Cliffhanger’s Exopolitical Theater: Giants, a galactic alliance, and human immortality coming to ‘The Curse of Fort Seven Mile’

While I was on the air with Matt Clark during his WAAM radio broadcast recently he wanted me to talk a bit about my latest Curse of Fort Seven Mile series.  However, time ran out and we couldn’t get into the details.  Actually, I don’t think I could cover all the details in an hour show, or a 10 hour show.  For me, what started as a simple pulp fiction series has evolved into something I would term as a philosophy for the 22nd century.  The below videos will help with the context but essentially what I’m doing is this: over the next one hundred years we are going to discover that we are not alone in the solar system, let alone the galaxy.  We will learn to defy death.  We will unlock all the potentials of a Type 1 civilization and that will require us to completely revisit our current political and religious philosophies—because the present ones just won’t be sufficient.  That’s not a knock on anybody, but the discoveries of the next century will just unlock a massive amount of potential that isn’t even forecasted on the horizon as of yet—and people will need some means of thinking about those things if they want to survive.

I have been pretty adamant about my hobbies and positions.  I essentially grew up studying mythologies and religious cultures, but I like to make money, so I chose professional endeavors that I could raise a family on—but there is a lot about me that is very sympathetic to the Nathan Drake video game character.  The people I most admire these days are people like Josh Gates and his friend Erin Ryder.  If I did not love family as much as I do, I would have loved to live the life that they have—and believe me I have no regrets.  But I do read and watch a lot of what those fantastic people have put out as far as discovery over the years.  When they tackle some crypto mystery much of it comes out to nothing, but it’s the asking of the questions that I find absolutely amazing.  There are a lot of people, many whom are featured in these videos who have committed enormous amounts of time and resources to asking hard questions about mankind’s origins—and I’ll be honest—I love each and every one of them.  When I listen to their lectures and read their books I think in the best case scenarios, they may be getting 50% of any given idea correct.  But even 1% of what these people are saying they are major game changers for the entire human race and the world at large.

In spite of my love of guns, capitalism, business entrepreneurial activity, innovation and pop culture, I am most at home with books, museums, and very smart people.  One of my best friends growing up had an IQ of around 170 so I know those types of people excessively well, and I love being around them.  Some of the people in these videos like Steve Quayle remind me of that friend.  They are too smart for mainstream society, and they are usually defined as lunatics by a society which embraces too openly—sheer stupidity.  As long as I’ve been on earth, I have asked similar hard questions and sought the answers and I have a general theory about the reason that ancient cultures collapse—actually all cultures including recent ones.  I published my thesis in a screenplay, which won a few awards along the way called The Lost Cannibals of Cahokia.  While most archaeologists and anthropologists will point to environmental conditions and say that the reason that a culture fails is related to a loss of water, or of food supply—usually those opinions are corrupted by their left leaning educations.  My theory is that cultures fail because of the human inclination to the Vico cycle—where they just can’t seem to get off the treadmill—and they have been like that for their entire existence.  That screenplay would probably make a good movie and I should probably push it more toward production—and maybe I will.  My goal in writing it was to get the thesis down in an entertaining way that people could enjoy—but come away from the story asking hard questions like—what is the primary driver of a successful culture—then offering the answer as the climax amid the usual expectations of exciting storytelling.  After I shopped that script around it became obvious that I’d have to produce the picture myself to do it right, and honestly, I didn’t have the time or patience to “collaborate” the way it takes to make a movie.  So I shelved it and offered it as a legitimate thesis about the rise and fall of civilizations.  On the surface, it was an action adventure horror story, underneath was something that meant a lot to me which was based on many thousands of hours of reading and personal discovery—traveling all over the world checking things out for myself—a little the way Josh Gates has—only with fewer frequent flyer miles.

Lately, there has been an explosion, likely because of the Internet, of conspiracy theories and examinations into a hidden past that does not agree with the Leaky evolutionary theories.  The latest revisions are probably driven more by Jurassic Park’s DNA examples and the popular Lord of the Rings movies about Middle Earth—art has helped our society ask new questions from a fresh perspective—and the answers to those questions might just be explosive.  If only 1% is true, mankind is in for some startling revelations.  The best movies and books are the ones that make you ask, “what if,” and as the videos included here surmise, there are some very smart people who are asking lots of questions tainted by their personal backgrounds.  But it is what they agree on that has stimulated my thinking and focused my mind on the hard evidence that is rapidly pouring in.

I wanted to write another Cliffhanger novel but I wanted it to be relevant to the world 100 years from now the way I read Jules Verne, Ayn Rand, H.P. Lovecraft or even Shakespeare.  My favorite play of his is Titus Andronicus.   His use of extreme violence to tell the moral story of love and loss—as well as dedication are the kinds of things I find infinitely fascinating and it doesn’t matter when in history we read such a story—they still communicate a truth which is valuable.  Having these kinds of interests I couldn’t just write some average piece of fiction reviewers of today would like—I wanted to write something that people a century from now would marvel at and would still draw inspiration from.  Yet I also wanted to make the argument that the values America had from around 1870 to about 1900 were the best the world had ever seen, and that those values should be captured in a bottle and examined in actually a scientific way—as having merit on culture building itself.  The economic means of the country was explosive during that period, morality was respectable, and collectivism was being defeated wherever it was encountered—namely during westward expansion.

For about forty years I have had in my mind a really terrible antagonist and a concept for painting it into a story against the ultimate protagonist—but I needed to collect a lot of information to tell that story.  Finally, I feel like I’m there.  Once I had all the details worked out, I went to work writing it—and as I thought, it has turned out to be the byproduct of a hyperactive imagination, a technical background, legitimate scientific investigation and all the life experience learned in every hard way imaginable.

