Turning the Corner in the War: Why Ted Kopple was really mad

I spent a few days thinking about this topic before addressing it, because it really does mark a turning point in this war. I first realized the scope of the war when I was pitching screenplays to Hollywood from 1995 until 2005.  I learned a lot about the “business” over that ten-year period which of course carries directly over to the experiences Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity had on the Ted Kopple interview shown by a recent CBS Sunday show.  I was obviously a conservative writer and I didn’t think it would matter that I didn’t think the way the people in the business thought.  I thought they’d find my perspectives fresh and perhaps a throwback to the period where Hollywood had great success.  But what I learned pretty much reflects the subtle pain that I heard in Rush’s voice all during Monday March 27, 2017.  Sean Hannity too seemed wounded by the outright rejection of the great Ted Kopple.  Of course, they played it down, but I could hear it in their voices, and I understood.  Intellectually, they always knew they were different than Ted, but on a human level—they are peers and wanted to at least participate in the arena of debate even if the people on the other side were wackos.  They honestly liked Ted and at some deep level, wanted his approval.  Ted Kopple represented to them the media and as sick as we all know that media to be—they wanted to help it be better with debate.  What Ted Kopple did was ignite one last bomb hoping to stop the loss that Democrats are experiencing.  It was like an ugly divorce where a person you thought you loved at one point in your life yells at you—“I never enjoyed making love to you because you have bad breath.”  That is essentially what Ted Kopple did to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on Sunday March 26th 2017 on his little morning show.

I call it a war because it was obvious to me that’s what it has been. “They” didn’t care what the casualties were—they certainly didn’t care about my wife and kids.  Once I put myself out there in an artistic way, then took very strong positions against casual sex and drugs—representing the Midwest in California—they didn’t care who they destroyed in my life so long as I felt the pain of it.  I have never seen so much hatred and vitriol as was expressed at me in such a passive aggressive manner than in those years mentions above.  In essence I was told that I would never write a book, or a movie, or do anything in the media and that nobody would see or hear from me because they controlled all the avenues in the media and I would never get through.  I never tried to force feed anything to them, I was just being my Midwestern Cincinnati self.  I would remind them that Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise came from Cincinnati for which they would say that “they” became one of us instead of expecting us to become them.  Well, there was some truth to that—I did intend to change their point of view through creative debate which is how I thought things were supposed to be.  Instead I learned that they weren’t open to those types of experiences.   Instead, they were on a mission to convert all of us into bleeding heart liberals or else, and that was the focus of their agenda and the cause of this “war in America.”

It was a very disheartening thing to learn that Hollywood was not the place I grew up loving, or even the place that made all the great westerns I watched as a kid with my grandparents. It was a propaganda machine mostly that was hell-bent on liberal advocacy.  It was even worse than Robert Altman’s The Player—it was even more corrosive than what was revealed in that very good movie about Hollywood life and how to make it there.  The business wasn’t about producing the best script, or even being the best director—it was more about who you knew and what they could do for you—it was mass collectivism on overdrive and that wasn’t for me.  Naturally I toyed around with self-producing but to do that you have to come up with a lot of money and its always very risky.  I’m at a point where I will likely produce a film with a budget of 5 to 10 million range with an aim at Netflix now that more options for distribution are available with less union rules.  But I decided way back in 2005 that I wasn’t going to play the conventional game and that I would go it alone in everything because technology and the market had caught up to the business in a way that decentralized it.

Ted Kopple specifically mentioned that in his piece on Rush Limbaugh citing the “fairness doctrine” from 1987. In his mind if only the “system” could have stayed in control his news on CBS would still be relevant and Donald Trump wouldn’t be president.  But because of Sean Hannity, because of Rush Limbaugh and thousands of people like me who have taken advantage of deregulation of information—the old way of progressivism can’t compete and their world is coming to an end.  As I was at a film festival in 2006 doing whip stunts for producers who might use those techniques in films, I was already thinking of how things had changed and the gate keepers were no longer needed.  If you had talent and ambition, the technology was certainly there to step around the old guards—like Ted Kopple—and do your own thing.  That is why the political left is praising Google and Facebook for censorship because they hope that they will become the new gatekeepers.  But if either company commits too far into that realm, some other company will rise up to compete with them—that’s the beauty of this age of deregulation.

I was told no by those gatekeepers so many times that I relished this age where I can write all I want—novels, articles—films, anything I’d like to and I have a means of distribution that doesn’t involve anybody really. I can say honestly, I saw it coming a long time ago.  It is much harder to get wealthy off the entertainment industry because with freedom comes abundance and these days so many people are involved that the costs have come down to the extent where the buckets of gold for a well written novel just aren’t there.  But if you are a writer who wants to write such a thing for the benefit of doing it—you can.  For a guy like me, there are literally millions of ways to make a million dollars.  I don’t need to rely on one way to get there.  I can afford to write millions of words on daily articles and publish books around the gatekeepers which does have an impact on culture in a positive way—and that is how I decided to do what I did.  Sean Hannity in his way did the same thing as did Rush Limbaugh and many others.  Some make a lot of money at it, some not so much—but they do it because they have passion for the subject and they no longer are regulated by a gatekeeper in doing it—and that’s what’s different.  That’s what obviously frustrated Ted Kopple.

In many ways Donald Trump is like the rest of us—he felt he could do the job of president better so he put himself out there starting around 2010 to start that journey. He’s not doing the job to get rich, he’s doing it out of personal passion for the job because many people like myself, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have softened up the marketplace to consider new ideas that the old guard held down in the news rooms of Ted Kopple’s world, the movie producers in Hollywood, and the publishers in New York controlled largely by Publisher’s Weekly and The New York Times.  They aren’t running the show anymore and haven’t been for a while.  The big difference is that now in 2017 with Donald Trump in the White House, they can’t hide it anymore.  Now mainstream people are seeing it for the first time and people like Ted Kopple—and virtually every Hollywood producer is angry about it—because all their efforts at keeping a lid on the competition of ideas has failed and their life long quest has proven irrelevant.

