people away from their parents and destroy the American family by rule over them as members of the college educated intellectual.  (Look at that list at the link carefully and you will see a pattern.  If you want your children to be successful you should follow the evidence of that list)

Frank Lloyd Wright detested intellectuals as they were classically portrayed, and wonderfully articulated in The Fountainhead.  Wright is an excellent example of why America was great, because it created a nation that could give wonderfully original minds like Disney and Wright a place to develop their thoughts without the rigid guidelines created by college academics always in the hip pocket of politics.  America did best when it conducted itself with old-fashioned horse sense.  Colleges have prided themselves on destroying that horse sense in a quest to crush individualism in favor of collectivism.  It is because of this trend that colleges study Frank Lloyd Wright, but cannot produce modern versions of him no matter how much money a student spends on their education.  A parent who wants to produce the next Frank Lloyd Wright in their child cannot do it with their life savings.  Colleges are happy to sell the snake oil that they can, but they can’t.  Only an original mind can perform such a task, and original minds are produced while children play and such thought processes are preserved into adulthood.  Currently originality is destroyed in public education leaving once great minds caricatures of themselves by the time they hit puberty.  Once a deranged mind hits college age, they have almost nothing else left in the tank to resist the reprogramming that modern intellectuals cast upon their unsuspecting minds.  In a couple short years of college, most minds are destroyed forever and those young people are destined to look back on their youths as the best days of their lives, as they begin a slow journey toward death in the 60 or more years that follow.

Public education sells itself on producing young minds for college, but this is an error.  Parents should not spend a lifetime of savings on college only to have their children programmed away from the values taught by the family for 14 to 18 years.  If a parent really loves their children, they will discourage their children from being destroyed in these palaces of corruption called American colleges, and encourage them to become the next Frank Lloyd Wrights, or Walt Disneys.  The blueprint on the how and why can be found in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.  The novel like the people it portrays is a window into when America was producing the best minds in the entire world and is a direct link into how we can restore to our nation a trend of supremacy that has always defined The United States.  But such a path will not be through college doors so let the rest of the world travel that path to their own destruction.  It is to America’s competitive advantage to turn away from the stuffy academic and put its faith in the mind of the innocent and encourage them to reach for the stars without limitations, without the rigid lines of social political rules—to become the next great thinkers who will usher in a new age of prosperity and innovation.

[1]Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © &  1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.

All rights reserved.

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em!”


“Ayn Rand still lives through the work of Rich Hoffman”: Galt/Stephens 2016!

“Wow, I just finished reading ‘Tail of The Dragon’ and I physically feel like I just got off a roller coaster without the benefit of a safety harness.

If you believe that progressive policies pushed by collectivist politicians can rob a vibrant free and independent country of its spirit, how excited you will be to see one man, desperate for freedom – powerful enough and devoid of chains, who refuses to capitulate, take on a government without a soul and bring it to its knees!

The spirit of Ayn Rand is still alive and is being lived and written about by Rich Hoffman…Galt/Stephens 2016!

I was impressed how this skillful author can tell this story that involves sleazy politics without using profanity.

Hoffman got it right.”

–George Lang West Chester Twp Trustee

Out of all the reviews for my new novel Tail of the Dragon, this is one of them that mean the most. When I started writing this novel I had not yet read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which is certainly the case back in 2004 when I wrote The Symposium of Justice. I have heard similar comparisons with the John Galt character from Atlas Shrugged with my Fletcher Finnegan character in The Symposium as shown in the Galt/Stevens 2016 reference.  I read Atlas Shrugged prior to the first movie coming out in spring of 2011 while preparing for a Glendale Tea Party Rally with Doc Thompson. Between Doc and me we put forth a bit of effort on 700 WLW to convince AMC Theaters in Newport to book that film so people could see it, and during the process I felt I should at least read the book of the movie I was advocating.

My draft for Tail of the Dragon had already been turned in to American Publishing and they were considering a contract. I didn’t get the offer for publication from them until the end of May in 2011 so while I was in that in-between zone, I was reading Atlas, and of course found I understood the character of John Galt all too well. Like Ayn Rand I have an idea of what a man ought to be, and my characters reflect that belief. This review given by Lang is not the first time parallels have been drawn between my work and Rand’s that stand out in the mind of my readers.