Knowing that over the next couple decades history will have to reflect what we are learning now—and that we will learn that not only are we not alone, but that we are currently in a relationship with thinking beings not from earth’s origin story and that the essential ingredient to a successful society resides within individual behavior as opposed to collective salvation—and that once that process begins—where democracies run by a mob take over the individual input of actual leaders—that all civilizations stop functioning and regress back to their beginnings.

Even as my protagonist, Cliffhanger fights bad guys with flaming bullwhips all in the name of justice—it is important these days to define the merits of that justice.  It is not enough to simply show bad and good—it has to be defined by actual universal rules of engagement as defined by the observable conditions of our cosmos.  To do that we have to step beyond our veil of politics and modern philosophy and take the next step.  Taking that step is what and why I’m committing so much time to this new Cliffhanger story.  Similarly to that Cannibals of Cahokia story—this Curse of Fort Seven Mile has the benefit of an additional twenty years of hard living and earned observation.  Like H.P. Lovecraft I have a love for pulp fiction written in a romantic fashion—and on the surface that is what these new Cliffhanger stories are.  But, my protagonist, Fletcher Finnegan in The Curse of Fort Seven Mile is actually named after one of my favorite literary figures of all time, the giant in Finnegan’s Wake from the James Joyce classic.  My goals with the work are not to reach the New York Best Seller’s list, or even to get reviews from Publisher’s Weekly.  It is to offer a useful philosophy for people grappling with real significant challenges to everything they believed was true for over 10,000 years and to provide them a softer landing philosophically—so to maybe for the first time in human history to provoke a change in mankind’s propensity to always revert back to the Vico cycle.  Thus Spoke Cliffhanger.

If you want a preview of this work they are available on the sidebar.  But the real meat is yet to come and why I am dedicating some specific time and resources to completing it.  To get a sense of it, just watch all these videos and you’ll get your mind ready to read what I’m putting into a story intended for readers of the next century.  I’m not giving up on politics.  But rather it is too small of a shoe for me now.  The next obvious evolution is exopolitical theater and the vast changes it will bring.  Currently it is a bit on the fringe side, but that will change rapidly—and when it does–well, people will want a point of reference and fiction is a good place to begin—by bridging what we know with what we will come to understand.

Rich Hoffman


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

Leftist Protesters in California: John Wayne, Donald Trump and taking back what’s good about America

This is what democracy looks like when you have to take your constitutional republic back from communist insurgents bred through our public education system and nurtured through left leaning popular culture to destroy America.  Watch the whole thing and send it to a friend.

And guess what; it will get far worse before it ever gets better.  As a society we let this get out of hand.  Now it will be very violent to get our country back.  So be ready for it.

We’d be a whole lot better off if more people had the values of John Wayne.  But unfortunately we live in a time when people actually think the Hollywood legend was a racist because our interpretation of those definitions have been defined by these radical left winged insurgents.   They won’t give up their position without violence, so let’s give it to them and be ready for what follows. They took it from us, we are only taking it back.

Rich Hoffman


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

I Hated ‘The Hateful 8’: A terrible movie by a failing Hollywood industry

There was a lot not to like about Quentin Tarantino’s latest film The Hateful Eight. I personally didn’t see it when it came out in theaters around Christmas of 2015 because of Tarantino’s political activism against police, but I put it on the checklist.  It was sold as a western shot in 70mm traditional wide—just as Ben Hur was many years ago—so I figured it would be worth watching.  My chance came once it was released to the home theater market and I was a little excited about it. But after two hours of movie realizing that the whole thing was going nowhere, I was very concerned that if Tarantino was the best that Hollywood had to offer—that they consider him a “modern” Shakespeare–that there is no wonder their movie industry was in trouble.  At that point there was still about 45 minutes of movie left to show and I was ready to turn it off—but didn’t because I already had too much time invested.

This is what happens when someone becomes so full of themselves—and have been told by hundreds of aspiring actors and progressive movie producers that they are the greatest thing to arrive since fire.  They forget that people actually will see their movies and that those people think very differently about the world than those tucked up against the mountains of California and the Pacific Ocean. The only good characters in The Hateful Eight was the Kurt Russell character.  Samuel Jackson wasn’t the greatest and once he revealed an oral sex scene with another guy—I decided I didn’t like him and didn’t want to invest any more time into learning about him.  Most of the movie took place inside a cabin getting to know all these characters who were telegraphed very early to being all completely killed off.  There was no point to their stories or the interaction between them because it all led to one place—death.

The Hateful Eight is like a person being walked to an execution getting to know all the people spitting on him along the way.  It just doesn’t make any sense because that person was going to be dead soon—so why waste the time?  It was just horrendously stupid.  Beautifully photographed, good soundtrack—most of the time—but just a stupid story—I can’t believe anybody read that script and thought it the work of a genius—and I can’t believe anybody gave Tarantino money to make that movie.

Coming from a guy who shares with me a love for the great movie, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Tarantino obviously isn’t at the same level of Sergio Leone, and I went into The Hateful Eight hoping sincerely that he was.  Not even close—not even close to the sincerity of a spaghetti western, which I thought was the point of The Hateful Eight. It ended up being just another sign of a broken and declining culture that doesn’t make anything original anymore—even though all the tools were provided.  To suggest that The Hateful Eight is anything close to the masterpiece Hamlet, just because everyone ended up dead in the end is ridiculous.  There weren’t any sympathetic characters for which to hang a morality on in Tarantino’s movie.  All the characters were villains and none of them were people I’d want to get to know if they sat down next to me at a bar.

Even using the barroom metaphor with The Hateful Eight seems underwhelming.  Typically when a man wants to pick up a girl in a bar he engages in small talk to get her to reveal bits about herself.  Once she decides to talk about herself the conversation evolves into more personal matters.  Then as a climax and some trust won, the girl decides whether or not she wants to sleep with the guy.  It’s a little mating game that our species plays to make the experience not seem so cheap.  The Hateful Eight is like walking up to that girl and just flatly saying, “Let’s have sex.”  Then spending three hours talking about all the things you should have talked about before blurting out the obvious.  It was just despicable as a story—pathetic at every level.

