Thank God for an American Gun Company in Springfield MA: The .500 Magnum, the most powerful production handgun in the world

When I cover for Matt Clark’s radio show on WAAM in Ann Arbor, Michigan on Saturday June 13th I plan to play an old T.G. Sheppard song he did with Clint Eastwood called, Make My Day.” The song is a country song done after the success of the Dirty Harry film Sudden Impact as a tribute to that classic cop drama featuring the .44 magnum from Smith & Wesson.   The song itself is a fun romp through common sense as seen from behind the trigger of a gun owner. Since I first heard that song shortly after watching Sudden Impact as a very young man, I have been in love with the company of Smith & Wesson. It has always represented to me a classic American company full of patriotism. The factory itself is located in the middle of an extremely liberal part of the country that is heavily dominated by labor union mentality and progressive politics. But Smith & Wesson has maintained itself as a dominant player in the firearms manufacturing world stage from its Springfield, MA factory off Roosevelt Ave for a long time and is a testament to the ingenuity of American resiliency. Firearms and aviation are still global manufacturing fields that are specifically dominated by American methods making the Smith & Wesson factory to me one of the most sentimental acts of patriotism available today.

It was largely that sense of sentimental patriotism that made me want to have the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum. There was a lot of controversy when S&W released their Model 29 Dirty Harry gun when it was declared then that it was the most powerful handgun in the world by Clint Eastwood himself at the start of Magnum Force. 

  There were other handguns that were more powerful and it became well-known that S&W were overstating the power of their .44 magnum Model 29. Sure it was a powerful gun, but it wasn’t the most powerful. Regardless, Model 29 sales soared throughout the 70s into the early 90s when progressives launched a full-out attack during the Clinton years against guns and their manufactures. Clint Eastwood turned to more serious films and never returned to Dirty Harry after the film the Dead Pool in 1988 leaving the S&W Model 29 hanging a bit in a changing marketplace.

Instead of turning tail and running for history the tenacious engineers at S&W went back to the drawing board looking to officially become the most powerful handgun in the world—this time for real, not just in movie reference. That’s when they came up with the X-frame revolver series which produced the .460 Magnum and the massive .500 Magnum. With that .500 Magnum S&W had officially become the most powerful production handgun in the entire world, and because of the patented X-frame design, it will hold that title for a number of years.

It is for this reason that I had to have one. It wasn’t just to own the most powerful production handgun in the world; it was to reward S&W for standing the test of time, competition, and politics to emerge with such a massive personal firearm which clearly went against the grain of social pressure. I respect S&W immensely for holding firm against the tide of progressivism that surrounds their facility in Massachusetts. In a lot of ways they represent the kind of pressures going on all across the nation and world in general. Instead of backing off and tucking their tale to hide, they went to the drawing board and invented something that was unequivocally the most powerful and dominate handgun around. In a lot of ways it’s a lesson for how we should all handle the pressures of progressivism.

That’s certainly not to say that we should go out and shoot anybody. When I brought the .500 Magnum out for the first time around a lot of seasoned shooters over the Memorial Day weekend, there weren’t too many who wanted to fire it. The sheer size and power of it is extremely intimidating. Most were happy to just look at it in the case I brought it in. I had brought along $200 of ammunition just for that gun, and there still weren’t many who wanted to fire it outside of my son-in-law, and myself. Its one of those things that is a deterrent to improper behavior just in knowing that it exists, and in a lot of ways it represents the resiliency of Smith & Wesson as a company serving as a kind of last stand of classic value in a land of progressive erosion. My brother-in-law shot the gun into a nearby river and when a geyser erupted in the wake of the bullet scattering water in multiple trajectories as though hit by cannon fire, he declared, “Holy shit………..I’m good for life.” That is the kind of punch the Smith & Wesson announced to the world with their determined effort to product Model X revolvers while the rest of the world was going softer, smaller, and more Brady Bill friendly.

The song “Make My Day” embodies that same S&W tenaciousness, and is what most of us feel now that we are backed up against the wall by a progressive infusion into the national media. It’s why I still love that song and the S&W company after all these years—and is why I’m going to use it as an intro to the radio segment I plan to do for that particular half hour. It’s a metaphor for what we all have to do in America and the kind of attitude it takes to get there.

The theme of the song and the reason that out of all the cop dramas that have come out over the last four decades, Dirty Harry is still popular. The power of the .44 magnum from Smith & Wesson gave the Clint Eastwood character the assurance that no matter what kind of firepower he faced from the bad guys, he could out-gun them. Smith & Wesson to assure to their customers that they could always have that same type of personal assurance offered up the .500 Magnum for that very reason. Like the song brings to light, whether it’s a motorcycle gang, a collection of thugs, goons or punks who hide out in the night, Smith & Wesson provides their customers the assurance that they don’t have to be concerned with threats to their personal sanctity. That after all is the key to the American system of government and economics. Groups, no matter what their background whether it is an officially sanctioned government or a group of criminals desire to use fear to control individuals. When someone possesses the most powerful production handgun in the world it buys the assurance that no matter what a group tries to do to inflict fear on individuals, which the owner of such a gun doesn’t have to be afraid of anything. It is when individuals are forced to deal with each other on equal footing that a respectful culture of Americans emerges. Peace through superior firepower in the hands of good people.

Among gun owners it is found some of the best people functioning in the world today. Recently my same son-in-law who shot my new .500 Magnum visited his family in Great Britain who were shocked that he and my daughter had so many guns. In England it was appalling that anybody could own a personal firearm. My kids drove the point home by stating that guns are so prevalent in American culture that they had matching his and her 9mm semi-automatic pistols. That prospect was astonishing to the English family members who were functioning from a totally different culture. It is that kind of mentality that progressives here in America are trying to breed into our culture and currently surround the Smith & Wesson factory in Massachusetts. But the biggest difference between American society and everyone else is really the number of guns available to individuals. With so many guns come secure investments and limited government to abuse their power on helpless individuals. That is the point of the “Make My Day” song; it suggested that Dirty Harry actually looked forward to righting wrongs because he had such a powerful handgun in the .44 magnum. Because he was prepared, he looked forward to using it and didn’t have to live his life apprehensive as to what might come next.