So yes, we’ve turned a corner. Even though the focus today is on Republicans botching the health care issue, the progressive left which has controlled everything for so long is losing more ground every day and their complete and utter destruction is imminent. We are only a few months into the Trump presidency and its obvious what’s happening.  Open borders are closing, money is flowing again, the Keystone Pipeline is about to fill with oil, NASA is getting back to work and deregulation is the spirit of the White House daily.  The Supreme Court is about to be satisfied and things are happening that Ted Kopple never imagined could—because he thought things were under control and the “system” was in charge.  So he did his hit piece on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and blamed the “fairness doctrine” for why things went wrong.  But the writing on the wall was there long ago and people like me started chipping away at the wall instead of conforming to it—and that is why today is so different from yesterday.  And why tomorrow will be unrecognizable for them.  And I love it!

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

A Cincinnatian’s Perspective on the Cameo Night Club Shooting: It is culture not guns that was the real villian

OK, let’s clear up some things right now since the global media—including people in India (I didn’t know they had electricity in India) are pouncing on the shooting in a Cincinnati nightclub where 15 people were shot, and as of this writing one has died.  I live in Cincinnati, so this is my turf and let me just set the record straight—the people attending the Cameo Night Club on Kellogg Avenue by the great Lunkin Airport were not NRA supporters.  The place caters to the hip hop crowd and is known as a “meat market.”  It’s not a bunch of wholesome Midwesterners getting together for a barn raising ceremony.  The place seeks to cater to a youth market—specifically college kids—and the environment is conducive to the gangsta’ culture so prevalent in urban areas where government welfare checks are handed out like candy.  So while covering this story—make it known that it wasn’t the fault of guns—it was the culture of hip hop which breeds negativity among confused youth who are easily provoked into conflict.

The people who attend these clubs are not normal Americans—everyday people who work hard, pay their taxes and try to make the next generation better than when they found it.  These are young people gathered together to listen to violent music racially inspired who take part in a culture of victimization.  Intellectually they are not much different from animals and when dogs start fighting over the same piece of meat—we all know what happens.  You can’t mix angry music with young people not yet intellectually equipped—and sell overpriced drinks to a dance floor converted to a VIP area and not expect there to be violence.  The Cameo Night Club has built its reputation pushing that line and now people crossed it.  That is the real story.  The entire shooting could have been avoided by not putting all those dangerous elements together.  It’s a cultural problem, not one that involves guns.

As the evidence is presented, the story will be watered down when it is shown that the responsibility is more cultural and of the direct responsibility of the club itself than the firearms that were used.  I know that area on the east end well down by Lunkin Airport.  The site called Cameo now used to be Annie’s which was a rock and roll hang out that brought in big name rockers after their 80s hey days were over.  And there were fights there all the time—the same as Never on Sundays in Silverton.  Those crowds were largely white rock n roll types of the heavy metal verity.  That was music for a different generation and yes they were violent places—even back then.  If two guys had their eye on the same girl, fights did break out—often.  Now that Annie’s went out of business someone thought it was a good idea to bring hip hop music out into the east end so this Cameo place took over to essentially let people live out their fantasies developed while playing the video game Grand Theft Auto.  So not only do you have an indicatively violent activity that comes with all places that play angry music—but now you have an entire generation who has played Grand Theft Auto and want to live out that fantasy in real life on weekend nights—which the Cameo club was happy to facilitate.  Now it blew up in their face and people will have to be accountable.  In the hours that come, you will find dear reader that things occurred just as I have described and now that all these media outlets have covered the story hoping to make the gun the big villain everyone will have to backtrack when they realize that the cause was the violent hip hop culture itself and the mixing of very dangerous elements together which caused this tragic situation.

There are consequences to actions and for too long we’ve all allowed ourselves to look away from this growing problem simply because white culture has been blamed for slavery so nobody is allowed to point out the obvious.  If blacks and whites, red people and yellow people and all people in between are going to live in the same country they need to have at least the same values.  But you can’t have a bunch of slum dogs celebrating hip hop gangsta’ culture openly and expect a society to thrive.  There is nothing good about a place like the Cameo Night Club.  That culture is rotten from top to bottom and I would say the same about the nightclub that was there before it in Annie’s.  There was nothing good about those places that perpetuated the benefits for mankind.  They were places to listen to angry music and pick up people for sex under drunken conditions.  Not a good mix.  And that is the problem.  It’s not firearms.

As this story unfolds it’s time to have the real discussion that is the root cause of these violent neighborhoods.  We can’t expect black communities to assimilate with the rest of the American experience when what they think is a fun time is going to places like the Cameo Club and cappin’ the ass of cops.  We already have too many generations of people who come from urban communities that think that way and they are having kids and teaching them the same stuff—and it’s time for it to come to an end.  Instead of wasting their time in the Cameo Night Club those stupid kids should have been home reading A Tale of Two Cities, or something similarly productive.  Things will only change when they change what they put into their minds.  Because what they are doing now just isn’t cutting the bacon.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The British Helped Obama with Spying on Trump: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it–it still fell

Of course the NSA and the British Intelligence are going to deny publicly that they can spy on individuals at the provocation of the President. That’s supposed to be a secret that gives them an advantage over the “bad guys” as they see it.  Most of the testimony that FBI Director Comey gave regarding the Trump wiretap at Trump Tower before the election of 2016 was old language within the intelligence community and the kind of rules that held presidents accountable to the public.  The surveillance done today which Donald Trump phrased as “wiretapping” is much more sophisticated than the type that was commonplace during the 80s and 90s.   These days, as Judge Napolitano explains below, a president has a number of resources to draw from to spy on a rival, or anybody really, and the web of international connectivity among spy agencies is just complicated enough to hide their malice.  So when President Trump accused Obama of spying on him—that is what he was talking about.

However, for that little video Judge Napolitano was suspended from Fox News because likely the good Judge was flying too close to the sun.   The big connection between Fox News and English spies is the news organization Sky News which are both owned by Rupert Murdoch.  Murdoch also has a long history of backing moderates in the Labour Party like Tony Blair, and don’t forget Murdoch was caught up in a major controversy in England over the phone tapping scandal that severely damaged him and his family because they were complicit.  When you play the game at that level and get caught, you have to make deals, which is likely what is behind the suspension of Napolitano for pointing out that British Intelligence likely did Obama a favor and spied on Donald Trump so that the trail would not lead directly to the White House.