I have liked other Tarantino movies—I thought Pulp Fiction was clever, and I enjoyed his work in other things—but I wouldn’t say he’s a master of anything.  He’s only smart compared to the very stupid people who now make up the Hollywood industry which these days are just a few rungs above raw porn in its creative impulse. I am really glad that I did not go to see this Tarantino western at the theater because I would have been angry at wasting the money. The Hateful Eight wasn’t a western; it was a monstrosity of undeveloped ideas from a director who obviously has personal problems holding back his artistic ability.

As an example of how all westerns should be presented these days, The Revenant is still the featured example.  If you are going to make a western, at least put in the work.  So what if someone stole the script to The Hateful Eight and that’s why Tarantino made it into a feature film.  The material wasn’t so good that an eight year old child couldn’t have written it—so whatever provoked big money donors to give Tarantino money for that piece of crap sadly overrated the ability of the troubled, progressive filmmaker.  The movie wasn’t just bad enough to write a poor review about, it was bad enough that I personally feel like I was robbed just by watching it, because I can’t get back my time.  It would have been a much better movie if Samuel Jackson hadn’t forced a naked man to perform oral sex on him, because in the last dying moments he was the only one left and I couldn’t help but think that he was the last person I wanted to see on the screen in the end.  Given that, he was the best character in the movie after Kurt Russell’s character died of poisoning.  The Hateful Eight was horrendous filmmaking and storytelling at its absolute lowest.  Sadly, it represents a new generation that thinks it’s the work of genius—because people are now so stupid and have such a low opinion of themselves that they don’t know any better.  People now can actually relate to these despicable characters.  And that’s the real problem with The Hateful Eight and the filmmakers who put that trash on the screen.

Rich Hoffman


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

The #NEVERTRUMP Geeks: A Party of Republicans who forgot why they exist

You can tell when I’m really angry about something because I usually prefer to talk about entertainment events– that topic is usually good non-emotional neutral territory discussion.  As probably was noted, I have spent the last three days talking about various entertainment observations as opposed to the hottest topic of the day, the betrayal of the GOP and their voters.  I do the same thing in one on one discussions, when people who know me observe that I start talking about entertainment—it is because I either find the politics of the person I’m talking to revolting and I’m looking for common ground to keep from wanting to snap their neck like a twig, or I have blown them off as irrelevant losers not worthy of any intellectual input other than entertainment appeasement.  And appalling is the word of the day for what has been happening.  (For the record, notice how I predicted this too, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.)  Now several weeks later, many others are coming to exactly the same place that I have been—willing to quite the Republican Party after a lifetime commitment because of the evident corruption that has been exposed as a direct result of the Trump candidacy.  I have been feeling precisely like this old Colorado voter who burned up his registration for the Republican Party after a betraying visit to Colorado Springs.

Trump was wrong when he declared that the process which robbed him of all the Colorado’s delegates without a single vote cast was not very democratic.  He’s right about the democratic process, but America has never been a democracy—which is just a stepping stone toward open socialism.  America is a constitutional republic which should be better but in this case isn’t.  The voting process which was intended to select those representatives were sold to the public as being acquired through a democratic process—but in this case it was cut short and was sabotaged by the Republican Party.  That revelation has only served to substantiate the intense level of anger that has intensified during the primary campaign season.  Yes, the system is rigged, it always has been, and we all knew it.  But we didn’t know what the cost was to us because we had never seen another viable alternative that had gotten so far in the process other than Ross Perot many years ago.  Trump by his popular successes has forced the party leaders to outwardly show their protections for the first time to people who are learning about this whole process as it develops in front of them.  We should have learned all this in our public schools, but instead kids learned to riot and vote for socialism—so people are shocked by what they are seeing.

Among the #NEVERTRUMP clan, there is a feel of superiority over Trump and his supporters because those constitutional geeks work really hard to understand the Constitution and are legitimate nerds in a lot of ways.  They are like Star Wars fans who argue over little specifics of the movies because they know everything while the common viewer only see a fraction of what they do in casual viewings.  The #NEVERTRUMPs like the rules of the system because they worked really hard to learn that system—it gives them a feeling of superiority over everyone else—they are specialists on that topic and they secretly want to protect that specialty.  I know several of them personally.  So it gives them quite a charge to see that Trump is furious at losing delegates to Cruz.  They would argue that if Trump wanted to play the game, then he should have learned the rules.  But, what those #NEVERTRUMP geeks have forgotten is that Trump’s candidacy represents a large faction of the American population that have no desire to learn the rules of the game—because they hate the game—and the Republican Party has just solidified that sentiment epically.  They want a change in the rules, they want to play a different game, and they sure don’t have any desire to learn the old rules.

This notion that the Republican Party can do whatever it wants—that they can nominate anybody they care to is preposterous.  Sure they have their little club and they seem obsessed with controlling who is in it with them and where they stand in the peaking order in relation to others.  No question many of the party leaders want to be king makers deciding who county commissioners are, governors, and presidents—but that’s not the way it was supposed to be.  What they want to control is ultimately representatives of “the people” who elect them into a representative republic.  The Republican Party for instance isn’t bigger to me than myself, or my family, or my community.  It’s just a group of people who I either agree with or don’t.  I am not beholden to a sacrificial relationship with them in any way. So if they show themselves as philosophically deficient—as they are clearly in the run for presidency in 2016—I have a right, and obligation to reject them.  The “Party” does not have authority over “me” and is not empowered to provide “me” with a representative vetted by them for their own purposes.  Clearly the Republican Party interprets their role as such—but I along with many others completely reject that premise.  I will not vote for Paul Ryan for anything.  He screwed up in 2012 and he won’t get another chance by me.  I will not vote for John Kasich.  He is the governor of my state, and he has let me down—he’s turned out to be an idiot.  I will not vote for Mitt Romney—he has been a failure.  I will not vote for Ted Cruz—he’s just another attorney running for office.  I don’t want any more legal geeks messing with laws any more. I’m tired of the same old mess offered by the Republican Party and they either want to represent my philosophic conservatism, or they don’t.  If they don’t, I am not beholden to them to take whatever piece of crap they offer.