In a lot of ways I have to thank Smith & Wesson for sticking around and fighting it out all these years. They answered much criticism to their product line by offering truly the most powerful production handgun in the world and to reward that tenacity—I bought one. To me it is a marvel of modern engineering achievement that is the backbone of the American system of government. Those who are against that American system are those who want to put the gun manufacturers out of business so that the firearm culture in the United States might abate. But that’s not going to happen, and now that I’ve given myself a taste of such a powerful gun in the .500 Magnum, I have a reiteration of a whole new category of Adam Smith philosophy to dust off and shout to the world. But before I do that I’ll give WAAM listeners a treat to what started it all for me, an old T.G. Sheppard song from a famous Clint Eastwood film that defined more than a cop drama to a Hollywood industry offering a story they thought would come and go without much memory. It was Smith & Wesson who was a silent credit in that film which defined for America a subtle key to its global success. When it comes to American success and self defense—the bigger the better—and because of S&W customers can legitimately get the biggest and best that a human hand can hold defending capitalism with all the self-assurance of Harry Callahan. There’s nothing wrong with that. As it says in the song, “It was Smith & Wesson that taught them a lesson, Go Ahead, Make My Day.” Obtaining my own .500 Magnum not only made my day—it made my century.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Review of the .500 Magnum: Being on the trigger side of freedom

There really is nothing like Memorial Day.  All through the year I refer specifically to this late spring early summer period as the absolute best part of a 12 month calendar.  In Ohio the temperature is just perfect hovering right around 70 to 80 degrees during the day and dropping down into the upper 50s at night.  Everything has a fresh feel to it in May which climaxes on Memorial Day typically.  And for each Memorial Day my father-in-law has a birthday for which the family gets together to celebrate.  May is a time for blockbuster summer movies, wonderful weather and eagerness toward the events of an upcoming summer.  I always love May and I likely always will.  So for this year we did something special, we finally bought a gun that I had been thinking about for a long time, the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum with its heavily engineered X-frame revolver introduced in 2003 capable of hunting any form of life on planet earth.  It is the most powerful production handgun in the world and is a real brute to shoot, but I wanted to best to defend my home from the stacking pile of hostiles contemplating aggression, and sometimes the best deterrent is assured destruction.  After a lot of discussion with my wife, we finally made the purchase in May 2015 and tried it out on my father-in-law’s birthday over the Memorial Day weekend.  It was the best tribute to what Memorial Day means in America.  Memorial Day is a time to honor those fallen fighting for the freedoms we all enjoy in America.  But it is also a time to remember that the fight for freedom doesn’t end with memory of losses in foreign wars.  That fight continues daily and a good way to stay sharp and focused to that responsibility is with the purchase of a new gun—well, in the case of the .500 Magnum—artillery.  The .500 Magnum is everything that I hoped it would be as you can see me firing it below.  I have shot the gun before, but this time it was my own weapon fired for the first time outside of the factory.

One of the targets seen in the video was a portion of a tree branch cut to stand on its end.  The second was a standard sedimentary rock out of the river behind the target radius.  It is dangerous to shoot at such things with any gun.  But I had a pretty good idea that the .400 grain bullet would punch through both without ricochet so I wanted to test the punch power of the .500 magnum and its 1,800 fps velocity, 2,579 ft-lbf muzzle energy which is extraordinary for a handgun.   As can be seen clearly the bullet from the .500 Magnum split the log in half and punched the rock in two.  The rock itself was about five inches thick.  The ideal distance for shooting at such targets should have been 50 to 100 yards—but for the sake of this video so that target interaction could be seen, we moved in to about 25 yards.  That was not enough as debris pelted us even from that distance—something I would not have expected.  But when dealing with such powerful forces the strange and unusual can and do occur.  Needless to say, the most powerful handgun in the world did not disappoint.  It exceeded my expectations in every way.image

But that’s not all there was to such a fine day of shooting.  The entire Memorial Day shooting event was just marvelous.  We started the day gathering up our guns and preparing to hit the road.  My wife had several coolers made for a day trip to the south as we went around the city to pick up our family.  On the way to our shooting destination we stopped at McDonald’s twice and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism to its fullest.  We also stopped by the Field & Stream superstore in Northern Kentucky to buy some more ammunition.  It was a glorious start to a magnificently beautiful day.image

But once we settled in at our destination the culmination of much anticipation erupted with the sheer power of the .500 Magnum.  It was a pleasure to shoot.  But after a box of ammunition, the bones in my hand were starting to feel the fatigue.  In some of the slow motion portions of the video it is clear how much a wave of energy was displaced through my body during each shot.  It was truly an exhilarating sensation to have such a controlled explosion occurring in the palm of your hand.  It is truly a hand cannon as it is firing a projectile what would have sunk ships during the pirating days of 15th century buccaneering.  In those times that kind of power would have been strapped to a ship in the form of a fixed device.  It would have been unfathomable to contain such power into a hand cannon designed by the Smith & Wesson team with the X-frame to put such force in the hands of an individual.  Yet that’s why I bought the gun, to possess that kind of power.image

Having the gun however is not enough.  Learning to shoot it is the next great step.  My arms and wrist are already well prepared because of my frequent bullwhip work so the learning curb is less for me than the average shooter.  It takes a considerable amount of strength to handle the .500 Magnum for more than a few novelty shots.  Most of the men present at our event after seeing the power given off by the gun wanted nothing to do with actually firing it.  It shakes the ground when it fires and gives off a shock wave that will stop a target range still with silence after you fire it. The roar of the blast suppresses even a .12 gage shotgun so it’s truly something to behold.image

My son-in-law shot it several times and did very well.  Even from where I stood a good ten feet away from him, I could feel the wave of energy displacing each time he fired the gun.  It is like setting off a stick of dynamite with each shot.  There isn’t anything else like it.  For a person weighing less than 200 lbs, anything more than a 300 gr bullet would be too much to hold feet to the ground.  We went through our 400 gr bullets and I decided to save the 500 gr bullets for self-defense and concealed carry opportunities.  Ammunition as high as 700 gr bullets are available for the .500 Magnum which I will be getting but pleasurable shooting diminishes with so much raw power.  For target shooting and setting sights anything 275 gr to 300 gr is a decent range to stay within.  After firing the 400 gr bullets several times I am certain it would have stopped a 9’ grizzly bear or an African elephant.  I’m not the hunter type, so I will likely never use the gun for that kind of thing, but it was reassuring to know that if such a circumstance presented itself—I had a personal firearm that could handle the situation.  The .500 Magnum is insanely powerful.image