Most notably in The Symposium of Justice the primary protagonist worked as a grill cook at the restaurant Republics which is a fast foot joint popular in the town of Fort Seven-Mile. In Atlas Shrugged I had a de ja vu moment when Ayn Rand placed Dr. Hugh Akston, who was the college professor of Francisco d’ Anconia, John Galt, and Ragnar Danneskjold, into a similar roll hiding out in the open from the looters of society as a cook at a Colorado diner. The theme in Atlas Shrugged was nearly precisely one that I was trying to capture in The Symposium of Justice and I had found that path by taking the path least trotted upon in the forest where the trees were thickest. These characters found that by working out in the open but in professions that society deemed worthless, they could operate aggressively at reforming the world and the bad guys would not see it, because their minds had become “overly specialized.” In that manner I found that without knowing it, I was very interested in the same types of themes as Ayn Rand and my novels were about those topics.

In Tail of the Dragon even though Rick Stevens is a person who wanted to be a race car driver, he had arrived at a stage in his life relatively socially unmolested, giving him a clear idea of what he wanted from the world, and what was in the way of him getting it. As a man he does not have insecurities about himself, his upbringing, whether or not his wife loves him, whether or not he raised his child correctly, whether or not he could make more money than his neighbors because his focus is on his passion, which I believe should be the focus for all human beings. Rick Stevens is the kind of character who does not believe in yielding to others, he does not believe in compromising himself to politics or social fashion. I had been thinking after I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that he was the closest kind of character in literature to emerge since John Galt in 1957 and Howard Roark in 1943 – which is my personal favorite now that I have finally gotten around to reading them. Rick Stevens is certainly cut from the same cloth, but at the time I had no way of knowing. What I did know was I wanted to write about a character as I thought men and women should aspire to be, not what they might otherwise compromise themselves into living in reality. The point of an epic story is not to capture reality as it is, but as it should be so that like a sign post on a desolate highway, the wondering reader might find their way to a life they only suspected was possible.

I know George Lang as my business sometimes bumps into his business, and out of all the politicians that I know personally, he is close to my own age and has seen the very ugly side of politics in a unique way. So I asked him to read an advance copy of Tail of the Dragon and confirm that the vile politics in the book were not so over-the-top that it was unbelievable. In my novel, the story is based on real politics so I wanted to paint the picture with the correct colors, and George had some unique insight to that seedy world and could tell me if I was on the right course.

When George finished the book and sent me the above review, I was a bit taken by it, because over the last year and a half I had become an Ayn Rand fan since she was trying to do in the 1930’s and 1940’s what I am trying to do in the first decade of a new century, and that is elevate the perception of what a man is, define why the world needs them to think this way, and what it takes to get there. The fact that George drew parallels to one of the greatest figures in literary history with Rick Stevens is the ultimate compliment.

Like John Galt and Howard Roark from The Fountainhead, Rick Stevens is an uncompromising man in a world that expects compromises at every turn. Stevens is a man that pays no political system honorable worship. He does not stand in salute to any legal judge. He treats the U.S. President like a bell boy in an expensive hotel—a servant, nothing more or less. Stevens is clearly his own man and the conflict of the story is how he navigates through an intricate story of politics and social engineering while trying to maintain his value system.

I am glad that George Lang noticed what I was trying to do. I am sad that there have not been more attempts in literature from the years of Ayn Rand to the beginning of my novels to explore the same type of characters, because I think the world desires them. The world needs them. I discovered them in my own way through years of trying to make sense of humanity and determine how to fix it. Having the ability to fix problems led me to develop my own modern characters that are examples of man the way they should strive to live. When I fix a car I do not change the tires if I discover it will not start. And in life, we don’t worry about education funding, racism, or illegal immigration when the national debt is about to topple over 16 trillion dollars upon this writing. The problem is something besides all those side issues, and must be dealt with before we tackle the kinds of problems tires may give us. All those other things may be concerns, but they are not the keys to solving the key problems before us. Rick Stevens in Tail of the Dragon like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged was meant to be a mirror that the reader can look into and discover something about themselves so they can utilize their part in fixing big international issues. Those things do not get fixed from the far away land of Washington, or the U.N. of Europe, they are fixed in the daily lives of mankind, and a yearning to be more than what is offered on the precipice of our own destruction.

It means a lot to me to have my name included with Ayn Rand by a reviewer who has been in the political trenches up close and personal. The only sadness I feel is that it took more than 60 years to provide literature with another type of character that can show what a man should be in a world that is much like our own. In Tail of the Dragon, it is a heck of a lot of fun reading about Rick doing what nobody in their socially conditioned minds would dare do–take on the entire legal system with the intention of bringing it down to its very knees—by the simple efforts of refusing compromise and yielding to forces that believe they are greater than the effort of an individual.