The Republican Party arrogantly believes that it is the end all of American politics—as if the matter has been settled long ago after the Civil War turned out in their favor.  They’d be incorrect, each age has its own challenges and the party leaders are either aligned with those challenges, or they will fail to lead their party to a position where it can be beneficial to the constitutional republic for which we are all a part.  That republic was always founded on the merits of individualism, not collective assimilation—and that is precisely where the Republican Party is going wrong—in assuming that the “party” is too big for any one individual.

Trump represents a public need to establish a return to individual association.  He is the ultimate pronoun “I” and that is what the people who vote for him want to see emerge in this year’s election cycle and obviously the Republican Party has a problem with that declaration.  That leaves Trump and his supporters without a party—which of course will give rise to a competing party to rival the Republicans and Democrats.  If 30% of the voting public doesn’t have a political party which represents them—or seeks to—then what are they to do?  Surrendering their beliefs to one of the two other options isn’t viable as individuals.  Yet the Republican Party seems inclined to insist on such a thing.  As Ted Cruz gloated about his legalese victories around the west, particularly Colorado—and the use of the party machine in Wisconsin to goad Donald Trump into throwing a fit because people weren’t voting for him—he is assuming that the masses are on his side.  Show me one time that Ted Cruz can fill a stadium with supporters like Trump does.  All Cruz has on his side are the political geeks, not the average people who make up our Republic.  They aren’t–wait until Cruz gets to New York, and Pennsylvania.  The masses are speaking, and they haven’t been picking Ted Cruz.  Cruz has been playing the legal game, but not winning the hearts of the masses.  When Kasich says that it’s the delegates that matter, he’s right from his perspective within the game of politics—but the party for which he belongs is supposed to serve the conservative interests of the republic and instead they serve a collective notion of consensus building which I would argue is un-American.  Want to see a national consensus established by the will of the people where they generally agree—go to a Trump rally.  Trump voters, me included, reject that collectivist philosophic position and the party should be listening, instead of working to hold society to a set of rules designed to protect a system they have learned to profit off of as public servants.

When the smoke clears, Trump will have won many more votes in the primary effort—yet the political party seeking to maintain their control of that system will attempt to ignore that fact and offer up the same old garbage as they have before.  And now that many of us have had a taste of what could be, we aren’t going to swallow that pill again—because it leads nowhere and we’ve learned.  It is not the voting public that has to learn a lesson here—it’s the Republicans.  They either get with the program, or they will be replaced.  It is they who are in the weakened position—the public holds all the cards because ultimately the “party” either serves the interests of the public—the conservative public—or they don’t.  And given their behavior against the popular front-runner Trump—it is obvious where all this is going.  When it gets there I’ll be joining that old man from Colorado.  I’m not going to hold my nose and vote for another Republican loser.  They either start winning—or I’m done too with them. And victories are measured by the popular vote in this primary race, not the legal gymnastics of lawyers and political geeks.

I’m at a point where I don’t think I could support Republicans even if they did get behind Trump all of a sudden. I think the process is so broken and the philosophies so displaced that there is no mending it.  As the link above describes the Colorado situation from the point of the of the GOP, the issue remains that the party leaders have made a system that ultimately they control, because it is rule heavy and requires a full-time staff to learn all those rules.  It puts the power of candidacy in pin-heads and political addicts instead of the best and most viable candidates and is the root cause for why the Republican Party has been so grossly ineffective for such a long time.

Rich Hoffman


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


Dueling Needs to Make a Comeback: The American tiger in a cage being poked by “social justice warriors”

Anyone can see what the root cause of the problem witnessed in the following Alex Jones video was.  In it there was a group of people that we might call, “social justice warriors” who have grown up in a society deliberately softened to allow for their rise by a political class hell-bent on staying in power—no matter what.  These kids, and the adults that they will grow into, have been empowered by essentially removing the ramifications of their lunacy—the consequences of their personal assault against individual liberty.  The blame clearly falls on our global education system and the forces which gathered to perpetuate their stated curriculum. It has made me realize that a practice long forgotten for its perceived barbarity needs to be dusted off and inserted back into our American culture—the gentlemanly practice of dueling.  As radical as that may sound, we must find some version of it to emerge in this modern century otherwise we won’t make it into more advanced stages. To see why, watch this video then all of the following for substantiation.

A version of dueling still existed in the Old West as towns erupted across the vast frontier of North America guided by flimsy laws enforced by even flimsier sheriffs.  I practice that type of dueling nearly every day with a group I’m involved in called the Cowboy Fast Draw Association.  A friend of mine made a comment that I was thinking of while shooting that day and it was, “if dueling made a comeback, people these days would be a whole lot less offended.”  That’s when I thought of those snot-nosed, liberalized socialist losers in that Alex Jones video.  What was missing from their lives was the respect that comes from asserting an insult at individual integrity.  What those kids have been taught in that video—and anywhere these days that “socialist justice warriors” gather under storm clouds of collective effort—is ramifications for their individual mistakes.