Because of that wonderful Magnum all my future May months will be just a little sweeter.  I will never forget the joy of buying and shooting that gun over this 2015 Memorial Day weekend. I had thought that the .500 Magnum would punch through that rock, but I wasn’t absolutely sure until I saw and felt it in real life.  Rocks are dangerous to shoot at, and it’s not something that I’d recommend.  I won’t be doing it again now that I know that the .500 Magnum will indeed thump through such a target.  It would easily destroy concrete blocks and other similar materials, which is just astonishing.  The .500 Magnum from Smith & Wesson is my favorite gun from one of my favorite gun companies—and its raw American.  So it only made sense that we celebrate such a fine American weapon on one of America’s most revered holidays and remember that it is through such actions that we all remain free.  While those who have lost their lives fighting for freedoms are the purpose of Memorial Day, it is better not to die while fighting that same fight.  A good way to stay alive is to be on the trigger side of the .500 Magnum.  For those on the other side they won’t stand much of a chance.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The American Gun: Remembering Adam Smith and the heroes of westward expansion

It does not escape me; especially when I travel or experience cultures abroad that the cultures mostly seem proud of their histories.  Of course the Japanese are proud of the samurai culture which is obvious in their business dealings.  Australians are proud of their outback ruggedness, the English of their Empire, the French of their topless beaches, wine and ability to throw down a rifle at the first sign of trouble thinking that Napoleon’s empire was enough to show they had testicular fortitude for the next millennia.  Only in America do we find this notion that we should forget our past and reject our historical figures.  Like the samurai America had a period of valiant heroes and desperate villains that were exacerbated during the period of time referred to as the Old West.  Unlike the samurai warriors of old the Wild West characters exemplified by this period were driven to their glory by guns instead of a sword, and allowed for what may be the first time in all of human history a true path toward individual achievement.  The samurai had some of the same noble tendencies as a typical Wild West gunfighter, but the Japanese warrior was usually bound in service to some noble land owner—whereas the cowboy was pursing their own unique life.  That is the dramatic difference.

The moment that a few rival motorcycle gangs in Texas fired shots at each other the national American media jumped all over the story personifying the incident as a shoot-out in the Old West hoping to throw logs on the fire of further gun restrictions to prevent the violence.  Progressives especially refer to the Old West as if our society had “moved on” beyond such primal achievements.  Then once an Amtrak train jumped off the tracks in New Jersey for some unknown reason they filled the airwaves and print media with demands for more tax dollars for such an ancient means of transportation—that was ironically invented during the Old West and the expansion across the New World to the opposite ocean.  We’re supposed to feel guilty that the Gold Rush brought out too much greed to mankind, that the saloons across the new nation were filled with gamblers and prostitutes and that the streets were often bathed in blood from so many human beings carrying around personal firearms.  We have been told by progressives that our society today is much better because of rules they made and that if only we listened to them, we might someday be more like Europe is today.  To accomplish this we are supposed to forget our heroes of the American West, give up our guns, our music, and our culture as if it never was—and that is a mistake of epic proportions.

I remember some of the stunned poetry of William Blake—whom many believed was part of the Illuminati movement that was taking place in America during his young years into the early period that would become the Wild West.  By the time there was an American Constitution he was in his mid-thirties and as a painter and poet watched as the New World throw off the chains of a kingly society for the first time in history.  There was no “leader” in America—no King Louis, Edward, or Henry and this was extremely unusual to the world stage.  In America people made their own way.   They were free to pursue their own dreams at risk of peril or plunder and as a result New York City rose up to rival Paris and London in just s few short years.  The world was shocked and the bloodshed was considerably less than all the battles between England, Spain and France during the previous centuries.  The story goes that the Bavarian Illuminati was the shadow government of the United States working to bring the Scottish Rite to public acceptance through backdoor means to overthrow the grip kings had on the world.  In this way “illuminated” individuals could rise up to their own levels of competency without having to suck up to a king in order to achieve success.  Blake watched as this experiment blossomed into an extraordinary success which led directly to the freeing of slaves to the invention of the most powerful economy the world had ever seen.  And for that the progressives want to erase the memory.

For many the Old West was a hard place.  It might have led to direct conflict with Indians, with some despot in a bar over a card game, or dying of ill-health while panning for gold.  But, for the first time in human history if a man wanted to make their way in the world to wealth, they could grab a horse, a gun, and head for the horizon to make a life anyway they saw fit.  This would be a byproduct of the capitalism invented by Adam Smith as he envisioned the invisible hand of enlightened self-interest in his great book, An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  That enlightened self-interest would give rise to heroes like Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, Kit Carson, and Wild Bill Hickok.  It would also give rise to villains like Jessie James, Black Bart and many other railroad tycoons who would attempt to manipulate this new-found capitalism into something like the cronyism of old Europe.  But at the center of all this new-found individual independence was the gun which equaled out the big and strong from the weak and soft spirited.   Bill O’Reilly’s recent series Legends and Lie deals specifically with this period of western heroes and villains very well.

Progressives despise the Old West and seek at every turn to erase it from history’s memory—and with that the American gunfighter mythology.  The reason is that the gun embodies the utilization of westward expansion when mankind for the first time in history had gained individual mobility that gave rise to an economy the world envied terribly.  Yet to Americans the gun culture is every bit as important as the samurai sword is to the Japanese or a fortune cookie is to the Chinese.  The gun is the symbol in America of individual will and the ability to pursue it to advance the enlightened self-interest of enterprising human beings.  This gave rise to new money like the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan and gave opportunity to inventors like Nicola Tesla and Thomas Edison.  The gun and violence of the Old West paved the way for the great inventions of the 20th Century—and without those inventions; mankind would still be in horse and buggies enslaved to kings, queens and stuffy nobility.  In America a new kind of economic freedom had emerged and it was driven forth by the gun—which is our history and source of pride.