Constantly James Comey during his testimony on March 20th 2017 made mention that “there was no evidence that anybody spied on Donald Trump as a candidate in Trump Tower.”  However, and this is very important because Wikileaks has given us the truth—the Democrats from Obama to Hillary Clinton all the way down to the heads of the DNC were actively in the business of destroying evidence.  So if evidence is destroyed or if the crime is done in such a way to cover up a crime as its being committed, like Hillary and her personal server and Obama using British Intelligence to cover the surveillance of a rival candidate—then the law is still being broken.  The age-old question of whether “a tree falls down in a forest but nobody hears it—did it really fall,” dictates that we apply the same logic to this surveillance question.  Yes, if a tree falls, it fell whether or not people hear it.  Taking away the ability of people to hear the tree fall does not stop the tree from falling.  Taking away the ability of the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA from reporting that a crime is committed in spying on a future president does not mean a crime wasn’t committed.  It was, only the facts of the matter have been hidden in plain sight through chaos and political activism for which James Comey is clearly guilty.

Remember this is the same James Comey who played games with the wording of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, by the request of the White House indicating that the terrorism was not an act of a “larger” terrorist cell and that the participants acted alone—even though we know now and then that wasn’t true. This is also the same James Comey who released the crime scene of the terrorist’s apartment to reporters which destroyed countless bits of evidence linking those terrorists to a greater threat.  Then he complained that he couldn’t unlock the iPhone left by the terrorists which as we learned from Wikileaks was another lie—because the technology to unlock the phone had been there all along—they just wanted to act as an activist in forcing the hand of the Apple Company to get on board with data collection on their users.  So we are not talking about a good ol’ Boy Scout in Director James Comey.  The man is highly political.  He fumbled the Hillary Clinton email case and looks to have wanted to hand her the election by calling off the investigation into her days before the election. Then he provided testimony against Trump in front of congress that was obviously biased.  For instance, how could he know the thoughts of the Russians when he said there was no evidence connecting them to the Trump campaign then said they wanted Trump to win and Hillary to lose?  And this is just over the last few years, from December of 2015 to March of 2017.  If there was any justice in the world, Comey would be fired.  I thought he might be a good cop when he investigated Hillary Clinton in July of 2016 but when he kicked the case off to the side in the first weekend of November, he was playing the odds in favor of Hillary Clinton and was using the law to pick winners and losers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/16/fbi-san-bernardino-attackers-didnt-show-public-support-for-jihad-on-social-media/?utm_term=.63153786fbb0

So what can you do when you can’t trust the cops, and the legal system behind them? Well, you vote for a new president and you clean house in government positions—like Comey’s.  You also pick media sources to get your information from those who have a track record of honesty in the face of fire, not those who are part of a wide net of corruption as Deep State contributors—like CNN, ABC News and the terrible NBC—people like Judge Napolitano.  When these vile political insurgents destroy evidence so that we can never trace back the intentions of the perpetrators you can tell who is telling the truth by the actions of others when they get caught taking action against someone, such as the suspension of Judge Napolitano for connecting the dots between the White House of Obama, the British spies and Trump which forced Fox News to take action against the one person who put all the dots together—because as a judge used to assembling the facts of a case to apply the scales of justice—the situation was obvious.  But that evidence needed to remain hidden, so punishment was administered and Murdoch agreed to it because of his past accusations by British authorities for wiretapping of his own—in the old-fashioned way.

Yet the media had a field day with the fake news that came from Comey’s mouth, about a Russian government who wanted to make it easy for Trump to win the presidency and declared that there was no evidence Obama ordered wiretapping in Trump Tower. For pointing out the injustice of it all, Trump was called a conspiracy theorist, just as they had called him back in 2012 over Obama’s birth certificate.  But Trump has been proven to be right much more often than the media will admit.  But that doesn’t matter, because Judge Napolitano has a very good record of telling the truth, and I’d be inclined to believe him over James Comey any day.  Because Comey doesn’t have a very good record. I imagine when the guards let the Trojan Horse into Troy one of the guards at the gate were probably like James Comey—sympathetic to the enemy and were admirers of the Horse’s construction.  So they let it in, and Troy fell in siege.  But what we have now that they didn’t have then was someone like Judge Napolitano willing to speak the truth even if it’s not popular and costs him at his job.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Rewriting the History Books: The giant prehistoric mound at Dover Castle

Some may think that I’m changing direction a bit too much for their liking as I move more away from the immediate topic of politics and local matters, and toward this global tapestry of a historical conspiracy as to the past and future of the human race—but fret not—there is a point to it all.  The written word is a very powerful thing, I’d argue more powerful than anything from a mind that can utilize it—because it has staying power—and I’ve had plenty of stay in cyberspace from the highest levels of our government to the media that covers it.  Currently, the machine of that power is set forth and doing what I want it to do so now for me it’s time to turn my attention to another issue I care quite a lot about, human migration patterns over time and to reshape the theories of diffusion that were molded under the umbrella of religions to gain a better understanding of where we’ve been so we can cast a good light on where we are really all going.

For years I have occasionally sprinkled in the occasional article about these matters, and even after nearly a decade of writing, they are the ones my readers come back to most.  And I am proud to have at least put some on the path to more discovery to hit the field and ask hard questions by showing for the first time something they didn’t know before—which is the main purpose for the voluminous writing that I do.  So with that in mind, this little article before you is kind of bench mark for me—a journey that started a long time ago and is now coming to a fine point—and it begins with a recent journey I had to Dover Castle in England.

I had always wanted to see the place which rests at the bottom of southeastern England looking across the choppy waters of the English Channel at France which was just over the horizon of the earth but close enough to feel.  Dover Castle is known militarily as the key to England and literally started its modern reign as a gate to that ancient land immediately after the Battle of Hastings by William the Conqueror in 1066 AD.  It was used in that capacity until 1958 and it served well the English people during World War II as a communications bunker hidden away under the vast castle complex.  It was a big place and it was built on a very tall mound which overlooked the Channel giving it excellent views across one of the narrowest points along the waterway between France and England.  But the Romans had already been there of course and that was my understanding before visiting—because they had an old lighthouse built there to show the way to their empire as they migrated north in and around 43 AD.  For people in the States all this history is all very old, but to my eyes, it’s all still recent history so I wasn’t that impressed other than to consider how much work those cultures had conducted to even build the place to begin with.   But as we parked the car and I started looking around things began to change for me starting with my introduction to the English Heritage people who saw my hat and my pockets filled with maps and notes and gave me a hard sale to join their group—which I did.  I didn’t know anything about them at the time but I quickly learned that these people were all over England and that they had done much for the field of archaeology over many years—and they had great literature to give out, and had published many really good books which were accelerating my discoveries in an organized fashion.  And that’s when the bomb hit me as I stood in line getting my membership pass to the English Heritage—which I now cherish—when I learned that the Romans had built their lighthouse on top of a massive earthwork which was reported to be Iron Age in its origins—which put it into the times well before Christ.  That meant that the mound we were standing on, that the Romans built upon and William the Conqueror had fortified—and Henry the II used as a political gateway to the rest of Europe before official visits to London by incoming royalty, had likely already been there for thousands of years prior by a long gone and mysterious people erased from history.  And that was the story I was most interested in.