The duel as it was inherited from Europe was widely practiced within the United States for quite a number of years by our early presidents and was a declaration of individual honor.  In that society from which our Constitution was written, an individual’s honor was required to have a civil society.  If some rogue threatened that sanctity then ramifications just outside the grip of the law were required to keep the peace and maintain an orderly society.  We all know about the famous Alexander Hamilton duel with Aaron Burr—which I think about quite a lot.  I was born in the Ohio city directly named after Hamilton who lost his duel with Burr and died.  I also think of President Jackson a lot when I think about duels and the kind of attitude which formed the country of America.  Dueling and honor went hand-in-hand which provided a foundation for our laws.

When I was growing up the Department of Education had just been enacted, so they didn’t have time to drive this trend out of our culture.  Even one hundred years after the Wild West, dueling was still a common practice among kids in my school of Lakota in Liberty Township, Ohio which was essentially settled by war heroes of the Revolutionary War.  When something which insulted individual honor fell outside the established law of the school or the society outside which controlled it, boys would settle the issue with a fight after school—which I found myself in a lot.  Failure to show up to one of these fights would lead to extreme scorn and a loss of respect up the pecking order of male influence among both sexes.  If you were challenged to one of these fights, you didn’t fail to show up.  I always did, and most of the time, just as it was when the dueling action was pistols—handshakes and respect were given out and sometimes friendships were forged.  People respect courage and when two people faced down each other over a dispute that couldn’t be legally worked out by putting a hand on the Bible and letting God sort through the details—individualized respect was the only real option which bound our society together.

Think about it, when you are in the grocery check-out, what keeps you from belting the person in front of you in the head and taking their place in line—is it fear of the law—of being arrested for assault?  Perhaps for most, that is their first reaction—but these days people have a lot less respect for the law as police officers and their methods of control have come into question.  So what is the next layer of defense which prevents you from acting—you look the person over and decide that you could physically overpower them and take their place in line.  What keeps you from doing it?  Essentially, fear…………….fear of what that person might do if you challenged them in some way.  If you push them they might turn around and clobber you, or they might have a gun and shoot you.  That threat forces you to respect their individual boundaries at a primal level which then paves the way for respect at the legal level.  Without a foundation of respect for individual integrity, no laws in any land can have real influence.

And that is the primary issue, public schools are in the business now of teaching collective rights, not individual ones.  As seen in that video, the Donald Trump supporters represented individual values whereas the social justice warriors represented collective values—and our society has put its priorities on the collective effort over the individual ones and that’s how we find ourselves in this current mess.  Those social justice warriors have no fear of individual retribution so they are free to attack anything, anywhere over anything.  They have grown up lacking respect for individual property or sanctity and are acting on behalf of collective efforts for achievements which extend beyond their personal gains.  The way to fix that whole problem is by empowering the individuals to defend their positions with actual respect–and unfortunately that means with all human beings—an imminent fear of being removed from the face of the earth so that a proper dialogue between two parties can emerge.

Years ago I was with a group that was buying a mechanical bull for a nightclub I was involved with and we were at one of those honkytonks to see it in action.  I had on my customary cowboy hat as I have since I was a little kid and I was standing in front of a couple of guys at the bar who were obviously drunk and looking for a quick ego boost to their reputations.  As I watched people ride the bull in question I felt something rub against the brim of my hat from behind, so I turned quickly and saw the hand of some sappy looking bastard removing his hand quickly hoping that he wouldn’t be caught.  Of course I confronted him angrily and I told him that if he did it again I’d beat the rat piss out of him.  He and his friend were two tobacco chewing rednecks who thought they were more authentic than me, and they didn’t need to wear hats to country bars—which essentially was what they told me.  My response was to take them outside and show them that they weren’t “shit,” both of them.  Of course they headed for the door to protect their honor as they were with women who were both at the bar urging them not to fight.  When we got outside they saw the anger on my face and realized that the fight was not going to go well for either of them.  A bouncer stood on the porch and watched, letting things play out respectfully.  Suddenly the two guys apologized for touching my hat and they were quick to want to make friends.  I accepted and we returned inside where they bought me a beer and were nice to me for the rest of the evening.  Their dates were grateful and everyone had a pretty good time the rest of the night.  When I left they even went out of their way to say goodbye and shake my hand.

Protests are getting out of control in our country as socialists, communists, and various anarchists raised in our public education system to not respect private property, personal integrity, or any level of valor have no fear of the law or the individual integrity for which laws were written to protect—and honestly, they need their asses kicked.  They are the result of what happens when you don’t retaliate for someone touching your hat, or insulting your personal name in a newspaper.  Without that basic respect for other human beings, there is no society to build from and everything plunges into chaos, which is exactly the goal of liberalized social justice warriors.  They aren’t warriors at all, only instigators who don’t expect to be punched back in the mouth once they’ve leveled their insults.  We live in a society now where they can touch my hat yet don’t expect to be punched in the mouth for it.  Once you do, they want to retreat to the law to settle their honor—which is essentially what has been happening at Trump rallies.  The society which created these losers doesn’t want to acknowledge that individual liberty is the key to holding all of society together.  They want to believe that it is the acceptance that the tapestry of a global society brings that will garner respect for each other—and they are miserably failing in their psychological assessment.  Just because they have de-clawed a tiger and removed its teeth, and even castrated it of its aggression, a tiger is still a tiger.  You can’t put a bunch of snot-nosed communists into a cage with it and let them poke it with a stick and not expect the tiger to attack those idiots.  At some point the individual temper of the tiger will break through the social constraints placed upon it.  And in many ways, there are a lot of people in this country who have been treated as such, castrated intellectually, and tied up individually to make the collective masses feel equal.  This has given rise to a period in our history where just about everyone is offended at something that somebody else says and that is leading us to a disaster—legally.  But, if the practice of dueling were to make an official comeback, and even become legalized again as it once was—then people these days would be a whole lot less offended, so easily.  And then, we might just find a way to work together toward achievements that require teamwork. First however, a respect for other individuals must be established, and that only occurs when acknowledgement of those other people is based on a foundation of integrity.  That is what the old duels established and that necessity is every bit as strong today as it was 300 years ago.  Only now we see what happens when we outlaw the mechanisms for achieving that respect—we have a mad, runaway society full of losers, imbeciles, and malcontents.