Nobody ever said that the American West was perfect—or that innocent people were not killed.  The times of the samurai were not free of sadness and the Chinese certainly had their fair share of tragedy after being ruled by the Mongols then the subsequent Dynasties of emperors starting with the Yuan.  Yet, history remembers those times fondly in their cultures as pictures of ancient heroes litter their artwork.  In those cultures the people embrace their past even with all the sorrow left in the wake.  In America we are told to run away from history and invent something new—which is really a trick.  We are told by modern progressives to run away from Adam Smith and into the arms of Karl Marx and the philosophers of Europe.  We are told to give up our guns and independence so that we can be ruled once again by kings and nobility.  Those who know history of course avoid that fate.  Those who don’t are falling for the trap and future aggression is brewing because of it.  But there should never be an ounce of shame regarding the American West or its expansion.  For every memory of detriment was a blooming flower of opportunity for somebody who otherwise wouldn’t have had it—and the means for achieving such a feat was the American gun.  America became what it did in such a short time not because of any particular president, or any corporation—but because of the enlightened self-interest of Adam Smith’s economic theory and the American guns which preserved that right in the wild days of westward expansion.  While it’s true that many people suffered, many more lived for the first time a fate of their own design.  And for that we should always remember with great fondness the heritage of our Wild West and the cowboys who experimented for the first time with capitalism as free from government and pinheaded nobility as any human beings under the flag of a new country had ever conceived.  And for America it worked and should be copied across the entire world—starting with a reverence for the gun in all its glory.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Bankruptcy of Chicago: I told you so two years ago

Lets see, two years ago when I was talking about the need to control the Lakota levy in my home town of Liberty Township, Ohio I did a warning video shown below where I emphasized voter management to avoid the kind of diabolical situation that takes place on the macro scale in places like Detroit and Chicago. Detroit filed bankruptcy and I said in that video that Chicago was about two years away from the same fate. Of course people thought that I overstated the problem and was speaking as a right-winged pundit dramatizing the situation for political gain. Well, it’s been nearly two years and Chicago is exactly where I said it would be. Here’s the video as it was presented.

Chicago under progressive Obama friend Rahm Emanuel made a deal with the striking teacher’s union a few years back that has now caught up to the city. Municipal bonds within Chicago have been downgraded by Moody’s to a “junk” status which is a nail in the coffin leaving nowhere to run for the third largest city in America filled with progressive policies that have bankrupted it. It is a failed society and has avoided showing that failure with debt spending. America as a nation is on the same path, but the overload hasn’t quite caught up to Washington yet. In Chicago that happened a long time ago, and once the teacher’s union in Chicago had a major strike that Emanuel settled with appeasement it toppled any hope of austerity to recover years of overspending. Public employees pensions are so underfunded that the shortfall is nearly equal six times the annual budget for the entire city. It’s quadruple what it was only a decade ago which works out to $60,000 per Chicago household. Progessives within the city hoped for a bailout from the state. However Governor Bruce Rauner has refused to even consider such an action stating that Illinois has its own problems, and won’t be bailing out Chicago’s runaway public employee costs. So progressives are turning toward the hope of further tax increases and we all know what will happen next. To understand the enormity of this tragic situation watch all the videos included in this article. These problems will soon be at your doorstep as well no matter what part of the country you live in.

The responsible thing is to attack the parasitic nature of public sector workers in our hometowns in an aggressive fashion to avoid the problems that Chicago is currently facing. There is no way out for them, just as the Greeks are learning. Socialism doesn’t work and that is the means of economic mobility progressives utilize and believe in fervently. In communities where they have had their way for years, they have destroyed their economies. In the case of Chicago progressive supporters look around at the vibrant culture that is present, the nice mix of businesses, and the standard of living and believe that they have a progressive utopia. But that utopia was built with debt. It wasn’t legitimately created by value, and there was always an assumption that somebody would bail them out of their troubles because they were too big to fail. That bail out would likely come from the state or the federal government—or at least that’s what progressives believed.

Many feel that my criticisms of the teaching profession are unwarranted and mean-spirited. They assume that because children are involved that unlimited money should be spent on education. However there isn’t a single statistic that shows that all the money spent per pupil anywhere in America on government schooling makes subsequent generations better in any way at all. Public schools are cesspools of liberal driven social concerns more interested with programming children to become future progressives than actually intelligent members of American society. That leaves the entire value of the teaching profession to be categorized as a simple babysitting service for busy parents who may not be liberal, but are too busy to raise their own children and too poor to send their kids to a private school. That is the typical tax and spend voter who supports infinite school levies and teacher unions out-of-control regarding their financial expectations.

Public schools may have value as a baby sitting service, but they don’t have enough value to bankrupt a city, which is what’s happening in Chicago. The public unions in Chicago did not regulate themselves and kept asking for more until they ran out of money. When the money went dry they continued spending in a deficit mode until finally it was determined that they would never be able to recover financially and had their bond rating lowered to a junk status. Moody’s did them a favor by giving them plenty of time to right their ship in Chicago. The numbers were on the table a decade ago. I reported on it two years ago, and now it’s done. Chicago is bankrupt—they just haven’t gone through the formal procedure of it yet.

For years the rest of America who were not progressives were told that their way of life, their steadfast conviction to actually paying for things with cash on hand and saving up for things they didn’t have cash for avoiding debt like the plague, was a backward approach to social living. People like me were told that my cowboy hats and love of tradition were stuck in the past whereas cities in California, New York and specifically the city of Chicago were the way of the future. Of course I never bought it for a moment, because I knew better. The proud supporters of Chicago who advocated all the progressive lifestyles spent way too much time riding the coat tails of Michael Jordan and other athletes while running up bills for their massive progressive society that they could never pay in many lifetimes expecting everything somehow to magically work out in the end. Of course that is a path to destruction.

I live in an affluent area and know a lot of people with financial means. I understand what motivates them and what doesn’t—and higher taxes will guarantee that they leave for places where someone isn’t trying to dig into their pocketbook to steal the money they worked hard to make. My video was a warning to my school district not to follow the way of Detroit and Chicago and to stop the bleeding now before it’s too late. Sure those who want more tax payer money to fund their unrealistic wage expectations will be mad at me, but they aren’t the people who have to pay the bills. Those who control budgets are seldom ever liked and those who manage multiple resources are even less so—but they still have a job to do, and that job is seldom ever popular. But if that job of management is done correctly, people are better off than without it. Without management you get the trouble seen in Chicago. With management, bills get paid and society advances with a vibrant skyline.   Governor Rauner is taking a page out of the Scott Walker book and doing the unpopular task of controlling costs in his state. Walker broke the code with the labor unions up in Wisconsin much to the benefit of millions of people. Illinois really has no choice but to follow the example. As far as investment dollars Chicago is only an hour south of Milwaukee so if investments are to be made in the area and taxes are too high because of out-of-control spending, then those investments will go to areas where financial management of resources is occurring, instead of the bottomless pit that is currently sucking in the famous windy city voraciously day by day.