Being at the site put everything in context for me—a lot can be accomplished by studying all the work that explorers and scientists embark on—and most of what I know comes from those kind of sources.  But I often need to physically stand someplace to get my bearings on what I read—once I do things open up for me rapidly and I can manage to sift through a lot of information quickly.  At Dover Castle I could physically see many of the layers of history all stacked on top of each other very neatly, from the early prehistoric people who likely were interacting with the builders of Stonehenge off to the west, to the Romans, Normans, and World War II periods.  People from an ancient period predating the Greeks had decided that this particular tactical spot was a good place for an early fort so the evidence that we were dealing with a prehistoric people with naval capability was quite obvious to me.

But the item of interest really was the need to build a castle there to begin with because the necessity hasn’t changed over the many years to the reasons we do things now—our political needs are built on the same essential philosophies as our English past gave us as a heritage—so the reasons Henry II used this castle are the same reasons we do things today—and that’s important to understand. Henry II was the same king who killed Thomas Beckett at the Canterbury Cathedral to the north.  He virtually had his French queen Eleanor imprisoned at Old Sarum to the west for over 16 years as he conducted business with foreign powers using the vast castle complex at Dover to impress upon visitors the power of England.  What was ironic to me was that the hill fort complex that had been there for several thousands of years before Norman occupation was nearly identical to Old Sarum.  The Normans recognized in their day the importance strategically of those old hillforts and they built their generation’s fortifications on them for obvious reasons.  But what was stunning was that some ancient people well before had identified those same necessities and had went to so much trouble to fortify themselves against invasion—which of course means that the ancient landscape was much more nibble around the world than we previously have given them credit for.  Nobody in their right mind goes to so much trouble to dig up so much earth with tools made of bones unless they had a good reason to do so and the amount of earth moved at Old Sarum and Dover Castle was extraordinary.

The castle itself was the obvious star of the show and it was well-preserved and interesting to look at.  For many that was the purpose of visiting Dover Castle.  The English Heritage people had done a fantastic job at the site making everything very user-friendly, there were nice restrooms—which was a luxury in England—plenty of gift shops and places to get food which is always important to tourist activities—which then help fund scientific research.  Again, I couldn’t help but think that we needed better organizations like the English Heritage in the States doing what they were doing in England.  I was very impressed with those guys and continue to be.  We have arguably better archaeological sites in the United States than they have in England, but they are not all protected for tourism and scientific discovery the way that the English Heritage people have done in England resulting in a lot of very valuable published information.  In the US we count on mavericks and other enthusiasts to do all the leg work, but it has put us dreadfully behind England in this regard. But I am happy that the English Heritage people are doing what they are, because obviously we have a culture on the English landscape that was clearly much more mature as a group of humans that was interacting with Europe, North America, and even the Middle East—perhaps even Asia at a time nobody thought possible.  In a lot of ways we’ll never know what’s under Dover Castle archaeologically because so much newer culture was built on top of it—and that is the same case at Old Sarum.  But the presence of all these mounds formed just like they are in my home state of Ohio told me everything I needed to know.

All this is important because in modern politics a lot is made about the “Native American” that is supposed to freeze us all in guilt for our westward expansion—and essentially the birth of the nation of America. We are supposed to believe that America was formed at the expense of the natives who lived in North America before Christopher Columbus arrived—and that now in 2017 we must pay retribution for those sins against those people halting our current economic development and turning America more toward European socialism as a penance.  That is the argument of the political left—the modern progressives.  And none of that is true.  The evidence is quite explosive.  Well before the tribes we ran into during the French and Indian Wars, the Revolution, then into westward expansion, there was an advanced group of people who predated the North American Indian who came from Europe and were active trading partners.  They had seafaring ability that nobody has considered possible until the crossing of the Atlantic by Columbus.  So we must look at the evidence and rethink all this because it has a bearing on our current politics to understand our real heritage and not some made up falsehood that was perpetuated to preserve the Christian heritage of the most modern travelers who wanted to make their mark and keep it that way for revisionists to utilize for their current objectives in the field of politics.  There is no such thing as a “Native American” unless you want to go back to the Neolithic people who were using advanced mathematics to plot out the positions of the sun and moon and were obviously part of a vast empire that extended from England, central Europe, the Mediterranean, to Central Mexico, South America and even Asia.  If we’re talking about “natives” we have to include them, but we currently don’t because it would force us to rewrite our history books—which they are open to in England at least.  But in America there is much more at stake.  An entire political movement has been built on the exploitation of Native American people and if they lose that security blanket of social leverage, they lose their entire political movement—which is why I have made this a priority for observation.  And under that definition dear reader my motivations might become a bit clearer and why I was so impressed to visit the site of Dover Castle and literally discover what resided beneath it.  What was there was far more impressive than the massive structure that stared out to the open English Channel.  And that is saying a lot.