Rich Hoffman


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

The World War Against Donald Trump: What we can learn from Ferris Bueller

It is quite stunning that more people don’t understand what Donald Trump is to the Republican nomination for President of the United States.  Some of what I am about to say will require some additional information and review, so CLICK HERE for the start of that understanding, as well as all of the following hotlinks for further substantiation.  The typical run for POTUS has established in the American electorate certain memorized hot points largely shaped by the media and the political class to always protect themselves from outside insurgents.  Was I concerned that Donald Trump didn’t know the three primary functions of government with an answer “security, security, security” then further created a problem for himself by declaring that healthcare and education were the next priorities?  No, I wasn’t.  He gave a typical response of the everyday American who really hasn’t been a part of the political establishment—and has thrown money at politicians his whole life to purchase what he needs to get done to ensure his success.  He gave a slightly better answer than the average businessman hanging out on a golf course.  Does that make him out-of-touch?  To people who spend their whole lives studying constitutional law, worshipping the integrity of past presidents like a king, and insisting on having a POTUS that rivals some European royalty—Donald Trump is a nightmare of bumbling irrational statements.  But what I see is a down to earth guy who gets most of his information about the world the way the average cab driver does—and he’s clearly grounded—remarkably, untouched by pretension by being a “political insider.” To me, the weaknesses he is coming under fire for are his strengths. I want to see someone totally different in the POTUS role—and I want private sector influence instead of political experience. I want competent people managing the government, not a political class.

What Trump has that nobody else does is the ability to hire better people than him for a job, which is how he’s made most of his money.  He has raw instincts about people who gives him tremendous leverage over someone like Ted Cruz.  Cruz would be someone who Trump would hire for a staff position, but Cruz would never be in a position to identify and establish a similar criterion.  Trump hires people, listens to them, and then formulates his objectives—so he doesn’t need to know all the details. He pays other people to do that.  His job at the front of the train is to make important decisions at the proper time with the courage to actually do it.  The current political order is stuck in a “static pattern” of what is considered normal behavior whereas Trump is mostly a “dynamic influence.”  His very presence is changing the entire way that politics is run and those profiting off that “static pattern” are justifiably terrified of it—so they are throwing everything they have at Trump trying to drag him into their “static pattern” value system.  Those static patterns consist of very rigid party guidelines on both sides—for Republicans, a calculated approach to abortion, a party established position on Israel, taxation, and healthcare.  Essentially, the beliefs of the typical Republican candidate are formulated by the party instead of the actual beliefs of the candidate.  Trump jumps into things, tests the water, listens to people then figures out what will work without thinking about any group affiliation.  He is not prone to group assimilation which makes him far superior to any other offering.

The political establishment expects its presidential candidates to adopt a “static” position that they can then build a party around.  Trump is so “dynamic” that things could change in a moment’s notice.  Anybody who has witnessed any success in their life understands that one of the biggest attributes of success is a dynamic presence that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and formulate them toward the original objectives.  Politicians often can recite all the party positions but are statically welded to Capitol Hill politics and can seldom ever do anything that they promised on a campaign trail.  So Trump figures, why waste time on things that might change completely within a year from now.  It’s a pointless exercise.  He knows what we need to do, and he has a track record of success—and he will find the right combination of resources to implement it.  Genius can’t yet be plotted on a chart and no college has figured out how to teach it—so Donald Trump is something completely outside of their static understanding.  That certainly isn’t his fault—it is the failure of the static system that we have all become addicted to.

That static system now to protect itself is looking at the statistics and noticing that there are a lot of people lacking a college degree that support Donald Trump and those same stats are not prevalent with other candidates.    College trained people have a tendency to support static patterns because after four critical years in college learning what those patterns are right after high school, from the ages of 18 to 22—the final nail in the coffin for a lot of people is placed toward all future dynamic influences.  I have been to college, my wife has to—I even spent a few years living on a college campus—and let me tell you dear reader, I hated it—because I am by nature a very dynamic personality.  I relate to Trump because of that dynamism.  To put it in terms that average people can understand think of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which is a popular 80s film featuring Mathew Broderick, that most everyone understands.  Ferris was an example of an extremely “dynamic” personality and he would likely grow up to become like a real life Donald Trump if he were allowed to be free enough to survive the static systems  that imposed its will upon him.  When I was a teenager, I was very much like the character of Ferris Bueller in that movie and I did impulsive things like he did all the time—and I always managed to come out on top no matter how dire the situation.  People loved and hated Ferris Bueller for all the reasons that they love and hate Donald Trump.  He doesn’t always know how or why something will work, Trump simply wakes up in the morning meaning to achieve success in whatever it is and he uses his dynamic personality to overtake whatever static imposition is in front of him.

So the reason that the people who lack college degrees—or those who live in rural areas support Trump is because they have not been conquered yet by the static pattern progressivism that has been imposed on college graduates and the urban settings which often force people to concede their natural desire for individual integrity.  Nothing about Trump fits well into a debate format or the media driven talking points.  He is best when he is clashing with static patterns with great dynamic authority and bravado.  Trump has slipped a bit lately in the polling because he was trying to fit his personality to the static pattern of the Republican Party—as the head of it.  He backed off the thrusters to show that he can be more “conciliatory.” But he shouldn’t, he needs to just do his thing and stay as dynamic and unpredictable as possible.  If Cruz wants a debate, Trump should accept the challenge but to demand that it be done on ground he controls, such as Trump Tower’s lobby in New York.  That way Cruz couldn’t say that Trump is chicken when in fact all Trump is concerned with is being pulled into the senseless static pattern of Cruz and the Republican Party which has actually given us all these problems. Cruz is a great debater, but his key weakness is that if he can be taken off his “Holy Roller” persona and beaten into submission with sheer force—especially in the surroundings of a person who has had actual success in life–Cruz could be embarrassed beyond recovery.  The press conference with Carly and Cruz over the sex scandal showed a major weakness in the Cruz façade which will be exploited sooner or later.