Never let it be said that I didn’t tell everybody about what was going to happen in Chicago. And I wasn’t the only one. It should also be noted that when I put something up here for analysis, no matter how crazy it might seem at the time, that eventually time will prove it correct. Also, I have an extremely long memory, and I will bring it up in the future. The Chicago tragedy hasn’t been heavily covered on the mainstream news even though it is clearly one of the biggest tragedies in America at the moment. The liberal driven media really can’t deal with the reality of one of their treasured cities failing in such an epic way. But it is, and I’m making sure that everyone knows about it, and that the evidence was fairly easy to see on the horizon. So when it comes to other things that I am saying now—please listen. I don’t say all these things for my health. Because if I feel strongly enough to put something in print, it’s because there’s something to it.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Why the Department of Education Should be Shut Down: Broadband for everyone!

This is why the Department of Education should be completely eliminated. It is grotesquely ineffective and agenda based politically. The aim of equality so boisterously proposed by government school advocates is only a thinly veiled attempt at state-run parenting. It’s an insult to have them in charge of education. For instance, I first saw the following article from Yahoo News, and found the source article after some checking. Essentially it’s a marketing ploy advocating in favor of two progressive agenda items—one Common Core, the other Net Neutrality and using children to advance both causes. I personally find it insulting that they actually think human beings are stupid enough to believe what they are saying. While many people may be, not everyone is, and while they strive for equality of stupidity for all people, I’m not going to comply, nor will the typical reader of this site. Here is how the article read:

Overall, 63 percent of public schools don’t have access to broadband speeds needed for digital learning. The problem is particularly acute in rural and low-income districts: Only 14 percent in those areas meet high-speed internet targets.

“It’s just very uneven all over the country,” Lan Neugent, executive director of the non-profit State Educational Technology Directors Association.

The Federal Communications Commission approved a $1.5 billion spending cap increase for school broadband and Wi-Fi last year that is expected to significantly boost connectivity. State grants linked to Common Core implementation and collaborations with tech and business leaders are also bridging the gap. But those initiatives could take a year or more to connect thousands of schools and testing started in 29 states and the District of Columbia for 12 million students this year.

In the meantime, they’re resorting to alternatives: Testing students in small groups, busing them to other schools and limiting all other internet access while exams are taken.

Ideally, technology can help eliminate achievement gaps between poor and rural students and their more affluent peers. The shift to online testing, however, reveals how wide the digital divide remains. Districts like Chicago Public Schools with large numbers of low-income students have raised questions about whether their students — who often don’t have access to a computer or the Internet at home — are at a disadvantage.

“The implementation of Common Core is bringing these issues more to the forefront,” said Brian Smith, executive director of the nonprofit Education Trust-West. “But this has been an issue that has plagued communities of color and low-income communities for years.”

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2015/05/11/online-common-core-testing-lays-bare-tech-divide-in-schools

Problem number one, if technology is being used in public schools to the extent that they need WI-FI internet connections, then the institution itself is not needed. I already argue that modern technology as far as teaching is far superior to an actual union member public school teacher. Teachers may have some success in helping children who have bad parents, or limited financial opportunities, but for the masses of children, public school is ineffective as an institution—other than providing day care for children while parents work. Here is the Department of Education attempting to articulate that the internet is needed to provide education in a brick and mortar school—even to the extent that they are willing to spend money to bus students to locations with better WI-FI connections. People are supposed to actually sympathize with that nonsense. It’s an insult to assume that normal people are stupid enough to not see what is going on with that ridiculous assumption.

Secondly, the Department of Education ignores completely the Vico cycle of human devolution—which is historically as reliable as sunrises and sunsets. The reason that there are different portions of the country rural and urban as well as wealthy and poor is because different factions of people depending on their values progress along the Vico cycle at rates specific to them. For instance, those in poor neighborhoods are entering the anarchy phase while those in the suburbs may be at the aristocratic. Those phases are not compatible with one another—so there will be different types of people produced by them. CLICK HERE for a contemporary understanding of the Vico cycle. It would be thought that all the supposedly smart people at the Department of Education would understand the Vico cycle—but apparently not. Loses in internet connectivity has little to do with any other factor than whether or not an area is profitable. Internet providers are willing to incur the cost of service if there is money in it for them. They are not going to do it for the fun of it.   Ironically, Richard Branson with his Virgin Galactic company is planning to put satellites up that will bring internet coverage to even the most remote portions of Africa, so a day when such connectivity problems will still be an issue are on their way out—so long as government stays out-of-the-way. If Virgin Galactic is left alone, the problems of this entire article will evaporate like a puddle of water on a hot summer day. It won’t take long for there to be no trace of anything left behind.

Then of course is the not so subtle marketing of public education services by stating that technology can help erase the gaps between poor and affluent—as if government schools were the great equalizers of society. They aren’t. You could give a poor kid in South Chicago a brand new laptop and it would likely be destroyed within a few weeks, sold for drug money, or riddled with pornography because the parents of the poor child were terrible and instilled limited values on the unfortunate sapling. I’ve known lots of people from poor neighborhoods and tried to help them all. You can’t make bad people into good just by being nice to them, or giving them a fair shake. They have to change their values. A drunk has to value soberness to want to quit. The illiterate has to value reading to break their curse. A poor person has to want to be productive; otherwise they will continue to be poor. Until you work on the core values of a society, nothing can stop their progress on the Vico cycle. Nothing—no amount of money, no feel good public education experiment—no billions of dollars spent on the internet. The internet is useless without the desire to learn something from it. The internet doesn’t just magically make everyone equal with opportunity. Stupid people will use it for porn. Smart people will use it for knowledge. In order for everyone to be equal, everyone has to either want to be stupid or smart. Public education as indicated by the Department of Education has decided that the best way to make everyone equal is to make the smart into the stupid and then hope that government can manage the chaos of the Vico cycle that follows. But they can’t, and they will never learn to. Because the phase after anarchy is always theocracy, and when that happens the Department of Education will be eliminated anyway in favor of a new god to worship and the whole mess starts over again.