Additionally, for those who run museums in America and consider ways of preserving our history best have a look at the website to Dover Castle by the English Heritage people and take some notes.  We should be doing things like this for Serpent Mound, Fort Ancient, Newark, Cahokia and many other places.  There is money to be made, and a whole lot of modern archaeological understanding waiting yet to be uncovered.  And a lot of history books that need to be completely rewritten.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/dover-castle/

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

When Snowflakes Become a Blizzard: Looking for #FindMike, the New York Teacher and child molester

For seven years and under great public scrutiny for even saying it, I’ve pointed out the extreme travesty of our public education system and the unions that control our tax payer funded teachers. For many years prior to my public exhibition—for over twenty years—I had a very loose tongue about the state of our schools for their inadequacies.  Many people didn’t want to hear it and they were angry at me for even pointing it out—for which I haven’t cared even a little bit—because I do not want to live in a world where the snowflakes so evident today—these soft-minded tacos of ideological indecision born in our public education institutions for over two generations are the ones running everything—because they won’t be able to handle it.  They are not equipped, not because they are stupid, or bad people, but because they have had their minds stolen by the thieves of public education—corrupt teachers living under the protection of teacher unions, who are functioning from the most selfish desires imaginable.  Of course, not all teachers are of this kind, but way too many are and every school has their share—and the kids know who they are.  Yet they stay employed because the unions protect them, and if you ever had any doubt dear reader as to what I’ve been telling you for such a long time—watch the following video from Project Veritas seen below.

In the video we see Mitchell Rubinstein—the New York State United Teacher’s Counselor trying to seduce the interviewer by dazzling her with showers of forbidden information—which of course works to our advantage as education reformers. As enlightened as we are supposed to be as a society—and Project Veritas understands this for their important work at uncovering hidden escapades—hot women will get you a lot more information than a wiretap.  Guys and girls will say anything to a pretty face, and that’s what Rubinstein did—he let the goods loose on some teacher in New York named Mike who abused some of his male middle-school students with oral sex and obvious physical abuse.  The only way we know about it is because of Mitchell Rubinstein’s loose lips trying to pick up on the Project Veritas reporter.  The legal system did nothing for the kids and this bastard certainly didn’t do anything to bring justice to the teacher.  The abuse among teachers in public schools is a major problem and nobody has done anything about it for way too long.

The only real solution to the problem is to break up the monopoly that these teachers have over our children. The reason that “Mike” felt entitled to abuse his students was that he was protected by a powerful union and by a law where kids are forced into his classroom for his consumption.  If the kids don’t go to his school they’ll go to another one where someone like “Mike” is waiting.  The other teachers never say anything because many of them have their own demons—that’s why they are teaching and not doing in the world.  They spew out this crap that they want to “teach others to be better people” but in reality, they typically are timid types afraid of the world—so they hide in academia.  That’s fine for basic instruction, but we are crazy if we allow such people to command our futures without competitive involvement.  Teachers like this “Mike” child molester need competition from the free market.  When there are rumors of such “Mikes” as there always are, parents should have the ability to leave that school for another one and take their money with them.  The school, no matter where it is or what its reputation, should not have dominion over the children that attend there only to be victims to people like “Mike,” which is what has been happening.

The reason that nobody ever does anything about such rumors of child molesting teachers who abuse their students is because it’s so hard to fire or discipline a corrupt teacher. And by watching Mitchell Rubinstein who is pretty high up on the social totem pole—it is obvious that the intellect of these people is not very robust.  As I reported earlier, Rubinstein was bragging about this “Mike” situation to impress “chicks” by his own admission.  What a low-quality person—yet these are the people we are supposed to value—and throw limitless funds at to support.  No wonder our kids are so stupid these days.  It’s not so much their fault—its idiots like this Rubinstein guy and his client “Child Molesting Mike.”

I know by saying this stuff that its inconvenient, and that the trends of the day say to just play along to get along. But, I’m not willing to do that.  I don’t want to deal with all these idiot kids in my old age who are such pathetic snowflakes that they don’t have basic grips on reality because their educations were so terrible, and in some cases they were the victims of abuse themselves at the hands of some teacher like “Mike” at some point in their past.

Recently while my wife and I were in London she was absolutely horrified at several advertisements for sex dance clubs in that city that are becoming quite popular. These are different dance clubs than we all went to as kids in our 20s—at these you don’t just dance close and sometimes grind on each other, you actually have sex in front of everyone—completely uninhibited. And while we were down in the Tube on a Friday night where many of these people were packed like sardines into those underground transportation devices going from club to club I saw some of them—dressed for the act.  It was horrifying to my wife and she just didn’t get it.  I had to explain to her that most of these kids in London came from homes where there were high divorce rates and there were obviously sexual experimentation going on in their lives way too early, whether it came from a trusted adult—who had let them down, or some peer they grew up with.  By the time they were 21 years of age they were not looking to have children yet as housing prices were prohibitively too high, and the prospect of a family just out of the scope of consideration.  And their educations had been teaching them that loose sex with any gender was perfectly fine for many years so here was a bunch of young people piled into a dance club together not looking for serious relationships that lead to buying a house and raising a family—they just wanted to satisfy a primal urge so that they could get back to their Playstations or new Nintendo games which is what they really wanted to do with their time.  Those poor stupid kids will be train-wrecks as adults because the shame of what they’ve done will follow them for the rest of their lives when biologically they do desire to settle down and build a good life with someone.

In a valueless society taking care of a primal urge so that a person can do other things they’d rather be doing is a default mode of conduct.  But the cause is in destroying those values to begin with, and our education systems around the world are at fault.  Letting molesters like “Mike” into our schools harms our children by exposing them to things they shouldn’t even know about until they are well in their teenage years.  But the kids molested by “Mike” didn’t have a choice.  An authority figure abused his power and had kids come to his house and he made them perform oral sex—then this teacher union representative Mitchell bragged about it so that he could get laid by the Project Veritas reporter.

What a bunch of losers, but never ever say I didn’t tell you all about it before. This just confirms what I’ve always said—and that demands action on your part.  This is something none of us can afford to turn away from.  It deserves our highest priority as a society.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here
You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.

UPGRADE NOW DISMISS MESSAGE

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “The Virtue of Material Acquisition and Spending Money: Defying thousands of years of wrongly framed thinking”

  1. Welcome home. Thanks for sharing your adventures. I enjoyed it. And this blog is right on. I like to mention to my friends who talk about God’s will that God made us in his image and he wants us to USE our minds to advance… that usually gives those who think some pause and some appreciation for those of us who enjoy using our “God Given” talents to acquire things that we want and value. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Keep it up.

    Like

  2. Thanks Mike. These are difficult concepts for a lot of people and travel does help sort through things by coming out of a comfort zone to provide new observations. And there is no place like America! That’s for sure.