But the trouble between Trump and everyone else is not that the billionaire is “stupid” or his supporters.  It’s just that we know that Trump is a needed injection of dynamic persona that is desperately needed in our political system.  Just as I’m hoping that Warren Davidson, my new congressman holds to his values when he gets to Capitol Hill, I have watched all this before and am always disappointed by the results.  I stood shoulder to shoulder as a major supporter of Rob Portman when he ran for office.   I knew him as a normal guy that would go out to eat with me after a debate.  He blew it after years in Washington.  And John Kasich went from a Tea Party darling to a softer version of Hillary Clinton.  He is a major letdown.  Actually, I could go on and on for quite some time naming politicians just like Ted Cruz that showed lots of promise when they were running—memorized all the things that the media wanted to hear, then turned around and was just a terrible representative.  I don’t so much blame them as people—I blame the static nature of politics.  It needs a major infusion of dynamism to change it forever.

Now that Trump has shown what’s possible, every celebrity who thinks they can will try running for president in the future.  The party system is essentially over—and that is a good thing.  Within the decade we will likely get stars like The Rock running for president and major rap artists who have the money and celebrity to gain media attraction on a daily basis.  Four years ago Mitt Romney wouldn’t hardly go on any talk radio shows or cable shows—not even Bill O’Reilly—because he feared being knocked off message.  He certainly wouldn’t do Chris Mathews—who is a flaming progressive.  The whole abortion topic is something Romney and every other presidential candidate for the republicans would have avoided with diversionary tactics.  Trump has forced all these candidates to do these shows to compete—because he is so confident himself—even when he steps in it—that he can find a way to come out smelling wonderful.  That is why all these static pattern addicts hate Trump so much, but also why he has such strong support from an electorate that recognizes that the static system of politics that has nearly destroyed our country needs a major infusion of dynamic influence.  Now that the dynamic influence has wrecked the previous static patterns—for both parties really—there is no going back.  The Republicans either embrace Trump or they will get worse in 2020 and 2024.  Celebrity will be the new criteria for better or worse.

The old methods of electing a POTUS have not been effective and America needs to develop something dynamically different.  I’m not looking for a George Washington to lead me to some salvation.  I don’t need an authority figure of any kind.  All I need out of government is to manage the resources it takes to keep the country running and to stay the hell out of my way.  I don’t need the government for much.  I don’t even need their protection.  Them standing between me and villains likely makes for a more civil society—which is good for most people, but I personally don’t need them—and I certainly don’t need a “leader.”  I want a more dynamic government that isn’t afraid to sell capitalism to the world.  Trump is the best candidate I have ever seen or heard of for that very dynamic job. Like Ferris Bueller, I know that Trump can wing his way through anything—and I want someone representing our Republic to the world who has that ability for a change.  And I certainly don’t want a political party in charge behind the scenes.  I’m ready for a major change, and for me Trump is it.  Whether he makes it or not, politics is changed forever.  So Republicans if they want to survive might as well embrace it.  Failure to do so or to stick to the old static patterns will lead to their self-destruction.

Rich Hoffman


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

The Paradox of Metrosexual Conservatism: Traditional roles between men and women mean more than historic reference

I know this may not sound very enlightened based on the progressive atmosphere of today’s “man,” but I am substantially sick of friends of mine—who are like Ted Cruz—and have adopted a metrosexual lifestyle–then declared that Donald Trump and his supporters are not “conservative.”  To my view—and this is fine if someone so chooses–I have many family members who fall in this category that I like a lot, but in our family my wife and I are very traditional, and we made a conscious decision to be that way—if the man shares in the domestic duties like cooking, laundry, diaper changing and other tasks of a similar nature—I would not call those people conservative.  I would call them modern, and diminished as to their masculinity. (For context to this viewpoint, CLICK HERE to read a more scientific explanation to the biological roles that the sexes play with each other within a household.)  Participants to this “modern” view of household roles certainly isn’t to my mind conservative.  A lot of women don’t have a choice but to do everything in this modern world—that is because men have become so terribly lazy and lackluster.  It’s not the fault of women.  But nevertheless, men who call themselves “conservative” while they ride the coat-tails of their wives careers are not caretakers of conservatism by my definition.  Modern politics may give them a free pass—but I don’t.

I say that knowing such viewpoints are considered outdated these days. Believe me, my regard for the household chores that are burdened by a man gives them far more personal weight to carry than women should have to endure—it’s not like men should sit around being couch potatoes being served by the women like maids.  I expect men to be gentlemen, to help hold the door open for women wherever they are, to treat them with the utmost respect like the vessels of life that they are—and to put their lives and importance before any man’s personal comfort.  Progressives would call that view “old fashioned.” I would say that they are idiots to criticize that formula which evolved out of biological and psychological necessity.

In that context, and I’m not going to embarrass him with calling him out, because he’s certainly not alone in this thinking, but one of the most national critics that I know of Donald Trump who is on the radio broadcasting support for Ted Cruz is a guy who has a wife with a far more prestigious job than he has, makes a lot more money, and she relies on him to share many of the household chores so they are done when she gets home from work.  I know this because he’s a friend of mine.  Just like Ted Cruz—that friend is failing in his conservatism because he has adopted in his life a progressive metrosexual lifestyle that is not becoming of tradition.  He has no right to point to Donald Trump—who does have similar views about conservatism and family life as I do—and says that he as a candidate is not a conservative.  In his family life, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Ted Cruz—if we are basing conservatism on traditional values—not progressive manipulation of family lifestyles.