Well everyone isn’t stupid, or have plans on joining the ranks. For them, the Department of Education insulted their intelligence with such a stupid release of information flowed down to the orthodox media. It shows just how astonishingly ignorant those in charge at the Department of Education really are. I mean I don’t think much of them anyway, but to not understand the basic concepts of the Vico cycle—it’s just preposterous. Sad and ignorant that such people are employed by tax payer dollars. That—is the real insult.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Whiskey Scam of Robert Reich: Students he taught should ask for their money back–because he doesn’t understand economics

If you really want to know what is behind the global push for $15 an hour wage increases at fast food restaurants and other entry-level jobs look no further than Robert Reich–the Clinton economist and academic liberal who has set the pace of the modern socialist movement using MoveOn.org as a platform for insurrection. MoveOn.org is the Soros funded enterprise and has in mind the fulfillment of the same brand of communism that was promised during the Red Decade only introduced with incremental bits of socialism over a long period of time. Professors like Reich are the reason that colleges are failing our young people because it is his nonsense that they have been taught. People like Reich funded by Soros are at war with American capitalism and seek to end it—and have from the very beginning. To understand why and how read the following article shown below from Reich where he introduced his economic theory in favor of a minimum wage increase. Because Reich is so “respected” and accredited, most people take his opinions hook line and sinker without considering the root implications, or source definitions. But to anybody who really understands money and how it’s made and measured, Reich is a functioning communist. He may not name himself that, but his actions define themselves. His major error in the following suggestion which apparently everyone misses is in properly defining productivity. I’ll explain more after the article and a bit of history about Reich.

WHY THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD REALLY BE RAISED TO $15 AN HOUR

Momentum is building to raise the minimum wage. Several states have already taken action  – Connecticut has boosted it to $10.10 by 2017, the Maryland legislature just approved a similar measure, Minnesota lawmakers just reached a deal to hike it to $9.50. A few cities have been more ambitious – Washington, D.C. and its surrounding counties raised it to $11.50, Seattle is considering $15.00

Senate Democrats will soon introduce legislation raising it nationally to $10.10, from the current $7.25 an hour.

All this is fine as far as it goes. But we need to be more ambitious. We should be raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour.

Here are seven reasons why:

  1. Had the minimum wage of 1968 simply stayed even with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour today. But the typical worker is also about twice as productive as then. Some of those productivity gains should go to workers at the bottom.
  2. $10.10 isn’t enough to lift all workers and their families out of poverty. Most low-wage workers aren’t young teenagers; they’re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. And they and their families need a higher minimum.
  3.  For this reason, a $10.10 minimum would also still require the rest of us to pay Medicaid, food-stamps, and other programs necessary to get poor families out of poverty – thereby indirectly subsidizing employers who refuse to pay more. Bloomberg View describes McDonalds and Walmart as “America’s biggest welfare queens” because their employees receive so much public assistance. (Some, like McDonalds, even advise their employees to use public programs because their pay is so low.)
  4. A $15/hour minimum won’t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it – thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history.)
  5. A $15/hour minimum is unlikely to result in higher prices because most businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices. But because the higher minimum will also attract more workers into the job market, employers will have more choice of whom to hire, and thereby have more reliable employees – resulting in lower turnover costs and higher productivity.
  6. Since Republicans will push Democrats to go even lower than $10.10, it’s doubly important to be clear about what’s right in the first place. Democrats should be going for a higher minimum rather than listening to Republican demands for a smaller one.
  7. At a time in our history when 95 percent of all economic gains are going to the top 1 percent, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour isn’t just smart economics and good politics. It’s also the morally right thing to do.

 

 

http://front.moveon.org/robert-reich-explains-why-we-should-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-15-per-hour/

 

http://robertreich.org/post/82134788482

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=2&ref=general&src=me&_r=0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

 

Robert Bernard Reich (/ˈrʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American political economist, professor, author, and political commentator. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.

Reich is currently Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government[2] and professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor), Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

In an interview with The New York Times, he explained that “I don’t believe in redistribution of wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth. But I am concerned about how we can afford to pay for what we as a nation need to do…[Taxes should pay] for what we need in order to be safe and productive. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”[25]

In response to a question as to what to recommend to the incoming president regarding a fair and sustainable income and wealth distribution, Reich said, “Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit — a wage supplement for lower-income people, and finance it with a higher marginal income tax on the top five percent. For the longer term, invest in education for lower-income communities, starting with early-childhood education and extending all the way up to better access to post-secondary education.”[25]

Reich is pro-union, saying “Unionization is not just good for workers in unions, unionization is very, very important for the economy overall, and would create broad benefits for the United States.”[26][27] He also favors raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour over three years, believing that it will not adversely impact big business and will enhance the availability of higher value workers for companies.[28]

Reich is only a modern snake oil salesman trying to palm off whisky as a cure-all medicine. His economic product is Karl Marx communism and socialism implemented through twists and turns of Keynesian economics shaped by the philosophies of Immanuel Kant. And guess what—they are all wrong in their premise. Reich goes wrong in his very first assumption when he states above that “the typical worker is about twice as productive now as they were in 1968.” The worker isn’t more efficient or better, their productive output did not increase—their actual work, and the energy output to produce that work is statistically much less than it was in 1968. For instance, at a typical McDonald’s founded first in 1940 the amount of work a worker had to exert in 1968 meant that all the hamburgers had to be grilled by hand, the buns individually toasted, most of the labor had to be implemented with the touch time of a human hand. But by 2015 most of the food making operation was automated. The average McDonald’s today is very much more productive than the 1968 version, but it isn’t because the worker is better. Arguably, ethically, morally, and in all categories of make-up it should be easy to prove by some academic like Reich that the quality of people available to work is much lower today than they were in 1968. So his comment about the average worker being twice as productive is complete nonsense—it’s a statement made up in the halls of academia for the sole purpose of eating money out of George Soros’ hand and his aims for global communism.

The Reich formula for determining productive output ignores completely the value of individuals, whether those individuals are the CEOs of companies, or are hard-working employees who carry the rest of their workforce on their backs on a daily basis. The socialist utopia that Reich preaches about in his economic efforts is a theoretical fantasy that falls apart the moment that theory is applied to real people. And Reich has ignored these failures for years.

When Reich was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997 the economic success that Clinton and Reich enjoyed were not because of their socialist policies, it was because Clinton was forced to compromise with a Republican congress to get their fiscal house in order. Ross Perot was challenging both parties in 1996 so both wanted to squeeze him out of the debate and after the Lewinsky scandal “Bubba” played ball with House and Senate Republicans and things actually improved a bit economically. However the biggest contributors were the invention of the personal PC market and the spread of the Internet which was still a very new thing back then. The market expansion that occurred under tech sector economies happened on Clinton’s watch, and he got the credit. Most of that tech work was done in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan where the stage was set for such Silicone Valley creations—it didn’t have anything to do with Robert Reich.