    Like

  3. Very Interesting.
    I definitely see your side and have always bought what we wanted but always with cash. No payments. We have a nice house, 10 cars including a vette, a farm and 18 other properties in different states. (investment)
    All payed for. My sister lives in the UK so I know what you’re experiencing.
    Since my parents came home from Florida and caring for them, I have a serious new appreciation for what it will take for retirement and that’s if you’re healthy! We were thinking 4 million. It’s always been our goal. We are WAYY off! And with this screwed up healthcare, it’s harder to gauge.
    You’re young. I have 9 years on you. As you get older (and after your 50’s) things move at lightening speed. You’ll process differently after 55. I’ve had conversations with friends and they did as well. I suppose it’s a wonderful natural progression. My husband is also a financial genius, but we curved our wants for the future a couple years back. We are completely happy and financially solid, until we’re not. That’s universal.
    Our strategy has always been to buy things that will value us later.
    As for the Iphone….I don’t want to own anything smart. I don’t have a smart meter anymore )i payed dearly for that), got rid of my Samsung smart phone, no smart car, no smart gun, refrigerator, thermostat, or anything else like that. Unlike others, my life is more interesting and better without those things.

    Keep it simple~

    Like

    1. You are still a young woman, and you’re right about retirement. I wouldn’t even think about it with less than $10 million dollars in the bank and not spoken for anywhere. Because the health care costs are just out of control. Ridiculous!

      Like

  4. I meant to mention because it’s important to my point…that I have complete POA of my parents financial and medical. We do not pay a dime as of now to care for them. But handling all of their affairs is a real eye-opener and an experience most children don’t get. He did a great job of providing for themselves, but you have to make sure those investments keep paying. Very scary and completely changed our strategy.
    Another difference is that we’ve been savers…always. As have they. Most people my age have not. Even scarier.
    Mind your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.
    True that!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Comey’s Disturbing Comments about Privacy: Security individually based as opposed to collectively sanctioned

I kept waiting for someone to do it, but only Sean Hannity that I know of even came close to covering the disturbing comments made by FBI Director James Comey at a Boston College speech on cyber security.  The media keyed in on a rather irrelevant issue that was said about the length of Comey’s remaining tenure as director—but missed the most important element he discussed rather bluntly—which was that no American had a “right” to privacy and that they could be compelled under court order to reveal anything at any time in the name of preservation of our national security.  He called this assumption a “bargain” made to live in a secure world.  I took the time to watch the whole thing because Comey’s most dangerous comments come at the 36 minute mark and context is important.  As presented, Comey sounds reasonable whereas if his comments on compelled information for national security sounded very dystopian if taken alone—so viewing the entire speech was important to this discussion which you should do now before going forth with this article.

I never made that bargain with the FBI or the federal government.  I am able to protect myself in most cases better than they can.  I don’t need the level of security they are assuming I need.  What has happened is that they have imposed themselves on us in reaction to the dangerous world we live in which has at its root, religious intolerance, economic depravity and the age old European tendency toward statism when challenged intellectually—so American intelligence gathering has filled the void of danger with the assumption that every single conversation in the world must be listened to and recorded so that any little bit of terrorist aggression can be stopped before it takes place.

Comey in that speech playing the good cop looking for recruitment into the “economically depraved” conditions of sacrifice for country probably believes what he’s saying while deliberately ignoring the facts of the matter. We know that the federal government cannot be trusted with our privacy.  For instance, just examine the situation with the Marines presently where men and women are placed together in the field only to have nude pictures placed online.  We warned that very situation would happen but the politics of the day said that we can’t discriminate between men and women and that women should be allowed to be in the same combat as men in service to their country.  Well, biology takes over when bullets aren’t flying and things happen when human beings are encouraged into primal circumstances.  The very same emotions that compel a person to run into a swarm of bullets and exploding projectiles are the same ones that procreate the human race.  So if a woman is in a muddy trench with a man, the two are going to want to get naked and explore each other—by their nature.  It should come as no surprise when abuses happen, yet politicians are and they really don’t know how to handle the situation leaving us with the present crises.

While traveling recently all over Europe I had to go through a lot of security—supposedly for the safety of everyone.  The rational was the same as what Comey said about private conversations and even thoughts—that nothing is private if the “state” has a need to know it for the security of everyone.  The assumption is that the “collective” is more valuable than the “individual” which is a false premise. If the individual is protected the natural byproduct is that everyone will be protected by default.  But because our intelligence and security organizations are filled with lazy minded louses most often than not—they default to seeing mankind in the plural rather than the singular because it makes their job easier.  Of course another aspect of modern progressive thought is that gay people can mix with straight people, and that bathrooms can be used by anybody exposing our private parts to the opposite sex without restraint.  This becomes a problem in these security lines.  For instance, at least once recently while going through TSA security I was singled out by a male officer for “extra security” just for the pat down.  I was with my family and wasn’t dressed in a way to provoke any suspicion and I was in line with hundreds of other people.  But the guy was obviously gay—stereotypically so—Beauty and the Beast gay as established by the live action character of LeFou and he wanted to feel my crotch to see if what was obvious was really there.  I suppose his justification was to see if I was smuggling something big in there, but the scanner would have shown that.  In fact they had a clear scanned image of my masculinity right there on the screen which women were able to see completely so I might as well have been nude walking through security.  Yet this security guy wanted to touch it and he used the law to exercise his personal sexual flavor and that was an abuse of power.  If I made a big deal about it, I would have missed my transfer flight and I still wouldn’t have been able to take it all back because that gay guy in the TSA had the might of Comey’s intelligence branch behind him protecting the TSA from individual protests—for the right of the collective.  But that TSA officer and the women watching the scanner were able to use that justification for their own personal pleasure while working on the job.  If an attractive person for their particular sexual tastes comes through the TSA line, and they are obviously always in a hurry to get to their flight—the TSA can indulge in that abuse all they want without fear of retaliation.  They try to give you pat downs of the same sex to preserve some semblance of sexual protection but if the person patting you down is gay, and you are a man—you might as well have given me a woman to do the job.  I never agreed to that bargain.  I can promise that I was able to protect the people on my flight better than those fat slobs working at the TSA—that’s for sure.