I do not fault people who make these types of arrangements within their marriages—it’s their choice.  But I do judge them as lacking conservatism.  There was a lot about the old stereotypes about breadwinners and domestic tasks for women that helped tag team successful family growth that has been thrown out due to progressive marketing within our country, which should be revisited regarding conservative philosophy.  I’ve been married for over a quarter century and honestly I don’t think marriages can last without a proper division of labor specified toward the roles of the sexes.  Women are built through estrogen to project a certain level of sign stimuli to be appealing to the opposite sex, and domestic tasks achieved are part of that femininity. Men are built through testosterone to endure physical challenges that don’t always require great intellect, but will make them sweat and project masculinity—which females are biologically inclined to find appealing.  It is quite natural for a woman to watch a man chopping wood in the yard from the kitchen window then desire to take him a cool refreshment to get a whiff of his sweaty masculinity.  Men find such odors disgusting, but women enjoy them for reasons of mating customs.  When we change those rhythms with the family unit we change the nature of philosophy for which human society is built.  That is not a good thing when what did work produced many of the positive gains our culture has enjoyed for the last several thousand years.

Of course there is a reason that progressives advocate homosexual rights, just as they have attached themselves to the feminist movement.   They have always been after the destruction of the family unit—by feminizing men and encouraging masculine women so that the barriers to primal mating customs could be destroyed and conservative traditions eradicated.  The strategic necessity in this endeavor has of course been to turn family control over to the state and pave the way for National Socialism.  Given the popularity of the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—we can see how effective that marketing has been.

When men try to tell me that my ideas about families and the relationship between men and women is outdated—I feel sorry for them, because they are in denial.  They will point at their successful dual income lives and declare themselves victors of economic achievement.  But they often lack the types of deep love and understanding that our grandparents knew when men were men, women were women, and everyone knew what their family and social roles were—before progressive tampering with biological natures.  A lot of the mess we see today can be directly attributed to this condition. Women have been told that they have to be everything to everyone—but most of all, that they must make personal sacrifices for the good of all women and their social obligations as a village.  That is why so many women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of her terrible record and obvious dishonesty.  This is also why Donald Trump’s numbers are so low among women—because instinctively they come to each other’s collective aid when they sense another is in trouble—like the banter between Trump and Cruz over who was more attractive, Heidi Cruz or Melania Trump.  When that didn’t work out so well for Cruz, he proclaimed that Trump didn’t like “strong” women—which he insinuated means a career driven maniac who has put her career before her family for the benefit of what she believes is important.  The insinuation also was that Melania Trump was a bimbo of some sort because she’s pretty and has decided to be a happy housewife—and to withdraw from collective feminism.  Melania in her own right had a successful modeling career and she had done well with a jewelry line as an entrepreneur.  But when given an option to have a life for “herself” or to stay home with her son Barron and raise him properly, she picked service to her family over service to collective society—and that is looked down upon by most women who have been trained to think that these feminist arguments about “self reliance” from a “man” was actually good for them.  And to the men who have married such women and taken a “progressive” role in their own families—they often find themelves miserable or divorced before it’s all said and done.

I often love talking to old people, because to the 70-year-old couple who have survived a 50 year marriage and has 20 grandchildren and 5 or 6 great-grandchildren, they have lost their estrogen and their testosterone and are as equal within the sexes that human beings can truly be.  But they still play out their roles within the family for the psychological maintenance of their children and grandchildren.  The man might work out in a tool shed carving wood while the woman works at being experts in the kitchen.  Of course the man could learn to cook and could rival any woman, and the woman could learn to carve wood and mow the grass.   But successful marriages learn what works and how they can use their sexual roles to bond their families to an idea of conservatism for which the family can last through the ages.

So I find it preposterous that Ted Cruz feels inclined to lecture Donald Trump on the family roles of his wife—because Trump does not have“enlightened” outlook feminism.  Cruz obviously does, and so do many men that I know who have confused themselves by thinking that mixing up the sexual roles of family business is somehow considered “conservative.”  I can think of about ten men right now who are either national figures speaking out against Trump in favor of Cruz or they are just local business associates who share with their wives the tasks of cooking, cleaning and bread winning—and they are all either divorced at some point in their lives, or they are miserable and secretly hate their wives. The wives secretly know this so to keep the marriage together for their children they occasionally let their men go to Vegas to blow off some steam and make fools of themselves.  The women giggle at Pure Romance parties and watch chick flicks together and these idiots think that behavior is rooted in conservatism and will produce a successful family existence.  They are mistaken.

Trump is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not backed down from this issue.  If he thinks someone looks like a radicalized feminist—he chews into them the same way as he would a man—and that is equal treatment.  If women want to play with the boys, that’s the way it goes.  But in his family life, he is very traditional—at least by today’s standards.  I would argue that Trump is much, much more conservative than Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and all the writers at the Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, and at Fox News.  The men who have given in to this progressive feminist push for equality without the consequences of being dominated by an A Type male—have to justify their failure somehow.  These metrosexual conservatives play the same games feminists do, they say that Trump is not a conservative in the way that women have been told that they need to have an “independent” life by service to collectivism.  And that just isn’t how the situation is in actuality.  Ted Cruz and his supporters have become feminized and tricked into thinking they are still conservatives.  But they are not.  Sometimes being “enlightened” isn’t a great.  Tell that to the bug that reached for the light only to be incinerated by a bug zapper.  The human race is doing the same thing to itself—and it’s not very becoming.  Putting up with people who have consciously made all the wrong decisions in their life is one thing—but being lectured by them is something else.   And I really don’t want to hear Ted Cruz with his little Kermit the Frog voice lecture me about “strong women” when he obviously has issues in his marriage.  Save it for counseling—but don’t pretend that the insane behavior is a pinnacle of conservatism.  All it really is, is embarrassing.

Rich Hoffman


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