Yet Reich stood in front of his Harvard and Berkley economic classes all this time teaching socialism to thousands of young students taking credit for that period of time without telling anybody the whole truth. The guy has lied and taken credit for the work of others for years, and now the communist utopia that George Soros wants to create needs the snake oil salesmanship of the con artist Reich. And that is how the minimum wage debate emerged and how the stage was set for the outrageous sum of $15 an hour fast food jobs. These are ideals proposed by shells of actual people who espouse anti-capitalist sentiments with the purposeful destruction of America’s economic power. They should be seen for what they are, and geniuses they are not. Reich can use a lot of big word and charts to explain his theories but in essence he is just a snake oil salesman proclaiming that whiskey has magical properties to a largely uninformed population. What’s worse is that he seeks to keep people in such a state so that not only he can resume gaining attention and accolades, but that he can advance a progressive agenda that seeks an end to our country as a capitalist power house. His failure is specifically in defining value in productivity assuming that all gains belong to human workers. Rather, the real truth in increases in productivity is from the minority of minds who invented the tools to increase productivity in spite of a declining social intellect. That trick is a masterpiece, and it has nothing to do with the American worker, or the gains made toward justification for a minimum wage hike first started in 1968 under deceitful measures.

If you are one of the many poor fools who have taken an economic class by Robert Reich, then you should ask for your money back. Because he sold you whiskey as medicine that only a drunk would accept as legitimate.

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com

Why Individualism is not Selfish: Refuting critics of Ayn Rand with the work of Joseph Campbell

Watching the below segment of The Daily Show featuring a question intended to be sarcastic regarding Ayn Rand it came to my mind that its time to make a legitimate argument against the general sentiment of today’s average political centralist, and Democrat. The segment attacked Ayn Rand’s philosophy in favor of self-interest over altruism by placing candidates running for president currently in alignment with the work of the controversial writer as a way to indirectly associate them as representatives of meanness. Politics in 2015 have been moved so far to the political left after over 100 years in argument in favor of altruism and collectivism, that today’s centralist would have been considered a radical left-winger in yesterday’s world—the world where America produced the Greatest Generation. So it is clearly time to re-evaluate the situation as Ayn Rand’s work was created on the heels of the greatest generation as the radical communists and extreme leftists were making themselves known—which today is the new standard. People are so confused as to what the proper behavior is for their society, that they no longer know what is up, down, left or right. They only react to the feelings and temperament of contemporary society shaped by years of chaos and wrecked philosophy.

The biggest attack against Ayn Rand is her philosophy which features a priority on self-interest. For generations of people raised within strict religious leanings featuring altruism as a sign of goodness, and a political system built on wealth-redistribution backing their inner mentality shaped by those same religious motivations the question has failed to be asked or answered as to whether or not we should help the poor and destitute. The comment was simply made that we should because it’s good—but good was never properly defined—so a valueless assumption was required to accept the proclamation which then constitutes the typical Democratic voting behavior. There should have been a sought after proven answer framing the cause of what makes people poor to begin with. But there wasn’t, only a kind of primitive belief similar to the tribes of yesteryear who believed that a rain dance would bring rain to their dried up crops. What factors make an individual poor? That is a question that deserves an answer such as why won’t my car start? Well, for the car, it might be a low battery, a bad starter, the car may be out of gas—those types of things. But in essence it makes logical sense—there is a cause and an effect. However, for the poor person, there is no attempt to designate a cause because the assumption is based on faith that some mythical gods have granted advantages to some while denying opportunity to others. While this was true in Medieval Europe, America was an invention to out-grow those limitations driven by philosophy which challenged the previous vantage point of victim hood.

The rest of the world largely driven by philosophies of collectivism, as they had been for millennia the last several thousand years worshipping kings and gods putting the sanctity of their nationality before their individual rights have set the stage for our current dilemmas in politics. America formed with an emphasis on individuality and rights as opposed to sacrifice. The economical means of this nation was capitalism—driven by individual need and desire. In America money was created not dispatched to the population through a top down hierarchy from kings and a ruling class. The rest of planet earth functioned from classic collectivism whereas America was experimenting with a practice specific to individual value using money as a measurement of productive enterprise. In Europe, Russia, Africa and the rest of Asia the general philosophy of those regions is that things happen to you due to an ancient belief that some god was in charge and that people were just along for the ride through life. In America, even though it was formed by religious men, they sought to run their nation by rational decisions conducted by men for the higher moral purpose of goodness—and that goodness eventually benefited God. The economical means to measure that goodness was money—because it was the only way to guarantee that good products purchased by individual self-interest would bring to the surface the best and brightest of our society. Capitalism couldn’t prevent people from wanting to cheat and take short cuts to wealth, but generally, a free society is able to reject the services of an organization they deem unworthy—and could vote with their dollars.

Trickle down economics such as what works best in America takes into account that not all people work hard, or are creative, but those who do and are—create opportunities for everyone. Those who take the most risk and have the most skin in the game generally make the most money as opposed to those most highly connected to the political structure of a ruling class. Over time, Washington D.C. has elected themselves the type of power that the ruling classes of Europe still enjoy—and have always benefited from. But those politicians do not represent the essence of America—or the philosophy which emerged from the rapid benefits which exploded from capitalism’s American experiment. That is the reason for the current issues of political corruption and the cries of the people for European style socialism, and communism. Under this corruption, communism has been as attractive to young people as it has been in Europe where peasants have no other means of stepping out of poverty and living equally to the richest of their nation. America has been and continues to be a place where anybody who works hard can brush shoulders with the very rich and powerful. In America classes are not divided as they are in Europe as upper, middle, and lower—they are divided by those who work hard and those who don’t—at least traditionally. Slowly over time as the nation has moved so far to the radical left, more European influence has won the day as opposed to the righteousness of the American experiment.

After witnessing all these elements several writers emerged to chronicle the pros and cons of what had occurred during the first two hundred years of American experience. One of course was Ayn Rand who has run up against the classic opposition such as what was seen in the Daily Show episode—where her announcement that self-interest is what actually leads to morality was considered preposterous viewed through the lens of the classic European progressive model. But another writer whom I think is much more important than Ayn Rand did at the same time much broader work which arrived at essentially the same conclusions by comparing all the mythologies and religions of the world and came up with the now popular term, “Follow your bliss.”