But the worst example of all is the recent presidential election of 2016 which James Comey’s FBI played such a large part.  We know that Hillary Clinton lied and that the Justice Department under Barack Obama was radicalized to abuse power for political preservation.  They did it before the election which was exposed by Wikileaks.  Hillary Clinton additionally destroyed evidence on her private server which she had to reduce the ability of government agents to see what crimes she was conducting through the Clinton Foundation.  When “compelled” by the FBI to tell the truth, the Clinton Campaign destroyed the evidence and refused to answer questions—so the whole notion that a judge can compel people to recall their memories falls apart under this examination.  Such an assumption bases itself on the Christian notion that a person will swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God. But if the person doing the swearing doesn’t believe in God, but rather is like John Podesta and invests his mind in “sprit cooking” rooted in old pagan rituals designed to conger up the spirits of the dead to help with living circumstances—lying under oath isn’t something they have a problem with.  So what compels a person to reveal their memories or even a conversation with a spouse?  Nothing.

There are some big problems with what James Comey said—the FBI’s position toward security of America is laced with half-baked assumptions designed to conceal their innate laziness as government employees—who are “underpaid” as Comey put it.  Give me a break—as I’ve reported often, government employees of all kinds make roughly 40% more than they would in the private sector, and that includes FBI agents.  I actually know a few and they aren’t hurting for money considering they structure their day around getting coffee every morning at the same time, then planning their lunches and afternoons in very predictable patterns.  They aren’t Eliot Ness types–that’s for sure.  And if they get tape of a couple having sex in their house—they do enjoy it—and they do share it among their other members.  They behave just as the Marines did in the recent sex scandal—when confronted with exclusive information, they often behave with their biological foundations—and they will abuse their power.

We’d like to believe that we can trust these people in our intelligence divisions, but we can’t.  While it’s true that we are better off having them as a layer of security between normal Americans and the bad guys—it doesn’t take much to make the intelligence officers of the FBI, CIA TSA and every other security division the villains—especially when sexes are mixed, gayness is promoted from within, and agents are encouraged to function from their primal instincts under duress.  So a blank check of authority is not the answer—Hillary Clinton proved it.  Wikileaks additionally has proven so by what they’ve released about the CIA.  These are not people we can trust.  They are currently using the power of government to attempt to destroy the Trump presidency—so what do you think they’d do to anybody else in America who challenges them?  The real answer is more private security individually based, not collectively sanctioned—and that requires a shift in basic national philosophy—which is hard for people like James Comey to do.  But that’s the direction we all need to be headed.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

The Virtue of Material Acquisition and Spending Money: Defying thousands of years of wrongly framed thinking

I am not suggesting that any person spend money like a bottomless pit buying anything everywhere to cover up some deep psychological problem.  That is a different issue from what I’m proposing.  Money is simply a representation of value so when someone spends money without considering the implication of cost they are essentially unable to grasp the concept of value because psychologically, they are lacking the basic foundations to do so.  However, and this is a uniquely American way to think which was drawn incredibly clear for me while traveling recently through London, Paris, Brighton and many other places in between and observing the people there and comparing them to those I have known back home in the United States.  Additionally, as one of my many occupations, I am an employer and am an expert in the breakdown of labor=productivity and the psychological implications of personality=quality+implied effort toward targeted outcomes, so what I’m about to say requires some advanced context—because it eludes most people living on the earth today—and my assertion of these concepts comes from very advanced knowledge earned the hard way, and in my view, the only way.

I had the fortune to grow up and know both of my grandparents very well.  Both were farmers and had obviously had their world outlook shaped by the Great Depression.  One was particularly keen about every penny spent and watched them like a hawk always afraid that some big wave would come and overtake them wiping them out forever into poverty. They were extremely hard-working people and were socially very honorable, but did reflect a constant fear that their money would be taken away by some unknown force be it a disaster or the aggressions of mankind through some form of robbery—so every penny was watched for their entire lives. The other set of grandparents were rather loose with their money.  If they wanted something they bought it and never gave much of a concern if something cost thousands of dollars even back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  If they wanted it they’d do what they had to in order to obtain it—whether it be a farm, a particular car, or just a lifestyle.

While traveling around Europe there was this constant phantom in the back of every conversation I had with people I interacted with, from family, friends and mild acquaintances which were shocked that we did so much in such a short period of time while people who were regionally located had spent their whole lives 60 miles to 100 miles from the things we were doing as a family in Europe yet had never tried to do them themselves.  And it came up more than once at dinner tables that my youngest grandson who was at this point only 10 months of age had already been to Disney World once, and was now traveling around Europe with my daughter and her husband.  Additionally while he was still a fetus he traveled around Iceland the year before so before he was even a year old had experienced vast cultural influences which are the foundations of a very interesting coming life that he will have—but people hearing all this just didn’t understand.  “You spent how much at that Ramsay restaurant in Chelsea?”  “You took the Eurostar to Paris just to go to the Louvre?” “Why go all the way out to Stonehenge just to look at some old rocks?”  Those were the kind of questions we received just over the last few weeks by people mystified by the amount activities we reported through small talk which of course opened up a deeper sore which rests on the surface of most things human beings do in their lives.  What is the value of a human day and what does one wish to do with those days toward a value that is internally comprehended at the subconscious level?

That same daughter who traveled with me just recently purchased an iPhone 7 Plus after working with mine on that trip and I was proud of her because it’s the best on the market at this particular time and I like to see she does not compromise quality for the comfort of saving a few dollars.  Just like my view that if we are in London and my wife wants to go to the best restaurant that they have—why not do it?  Essentially if I really want something, I typically get it. I don’t feel that way about everything and I do go through a screening process.  Such as Stonehenge is something that I’ve mulled around for years, but the expense wasn’t worth the trip just for that endeavor.  But If I’m in London on business, or leisure, then I’ll find a way to get there—you better believe it.  I am not the kind of person content to just watch from my front porch others doing things and not doing them myself.  To me nothing on earth is off limits—if I want it, I’ll get it.  With that in mind, when I hear someone say that this is too expensive, or that is too far out of reach, I lose respect for those people because what they are really saying is that they are not willing to do the extra work to acquire the things their heart’s desire and are more than willing to yield to complacency.