Being a trustee of West Chester, Ohio is no small task. Even though I disagree often with much of what the trustees do, George Lang has been instrumental in helping to make West Chester fall in at #97 in America’s top 100 places to live. That is no small feat. In the world of local politics, it is in the quest for the exceptional that helps make rankings like that possible, so his opinion of Tail of the Dragon carries great weight with me.

Thank you,


Click Here to see what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon 

Visit the NEW Tail of the Dragon WEBSITE!  CLICK HERE and help spread the word! TELL SEVEN PEOPLE TO TELL SEVEN PEOPLE!

Rich Hoffman

“The Fountainhead” Book Review: The hung jury speaks from the past

“I don’t work with collectives, I don’t consult, I don’t co-operate, I don’t collaborate.” These are the words of Howard Roark from the 1943 book The Fountainhead, a book that has now become my favorite novel, and replacing the Nietzsche classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra as my most treasured all time book which is no light achievement.

How I managed to move through 44 years of my life without running into this book at some point is beyond me. I have searched through book stores and libraries all my life. In fact, besides the game rooms, and movie theaters, it was the book store that I spent all my time in as a youth, and somehow I never ran into this classic novel.

I am fully aware that millions of people over the years have read this novel, and loved it dearly. But I can only say that I feel The Fountainhead was written by Ayn Rand all those years ago while on a remote island of thought and she placed the novel into a bottle addressed to me and sent it to sea to be read by my eyes only, because that’s how I feel about Howard Roark and the overall message of the novel.

I have lived that life of Roark in much the way that Roark has lived it, and until I read this novel, I had never heard or understood that anyone else in the human race had comprehended the conclusions I had arrived at on my own. It is not a book that will be understood widely by the masses, even though they may find enjoyment in it. It is a great work or art that is the skeleton key of American civilization and is absolutely remarkable.

I will admit that after I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, I did not think that The Fountainhead would be nearly as good, so I simply put it on a list to read at some point in the future when I finally got around to it. I didn’t want The Fountainhead to ruin the taste of Atlas Shrugged for me. Also, I was already being accused of being too Randian by my political enemies, so I avoided reading the novel so to avoid the unparalleled comparisons with objectivism that I also write about.

Reading the words were like drinking water after walking in the desert for over 40 years, because as long as I’ve been alive I have thought like Roark, and been every bit as stubborn as Roark in a quest for freedom. The above quote from the architect Howard Roark as he was being interviewed for a committee to design for the World’s Fair, where he was to serve on a panel of the world’s greatest architects, was a commission that would have brought fame and fortune to him. He turned it down stating that he would work alone or not at all, that committees do not work. Of course he was told to take a hike, which he happily did in order to maintain his integrity and freedom.

I don’t mind saying that out of all my years I have heard from no place else, these kinds of values held to the same type of standard I have always lived by, so to say that I love The Fountainhead because of the way it was written, or the complex story, or the historical context, is to sell it short of what my actual feelings are. I can see why many on the political left fear Ayn Rand with a terror that seems insane, because every one of those motives were covered in The Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand I think went much further than she did in Atlas Shrugged which many consider to be her greatest novel. The Fountainhead is a piece of work that is deeply meaningful. As I read it I kept reminding myself that when this book was written and published in 1943, John Wayne was a box office star, and Superman was a very popular comic. Society had signs of great strength that is completely vacant today. I love old movies, old songs, and old books because I do not like what has happened to the world over the last century, a trend that is called The Great Beast in The Fountainhead. But Ayn Rand doesn’t just name “The Beast” in The Fountainhead, she shows in intricate detail how it works against the ideas of individualism and society in general to destroying the idea of Superman.

The truth about individualism is that those who possess such traits function on their own. They do not need validation from society, or even from a book. I could have functioned the rest of my life just fine not reading The Fountainhead. But it is refreshing to see that at least one other person in human history feels the same way about things as I do.

My wife bought me the book for our 24th wedding anniversary while we were out at our favorite book store. I was waiting for my own novel called Tail of the Dragon to come out in book stores soon, so I wanted to read something deeply intelligent and thought-provoking that I haven’t yet read. So it seemed like a good time to read The Fountainhead. After all, my work at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom had already drawn the comparisons with Rand, so there was no reason to avoid reading another book of Rand’s just so I could say I hadn’t read all her books. There was a part of me who wanted to keep my ideas completely mine, and to not be confused with another writer, even one from the distant past. And that seemed like a stupid reason to avoid a really good book, which I thought The Fountainhead would be. But I had no idea it would become my favorite book. It said what I had been doing for many years was not isolated to just myself. Roark is a character in The Fountainhead who does not look back and regret anything, he is a character who loves himself, and is therefore capable of loving others fully, he is a character of complete self-assuredness, he is a unique talent simply because he does not look to anyone else to measure himself against, he is in all practical purposes a perfect person.

The villains of the book I have met all before—every single one of them in real life. Their motives are no different from from The Fountainhead, and I have never read such a description of characters anywhere in any piece of literature fictional or non-fictional, film or play. There is a truth in this novel that cuts through to the invisible barriers that holds back everyone.

Like Roark I have always been told that my lack of “sharing” was wrong, and that I needed to “get with the program,” and my response has always been just like what Roark said and that includes my political work with No Lakota Levy, that I have been so well-known for. In that group I had a free hand to run the campaign the way I wanted, but recently, there were attempts to change the direction a bit. I tried to play along nicely, but I just couldn’t do it. I had to call my political enemies Latté sipping prostitutes to keep things right in my mind knowing it would probably end my relationship with the rest of the No Lakota Levy group because the assemblage had become more inclusive.

My hatred of public education itself is rooted in this idea that committees do not work. Many minds cannot achieve anything but a mess, and our society reflects it. Professionally, I have always excelled when left in the sole leadership position, but I have lost interest when I have to consult with others. I gave up my desire to be a film director when I realized I did not have it in me to be a “collaborative” person which traditionally is the roll of the film director. Instead I have decided to write books, for all the reasons that Ayn Rand did, because I wish to report to nobody, I want the world to be done my way, and I consult nobody to do it.

I have worked in business long enough to learn to work with other people without compromising myself, and Roark learns to do this also in The Fountainhead. The wonderful aspect of this story is that he does not bend his integrity to do it. Such a concept is very difficult, but Rand pulls it off wonderfully in this novel. I cannot say how many times I have heard that integrity must be bent to “compromise” my beliefs to merge with others, and I have never done it. Like Roark, I have never identified myself with groups, or any form of collectivist mentality, and this has given me an authenticity that I value very much in my life now. Unlike Roark, who simply avoids all groups through his life, I was told by everyone around me that I had to be a part of them. I have been an active member of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, V.P. of the Suzuki Owners of North America, Ohio Chapter, participated in many writing groups and taken courses including one of Sol Stein’s regiments, I’ve been a member of the Society of Whip Artists, the Wild West Arts Club, numerous local liberty groups, high adventure groups, tax fighting groups and in every instance I find a way to sabotage myself on the rise to the top, as all the members of these groups tried to make me their leader, or collaborate with me on a level that I felt confining.

I always start pulling away from groups when they start inviting me to lunch, and start wanting to spend time around me not because I dislike their company, or even their groups, but I find the clutter of their lives conflicting with my daily intentions. My favorite thing to do in a day is to “think” and I love to be alone with my thoughts. In every professional capacity I’ve ever been a part of I always turn away from any collaboration with others. I have only ever been interested in top down leadership or nothing. I know how to respect the opinions of others without being needlessly imposing because I have never had a desire to rule other people, even when I’ve had many employees working under me. Being the ruler for the sake of power was never interesting. But having the ability to mold an idea from my head to a product guiding the people under me has been a successful formula many more times than once, and it has always worked best when I alone made all the decisions.

Once you are successful, you find a parade of moochers who are suddenly your friends and want to share in your success. That is when they offer for you to join a group of their making, and when they want to be involved in a committee of which you are a part. What they really want is to share in the success of your thinking, which makes them a simple looter.

I once infuriated one of my past employers by ripping to shreds the validity of Six Sigma as a means to creating more efficient production methods. I stated that Six Sigma was garbage and would not yield positive results–that big companies had simply fudged their numbers to get the results they desired, to show that collectivism like Six Sigma would actually work in companies. I have been in a lot of companies, and it doesn’t work. It can only be made to look that way on paper. It does not work in reality because workers must buy into Six Sigma and invest their individual value into their work, which does not happen without applying some sort of fear.

I have wondered many times if I was the only person on the face of the earth presently or in the past who thought these things, because everyone, everywhere I went seemed to think the same kind of things—their thoughts were rooted in collectivism. Mine never have been and I have never cared a damn what somebody thought of what I did and because of it I have always found myself in some type of conflict with someone.

Ultimately my resolution after all these years is to completely give up on groups. I have tried to get along and play nicely, and it never has worked. I have observed that it’s not just because of my opinion or preference, but because the science of collectivism is a failure right out of the gate, and my desire to work alone is due to the realization that only individuals create anything worthwhile. I have seen this process up close and personal at every level of human endeavor and it NEVER works.

Yet our society and our world today are corrupted with the belief that it does, and it has infected virtually our entire population. The 20th Century is the century of communism and the infection of the virus called Marxism.

The appropriate metaphor for The Fountainhead is the occupation of architecture as its primary theme. I know a few of those types and have fired my share of Peter Ketting’s for all the reasons he was a worthless piece of garbage in the novel, so I know something about architects. I was looking recently at the skyline of Cincinnati the last time I was down there and I thought about all the cities across the nation. Cincinnati’s skyline hasn’t changed much since I was a child, and that’s the case with most of the big cities. Occasionally, a new skyscraper is put up, and there used to be a healthy competition to see which city could boast the largest skyscrapers, because they were a symbol of that city’s economic power. Most of the skyscrapers in the cities of America were started long ago when the nation was functioning as close to pure capitalism that there ever was, and now bits of socialism have diseased our cities growth as communism has been knocking on America’s door. It is clear to me that the threat of communism has stopped the growth of those skylines. It is in that stoppage that America’s growth has been reflected. The newest skyscrapers in the world are now in Dubai, and China, not in America and this is part of the global socialism push, to spread the wealth to the far reaches of the earth by implementing “fairness” at the expense “growth.”  America should have ten Donald Trumps for the one we have now.  It has only been Trump that have built anything in America recently.  The other potential men and women of Trump’s nature have been consumed by communism. 

I could literally write a 2 million word essay on just The Fountainhead. The themes and wisdom of the book are simply unparalleled. It is the great American novel. It is everything that Americans should strive to be, and it accurately portrays the terrible evil that is eating our country and has destroyed entire civilizations for centuries. If I had to say what book most accurately reflects my personal beliefs, I would now have to say it is The Fountainhead.

It is because of the themes in The Fountainhead that I write here every day. I don’t do it for money when many have asked me why I do not sell advertising, or solicit funds to keep it going. I write here because I do it for myself, because I wish to own my words without the influence of anyone. I am very possessive of my thoughts because they belong to me with the same passion that Howard Roark felt about his architectural drawings. It’s worth more to me than personal wealth, again for all the reasons of Roark, and very few people understand that. In fact there are only six people who understand my feelings about these types of things, my wife, my two daughters, my son-in-law, and Ayn Rand as confirmed in this message she sent me in a bottle over time called The Fountainhead.

As I closed the book I felt as though a public trial over my life consisting of four decades had just concluded and all the members of the jury had decided that I was guilty of radical individualism and a yearning for personal freedom that was dangerous to society and the only one on the jury to speak out in my defense was Ayn Rand in her wonderful novel The Fountainhead. And because the jury could not come to a unanimous decision, I am able to go free.

After reading this book I feel autonomy to double my intentions. If I knew before that I was right in my thoughts, it is now that I have confirmed my suspicions. In many ways I am glad I did not read this book any earlier, because it cannot be said that it influenced my direction in life. I’ve lived my life as authentically as possible, and been told that I was wrong to do so, which I never believed, but certainly felt the crushing weight of their judgment. I always told myself that it was truly the masses that were wrong, that millions upon millions were wrong and that possibly only I was right. I now know that at least one other person shared those thoughts with me because I received the message in the bottle on my anniversary, and it was the confirmation of a hung jury with Ayn Rand being my only supporter, and that means a lot. Actually, I take that vote as a commission to really pour it on now; because the real enemy, the “second handlers” are clearer to me than they have ever been before, and it’s time to slay the beast once and for all. It’s time to hunt the “second handlers” where they live and eradicate them from the terror they intend upon the human mind.

Unfortunately, if The Fountainhead is to be enjoyed, the book must be read. The 1949 movie starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, screen written by Ayn Rand herself is quite good, and can be seen below. It’s a great film, but only touches on the surface of the novel’s themes. For me personally, there was a line in the novel that struck me particularly hard—“how do you like it now superman,” in relation to the torture that Howard Roark had to endure at a particularly dark moment in the story. For the entirety of my life in every phase, and at every occupation I have been given almost that exact line—“why do you work so hard superman,” “who do you think you are superman,” “you are making us look bad—superman.” It is because of those lines that I named Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom what I have and committed my own versions of modern “supermen” to literature, because they need a voice too. I’ve never desired to be anything else or to apologize to anyone to be it. And that type of conviction in another human being I have never seen before anywhere until I read this fantastic novel.


This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon

Just finished the book and am sweating profusely. Wow, what a ride !!!  Fasten your seat belts for one of the most thrilling rides ever in print.

While you wait for Tail of the Dragon, read my first book at Barnes and Nobel.com as they are now offering The Symposium of Justice at a discount which is the current lowest price available.

Rich Hoffman