As Ayn Rand was writing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Joseph Campbell was writing The Hero with a Thousand Faces. These books were uniquely American and have turned the literary world upside down challenging thousands and thousands of years of human thought. Campbell unlike Rand is much more inclusive in his comparative studies. He has a reverence for many progressive leaders uttering insight from the early 20th century, like Nietzsche, Jung, Joyce, Mann, Steinbeck and many others whom he read incessantly then compared them to his vast encyclopedia of knowledge of the world’s religions. His conclusions were that every individual on the face of planet earth needed to “follow their bliss” meaning their own internal call to living. They had to listen with an individual’s ear to the calls of their own life’s adventures. This was really revolutionary work done by Campbell as he was conducting it during the Red Decade in the presence of extreme left-winged radicals and open communists. Yet he took a path to scholarship that was unique to him and let the facts come in as he analyzed them—and his report was what is likely the most important book of the previous century and so far of the 21st. The Hero with a Thousand Faces explains why Atlas Shrugged is so powerful to so many people.

The Hero of a Thousand Faces would not have been written by a lettered academic at Oxford or any other major institution. Joseph Campbell led a life of unique individuality and his scholarship is a direct product of a very unusual life remarkably free of social strings conducting his thoughts and conclusions. His life’s work essentially became the Star Wars saga which is currently unleashing upon the world brand new updated religions and philosophies. George Lucas himself will declare that he could not have made Star Wars without the influence of Joseph Campbell. In Campbell’s work the individual has much more value over the collective—as described in the Navaho legend of the Twin War Gods who were on a quest to meet their father the Sun. They had to leave their village on a grand adventure as their people were being attacked by monsters. Everyone had tried just about everything and nobody had a solution, so the Twin War Gods had to travel in a direction nobody else had yet tried and endured a number of trial and tribulations to bring the boon of their discovery to their people.

There is no politics in Campbell’s work. His admires include radical leftists like Jerry Garcia from the Grateful Dead to Bill Moyers from the very left leaning PBS network. Campbell just let the facts speak about the nature of reality, and he was uniquely qualified to surmise the details through stories of this own. It is the clear distinction that Campbell makes through a lifetime of scholarship that it is the individual that moves the world and not the sacrifice of individuals to the collective good. Although sacrifice has been the mode of behavior that has driven most of society, it is the individual following their own unique bliss that brings the boons to society. Society does not bring boons to the individual. It is a fantasy that a collectivist hierarchy can bring joy and wonder to people of differing needs. The best way for people to serve each other is to allow their own lives to live to their own potential for the aims of their individual achievements. By doing that they create things that the rest of the world needs. Joseph Campbell’s outlook is uniquely American, just as Ayn Rand was. Both were authors of works that shook the foundations of thought, and their conclusions are here to stay leaving in their wake the destruction of the old modes of operation. Collectivism and religions of sacrifice are a way of the past that is in quick decline. The Daily Show in their presentation against Rand knows it. That much is evident by the type of people running for president in 2016. On one hand you have the collectivist Hillary Clinton representing the socialists and Democrats, then on the other, at least two candidates directly formed by the freedom loving Tea Party—the type of people who openly love the work of Ayn Rand.

As much as many from the old European world would like to see a continuation of their brand of collectivism, it is writers like Ayn Rand and Joseph Campbell who are shaping the world of tomorrow—and that is why their popularity is increasing while the desire for extremists like Karl Marx is declining. The weak and lazy still look to Marx, but there is no “Following your Bliss” in communism. You do what you are told, and that is not the way to lifetime fulfillment—just stifled misery and suffering due to unlived lives encumbered by sacrifice to speculative assumptions. Capitalism allows individuals to “Follow their Bliss” which is a long storied concept that started for Campbell in the radical troubadours of the High Middle Ages, (1100-1350AD ) from France. They were some of the first to challenge the collectivism of arranged marriages and sacrifice of the self to the many. America inherited from them the concept of courtly love and chivalry which eventually found their way into our western mythology. Before the troubadours marriages were all arranged for the benefits of a collective need and the individual was looked upon as something to be despised, and vanquished out of preservation for the many. But it never worked and never will work because whenever the collective is served values are what is sacrificed, because value is an individual assessment—not a collective one. Once values are sacrificed, a society crumbles into nothing to create the four-part cycle of Giambattista Vico–the age of gods, the age of heroes, the age of man and the age of chaos—more expressively described as theocracy, aristocracy, democracy and anarchy. Joseph Campbell and Ayn Rand proposed to Americans the notion that civilization should get off the circular highway going nowhere in between the aristocracy and democracy portions of that cycle and to emerge independent of collective influence toward an unknown horizon. By action out of each and every person’s “bliss” individuals would then do the job they were created for in the first place—and this is what gives the old world the anger toward Rand that they have—that management of those individual lives does not come from the church, or the political order—but the very essence of the soul encapsulated within every living thing. To grapple with such a thing means that society at large need to understand what a soul is, and how it functions within them. And to find that out, one cannot be told by a parent, a grandparent, a teacher or a lover what it is—you have to find it out for yourself. For the timid and weak, this is a scary prospect. For the brave and valiant—it is the essence of adventure. For society—it is through adventurers that new things come to sustain all life. It is in the timid that all things decay. The timid should not be cast aside, but should follow in the path of the brave toward a destiny their lack of courage would have never allowed them to behold otherwise. And the brave should allow those in their wake to follow their example without robbing them of the treasures of discovery—taken on an individual basis. Not everyone can slay a dragon, or race a car through danger, but everyone can find discoveries under a common rock and a path paved by their own intentions in their own way.

The answer to what makes wealth is found in the adventurer and the cure to the poor is to spark in them the essence of life—and for them to follow their own bliss instead of becoming dependent off a collective society. Once they find themselves dependent on others, they find themselves either poor, or like the classic European peasant—begging for bread and water by the political elites. And among them, there will always be other weaklings like Hillary Clinton who desires the old way of Europe so that meaning to their meaningless lives can have some measure of fulfillment. The way to make the poor into the rich is to get them to follow their bliss—and that is what Ayn Rand’s novels were all about. It is always why collectivists of all sizes and shapes hate her—because they can see within her work the end of their line of thought. But as to the science of why Ayn Rand works, all one need to do is look toward Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Heroes are not collectivists, and they don’t sacrifice themselves aimlessly for the needs of the many unless they discover that it is part of their bliss to do so—a bliss arrived at through their own individuality.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.