Such people who do the minimum in life favoring the lazy position of being victims of circumstance are miserable human beings.  One thing that makes Donald Trump a uniquely American product is that he has the kind of mind that never felt limited by circumstances.  He dreamed big, lived big, and was more than happy to show off how much harder he was willing to work than his contemporaries.  Because after all what is a man really showing off when he arrives at an exclusive club in a Lamborghini with a hot woman on his arm looking very debonair?  He’s not saying he just inherited millions of dollars from his dad, or that he’s willing to waste large volumes of money on nothing—he’s saying that he is willing to outwork his peers and has obtained success and by fluffing his feathers declares himself above those around him so that he can have top access to the best that mankind has to offer—whether it be women, productivity, or leisure opportunity.  Those who point jealously at the man are those simply not willing to do what it takes to acquire such things.  They resort to socialism hoping to be equal to the man without having to do the work so that they essentially don’t have to feel the guilt of underperforming in a world which rewards people like the Lamborghini driver over those who watch every penny fearful that the penny might be taken from them at some point forcing them to work one hour longer to make it up in the future.  People who deliberately set low bars for themselves are constantly unhappy when they have to live in a world where people are free to work and gain all they can and this is the cause of much anxiety in the world. By having a guy like that Lamborghini driver in the White House the expectations for our national economy will naturally expand which I see no negative to at all.  People who are afraid of hard work won’t like it because the social bars of expectation will be raised out of their range of desired applied effort—but that’s good for America as a whole for obvious reasons of economic expansion.

What I observed in Europe was something completely foreign to me.  I knew about it, but actually spending significant time there the situation was glaringly obvious.  They think small in Europe.  They have too much vacation time-they sit and talk too much about nothing and are content to live with the limitations they inherited from their ancient ancestors and they have grown as a region to accept many restrictions which keep them from really living life.  I personally don’t have any of those limits in my life because honestly no matter how much I spend, I’m willing to work harder than anybody else to have what I desire.  I may not care to have a Lamborghini because I’m not interested in the social things that come with it.  I’m married and not looking for women, and I usually do things with my family so there isn’t a back seat for them to sit in when we go out to dinner so the value isn’t worth the cost to me.  But if I wanted one, I’d buy one and nothing would stop me from getting it.  There really aren’t many “things” I want in life because material objects don’t bring much value to me—intellectual things do like books—but “things” themselves don’t do it for me.  But when I want a particular gun, or a motorcycle, or an iPhone—or a television—I get the best of whatever it is and I don’t think about the cost because I am literally willing to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week to obtain whatever it is.

That leaves me with absolutely no sympathy for the person who holds onto their money because they either fear someone taking it from them through aggression, or that they just are afraid of hard work. The person who is afraid to take their wife out to a nice dinner isn’t being fiscally prudent as much as they are just being a wimp afraid of giving up their leisure time to make their spouse a little more happy and comfortable. To select the cheaper version of a car to save money is setting the bar lower for other things and such people are artificially restricting the quality of their life to preserve their internal laziness—in most cases.  And that’s a generally accurate way to identify much of what is currently sickening the world in regard to human beings. They want things that they see other people have, but they are not willing to do what it takes to have those things.  In many cases their religions have given them a free pass to be lazy by constantly castigating the wealthy by highlighting poverty as some kind of virtue.  And that has been a cleverly shrouded element in our society which has garnered little to no attention from our everyday life.

I fortunately was able to live in Canterbury for a good part of February 2017 and in that ancient city there are still monks who make the conscious decision to live in poverty—to essentially quit yearning for material objects so that they can earn their way into heaven.  Its one thing to read about such things, it’s quite another to meet them and see them in the streets of Canterbury which I did.  My wife and I even went to their little island in the Stour River to get a sense of how and why they live the way they do.  Additionally, there are quite a few homeless people in Canterbury who have obviously quit life yielding to the escape of alcoholism.  The two groups of purposely poor demographic groups had decided to set the bar so low for themselves that they were victims of circumstance and simply yielded their life to other controlling elements.  Compassion is not the word I would use to explain their circumstance upon meeting them and speaking directly to them about their manner of living.  They have quit life and have tossed it back to what they think “God” is—and by my definition for things are wasting themselves.  It’s not honorable to be poor or to sacrifice their life for some greater good when what they are really hiding is their sheer laziness to get up each day and battle toward personal goals set for the benefit of being alive.  Such as, you can’t take that car, that house and that nice watch with you into the next world.  But what you do take is the experience gained in obtaining those things because the effort expands your intellect which has resonance into the many dimensional planes of reality that your soul resides on.  So in essence, the work utilized in reaching for material goods and services has a natural byproduct that resonates across the universe into your eternal elements—and those monks in Canterbury are missing the point by deciding to live in poverty so to obtain the grace of God.  And regarding the homeless people, I’ve been at points in my life where compared to them, they were much wealthier than I was—but I never quite working.  A person like me would never be on the street without a house or the means to get one and to me there is no excuse in living on the street begging for food or enough scraps to get a bottle of alcohol to indulge in drunkenness.  They are people who lack the internal drive to fight through each day and make the best of it—let’s be honest.

So those are some things to think about in regard to money, value, virtue, and immortal spirit.  When my daughter told me she had bought a new iPhone 7 after working with mine I would say she did more for her eternal spirit than those Canterbury monks have done in 30 years of living deliberately impoverished in dedication to God—because the value isn’t in the material item—it’s in the productive output to acquire it.  The morality of a good economy does more for assisting the soul of its recipients than deliberate quitting of the world does by yielding to the old forces of intellectual control over those willing to submit themselves to every authority.  Doing what the heart desires for the right reasons is a more moral decision than sacrificing it to circumstance.  It is not honorable to say “I can’t do this because of that, or that I don’t have enough of that to do this.”  It is honorable to say I want that so I’m going to do this to have it because the virtue comes in the act of acquiring the means to perform the task.  For instance the virtue of spending over $1000 on a meal isn’t the food itself or the obvious consumable nature of it—it’s in acquiring the $1000 to spend and in sharing that experience with the people you care about for the memory of it—and the message to them that they are more valuable to you than just setting the bar too low for everyone and holding them prisoner to your low expectations for yourself.  Monks hide that low bar behind dedication to God. The homeless behind their lack of internal resolve to fight through personal challenges–and the lazy hide behind circumstances—whether they are too short, not smart enough, too weak, too something to be that guy who shows up to dinner in the Lamborghini with the hot chick on their arm—so reserve themselves to sitting on their front porch watching the world pass them by and claim that they are being “fiscally prudent.”  They are just being wimps.  And that is the harsh reality that so many people need to face—because they aren’t fooling anyone.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg