The Battle of Two Wolves: Mythic tales from Star Wars 2015 Celebration

It’s important, so I’ll keep talking about it—the Star Wars Celebration showed the outside world just how much potential there is in the Disney owned movie franchise. I’ve been covering that topic for quite some time—I write about the Star Wars video games, the books, the television shows, and the movies often—but the essence of it and the longevity, is the extreme power of the mythology to shape the modern world. Mythology is excessively important to human beings.   As thinking specimens of cell building technology, humans need mythology.   Our childhoods are often rich with mythology, but our adult and old age lives are often much more limited to tabloid type concerns. Our lives are shaped by the kind of mythology that we think about. Star Wars as shown in the videos below by the filmmakers’ themelves from the Celebration event is the best offering that human minds have created in the world of mythology. To understand a bit about the why and how let me bring to your mind a nice little Cherokee Indian legend passed from a wise man to his grandson.

A Native American Cherokee Story – Two Wolves

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.

He said, “My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.

“One is Evil – It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

“The other is Good – It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

Star Wars is the modern update to stories like those old Indian legends. All cultures have some mythological comparison—so having a modern version is extremely important to young people—and old people. That is why the box office numbers for the next Star Wars film will be so outrageously high. There is a hunger for the type of mythology which places values into story form for humans to build their lives around.

Star Wars is essentially the story of the two wolves of Cherokee legend. It’s about feeding good and evil then watching the results. People are so desperately hungry for that type of story telling. There is a reason that westerns were so popular in American culture—because they were essentially about these perilous choices between the good wolf and the bad wolf. Mankind wants to know which one wins, because they want help in determining which wolf to feed.

I know, and have known a lot of bad wolves and I tried to starve the bad out of them in favor of the good. But so often the bad wolf eats the good wolf in these young people’s lives because behind my back they starve the good one and feed the bad. The bad wolf is the squeaky wheel in their life needing the most grease. Many from that side of the tracks of perpetual duality want to justify the actions and social perception of the evil wolf, the bad side of human sentiment, the anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego—as being misunderstood—as if understanding were required to justify the feeding of a bad wolf.

We live in an age where we are told not to judge others—we are told not to judge the good wolf or the bad wolf because they are all wolves and equal under the sky of mother earth. Well, they are not equal, and they cannot co-habitat on earth with one another in peace. Good and evil are at war and if there is any point to life in the realm of four-dimensional reality it is to determine which wolf people will feed—because that will determine the course of your very soul. That is the great test, which wolf will we feed?

Star Wars functions in a fashion as it puts the question toward mankind in the same way that the grandfather did for his grandson. The choice is ours always to make, Star Wars does not tell us which one to feed. It simply says what the results of one wolf will be over the other. That is the purpose of mythology and a society without it is lost—as we have all been for many years—in spite of a very rich culture of story telling. The quality of that story telling has not been very high. Star Wars however is very high quality story telling—it is mythology at its best.

Bob Iger the CEO of the Disney Corporation gave a surprisingly fluid clarification of his understanding of the Star Wars property. He understands quite clearly what his responsibility to mythology is as one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. As I heard him speak it was almost chilling because I can see how this will all play out and it will be earth shattering—just because there are so many people today who are such empty vessels. Star Wars will be like a drink in the desert for them, and it will fill them with choices. No longer will they wonder how to keep the two wolves from eating each other, they will learn to feed one and kill the other—and their lives will suddenly have meaning. That is the power of myth.

That is also why Star Wars: The Force Awakens will make so much money that the movie business will have to totally re-think how it does business. Next to Star Wars, average Hollywood movies will pale in comparison as the global measure made today will far surpass everything that many think are successes. Many bad wolves will speculate that Disney is evil and just out to make money, and that the world has had enough of Star Wars. Those will be those bad wolves who don’t want to share their food with the good—so of course they will say that. But Disney will increase their value to heights they never thought possible—and they’ll soon learn that the price they paid for Lucasfilm was a fraction of the real value. The power of myth is what drives Star Wars, and the hunger for it is in understanding which wolf to feed, the good one or the bad one. The world wants answers to those questions and these days only Star Wars is offering a clear answer. That’s why it is so successful and why I have so much to say about it.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

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

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


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

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

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

Here are seven reasons why:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

Who are the Three Percent: Being a shepherd and the sheep

Somebody reminded me recently of a little factoid that I already knew, but hadn’t thought about in a while. Before there was ever a Tea Party in America there was an organization called the Three Percent, which was a reference to the amount of people who fought and won the American Revolution against England. The term is important as it indicates a truth to the winds of change that is pertinent to our times. In the modern media driven culture hell-bent on socialism and various aspects of democracy where majority rules, the Tea Party is viewed as irrelevant because it does not represent the masses of our society. Yet history proves time and time again that history is not shaped by the masses, but by the leaders who are often in the extreme minority. In this case pertaining to the Revolution and the modern Constitutional movement the term Three Percent is relevant. Here is how the actual group, the Three Percent describe themselves on a 2009 website—followed by the link to their material.

The Three Percent in 1775.

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came. Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation. The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic. We are the people who the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone.

I have for many, many years considered myself in an even more elite class going well beyond the Three Percenter types. In my family the push has always been to be a 1% percenter, not in measure by fiscal buying power, but by intellectual aptitude. I have absolutely no desire to be in step with the rest of society—but rather several decades ahead of the current democratic driven trends. So it’s not hard for me to feel an affinity for those who consider themselves in the Three Percent.

The philosophic stance between of the Three Percent and the modern Tea Party led by people like Glenn Beck and Matt Kibbe is where I’m at. I don’t feel a need to proclaim violent action against an out of control government because I think any of them can be easily beaten with intelligence. Conversely, Glenn Beck is a bit too evangelical for me—a bit too soft-spoken. I understand why he’s the way he is, but he’s too soft for my sentiments. But I’m with him on most things, and I admire the vigor of the Three Percent. If things get out of control, I would be ahead of the Three Percenters in resistance. However, I have little faith in the competency of government to even organize such a thing—so I don’t entertain much in the way of options in that direction.

The point of the matter is that minorities are what shape the future. It currently is a small minority of radical leftists who are shaping the modern world of politics starting with George Soros and trickling down of money to puppet politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They are in the minority, yet they behave as though they have always been in the majority—democratically speaking. They have committed a ruse—but they are vulnerable to the same tactics—which is what they have been seeing over the last decade. Even with all the George Soros money spent advocating on behalf of socialist/progressive policies—the gains they have made have been limited and the pendulum has swung toward groups like the Three Percenters and the Tea Party to show guidance away from the left-leaning minority domination of the national message.

One of the most frequent criticisms that I see leveled at my work is that it only has an appeal to the minority—in most cases one percenter types who are even more vigilant than the three percenters, or the more general and soft minded Tea Party types. An angry leftist will write me with proclamations that the masses are not behind my view points and suggest that I should abandon them in favor of a more popular view. I have a long history of this type of resistance and my hatred of public education can be traced back to my firm belief in going against the grain of popularity. For instance, when I was a kid it was very unpopular to like the popular Star Wars films in school. Showing an open love of those movies were guarantees at social castigation—even though privately most people enjoyed the films. I took great joy at stepping on the school bus with my Han Solo shirt on and feeling the parade of insults cast at me to make me want to change my behavior. The more the other kids threw insults at me, the more deeply into my convictions I planted myself. When verbal insults didn’t work, kids would resort to physical violence, which did not work with me—at all. I had some rather memorable fights in school which taught kids that they were best off to leave me alone. Meanwhile, I wore my Han Solo shirts well into my high school years and never stopped moving into adulthood.

Thirty years later, which seems like a long time, but it was only a few election cycles—Star Wars is openly enjoyed by just about everyone. Nobody looks sideways at me when I wear my Han Solo shirt out somewhere with my grandson. People actually respond favorably to it. The new movie, Episode 7 The Force Awakens is projected by the Hollywood Reporter to hit over $2 billion in global revenue during its upcoming Christmas run. I personally think the number will be higher, but it’s a start. It’s not that people all of a sudden started liking Star Wars—it’s just become suddenly fashionable to publicly say so as the years have traveled toward us. I knew when I was a kid that Star Wars was something special and I was certainly well within the 1% percentile who publicly stated it—proudly. It was quite a shock when I had a chance to date a girl in the 8th grade who was the most attractive girl in the school—and I gave up on that date to play Star Wars with a bunch of geeky kids who were younger than me. A lot of people thought something was wrong with me. Society in general didn’t understand. But I did, and that’s all that mattered. So I told the girl no and instead spent that Friday night in the basement of my parents house with four other kids playing Star Wars all night—and it was a lot better than a date with a pretty girl. Believe me. Pretty girls mostly come with rules aligned toward social values current to the day. They expect their boyfriends to get along and like the ordainment of their peers. Those are rules I was never willing to deal with. Star Wars was much better, and it still is. Trust me kids, after tens of thousands of sexual experiences—Star Wars is more rewarding.

Since those days I have felt the same pressure for a hundred million different issues, but I generally handled them all the same. I do what I know to be right in spite of what “society” thinks is correct. If the issue is controversial, so be it. Some of the worst and most violent fights I’ve had were when my wife and I were the only two people in a Mason neighborhood who were against the teenage drug dealing that was going on in front of our house. The issue got so out of control that the mayor of Mason had to get involved as the entire police department had turned against us—because they didn’t want to deal with the issue. Talk about pressure. We had the same kind of social rebuttal when we home schooled our children for a time. That was hard as everyone turned against us socially. It was harder than wearing a Han Solo shirt onto a hostile school bus full of rough neck kids from the Gregory Creek trailer park. If you wore a KISS shirt you were cool and didn’t get picked on. If you wore a Star Wars shirt, you got picked on bad. Put your kids in public school, and sign them up for every sports program available and you will be the star of your neighborhood. Home school your kids and you will be ridiculed. Publicly endorse all the modern big government entitlements and the news outlets will paste your face on every station. Stand against them, and you will be seen as a scourge on progress. But as we know, Star Wars is now popular—by virtually everyone, and the liberty movement has now migrated beyond the typically three percent of the population. It takes a leader to see these events way ahead of the masses—it is for the masses to follow the leader. There isn’t a cell in my body that desires to be a follower—to be a mere lamb in the flock herded by a wise and knowing shepherd. I only want to be a shepherd and typically only around three percent of an entire population feels the same way.

While many from the masses bulk at the topics on this site, I am certain that within twenty to thirty years—just like Star Wars—these topics will be popular among the masses. They hide their feelings now—those masses, but deep down inside they support them—they just don’t feel confident to proclaim those feelings in public. Three percent of the population understands that, and they are typically ahead of the masses. So there is no reason to bend the will of the leaders to the masses of any society. Because eventually, the masses will catch up to the leaders—and everyone can’t be a leader. Only the rare few—and it is among them that the world hinges. There is no other way—the only difference is in knowing what type of person you are. Sheep need to be herded—and they like it. Shepherds do not—and among those shepherds are the Three Percent.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

How Much is $15 per Hour, Really: Understanding money and how its measured

Somehow the world has gone insane. I place the blame on our educations system, but that is even too general. It really comes down to the basic philosophies that we function from as a species—the thought processes which defines our motivations. The insanity is endemic from modern Greece to the local high school kid working at a fast-food restaurant. Most people today do not understand that money is a measurement of productivity and that without productivity it has little value. Matt Walsh from The Blaze incited great controversy during the third week of April 2015 when he properly articulated the demand from the workers of fast food—specifically in Seattle—to be paid $15 dollars an hour. Even Bill O’Reilly has come out in favor of a minimum wage increase to something in the ten-dollar per hour range—and the movement has migrated as far away as Brazil—which is a functioning socialist country. I can understand that Brazil doesn’t understand the economic value McDonald’s brings to their country, but Seattle, Washington should know better. They obviously don’t.

Fast food workers are being incited into a frenzy by socialist organizations to increase the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour which is simply astonishing to me. By watching the videos on this site—all of them—especially the PBS video, it is just astonishing that so many people do not understand the value of money and have not been taught that their actions—their choices in life—have a direct impact on the results of their life. It wasn’t that long ago that I worked fast food and made only $6 to $7 dollars an hour. I have worked in those places—several of them, and I always appreciated the job. I have worked at McDonald’s, Frisch’s, Wendy’s and had success in those places. I worked hard and used those jobs as a platform to re-launch my life after devastating events that pulled the rug out from under my family at times. I have had much harder conditions in my life than the woman shown in the PBS video above, let me reiterate that. Yet I never contemplated that I should make $15 dollars an hour for that labor. I never contemplated, or lobbied to make $10 per hour.   I never planned to live off a fast food job, just to supplement my income so I could keep my wife home with my children. I used fast food jobs as a second job—and I enjoyed the work. I love eating at McDonald’s—to this very day. I love all the places I ever worked, and I appreciated the opportunities they afforded me. Yet we are dealing with an entitlement culture that expects to sit around and get paid for nothing—no actual productivity. Instead, they always think to cheat the system to their advantage and wish to place the burden for their lives on their employer. And they have completely lost touch with how much $15 an hour is in our current economy and what measure it has in value to productivity. To comprehend that read the Matt Welsh quote below followed by the two links.

Dear fast food workers,

It’s come to my attention that many of you, supposedly in 230 cities across the country, are walking out of your jobs today and protesting for $15 an hour. You earnestly believe — indeed, you’ve been led to this conclusion by pandering politicians and liberal pundits who possess neither the slightest grasp of the basic rules of economics nor even the faintest hint of integrity — that your entry-level gig pushing buttons on a cash register at Taco Bell ought to earn you double the current federal minimum wage.

I’m aware, of course, that not all of you feel this way. Many of you might consider your position as Whopper Assembler to be rather a temporary situation, not a career path, and you plan on moving on and up not by holding a poster board with “Give me more money!” scrawled across it, but by working hard and being reliable. To be clear, I am not addressing the folks in this latter camp. They are doing what needs to be done, and I respect that.

Instead, I want to talk to those of you who actually consider yourselves entitled to close to a $29,000 a year full-time salary for doing a job that requires no skill, no expertise and no education; those who think a fry cook ought to earn an entry-level income similar to a dental assistant; those who insist the guy putting the lettuce on my Big Mac ought to make more than the emergency medical technician who saves lives for a living; those who believe you should automatically be able to “live comfortably,” as if “comfort” is a human right.

A monetary value is not a “human right.” If all those fast food workers were paid $15 dollars an hour the measurement of that money would be inflated beyond market parameters. That means that instead of an Xbox game costing $59 it would soon cost roughly $89 dollars because a disproportionate number of the economic population have been paid roughly double their market value without productivity matching it. The value of a video game would be the same, but the measurement of that value would be inflated. The numerical values would be $89 instead of $59—that’s called inflation. So raising the minimum wage does not create wealth. The “world government” will never defeat “poverty” as they pretend to by throwing good money at bad—unproductive behavior. It will never, ever, work—not in a hundred million years. The “rich” can never be looted enough to make the “poor” have value because the bad, unproductive behavior that makes people poor is never dealt with.

Take the woman in the PBS piece, described above. She seems like a nice lady—she’s a line trainer at McDonald’s and wants a “living wage.” She has a criminal background, children without a father in the home, an old car that eats up her money as fast as she makes it and a number of other conditions that she caused for herself to toss her life into an existence of poor productive value. The work she does at McDonald’s is entry-level work and does not command a respectable salary of $15 dollars an hour—which is roughly $29,000 per year. In a dual income home if both husband and wife make $29,000 per year the household income is roughly $58,000 per year which is actually above the average in the United States which in 2013 was $51,939. That’s not bad—it’s a respectable amount of money. To make that kind of money and still keep my wife home with my children I often worked two full-time jobs at approximately that value to bring home the average household median income needed to live off of. Obviously a job at McDonald’s did not pay $15 dollars an hour; it only paid something like $6.50. I would have to work a decent full-time job with some overtime on the weekends to close the gap. I never, no matter how hard things were—expected value for tasks that the market didn’t support.

When I had economics in college I don’t remember it being overtly liberal. At least there the professors seemed to enjoy money as a measurement of GDP and understood these things. So it is baffling how so many people these days believe otherwise. In my levy fights with teachers in the affluent school district I live in where the average median income is around $90,000—well about the national average, I have seen many of the same arguments. Those government employees believe incorrectly that because they teach in such an affluent area that they have the same worth to instruct children essentially liberal points of view. They ignore the laws of economics with the same disregard that someone who wishes to fly might ignore the laws of physics and jump off a cliff expecting to float. Their average wage rate at the government school of Lakota is upwards of $63,000 per year per teacher which is outrageously high for services offered which is essentially a glorified babysitter while those high income earning parents build their careers at the expense often of their families.   The teachers in that case were like the fast food workers expecting a union wage that exceeds the market value of the task they offer. The reason I bring it up is because that same lack of economic understanding has been taught to our children so that by the time they enter the job pool they expect jobs at McDonald’s at $15 per hour which is just ridiculous. Such a wage rate breaks the laws of productive equity—the tasks of a burger maker at McDonald’s is not worth the market value of an average income earner in the United States. If McDonald’s were forced to pay such a rate the cost of their services would have to go up to meet the labor because the measurement of that productive effort has a fixed market presence that is rooted to the demand for the product produced—and the effort to produce it. Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs to re-learn everything in their life—because their foundation beliefs are totally incorrect.

I have heard for years what many wealthy people have heard often—why do I have things that others do not—why can I live in a nice area while others cannot? The answer is that it is unlikely that anybody reading this has the ability or the desire to out-work me. I’ve never met a single person who can outwork me. I’m sure somebody out there can challenge my efforts, but it’s highly unlikely they can constantly surpass my work ethic. And of the people I know who are affluent, that is the case in all of them. Very few people just fall off the wagon and make millions of dollars.

I shake my head constantly at the people who buy lottery tickets at a convenience store and actually scratch off the numbers on their steering wheels hoping to win $10 to $1000 dollars for nothing. The same agony is seen in any casino where desperate lazy people toss fate to the wind hoping to win a jackpot of money that thousands of fools have tossed a little bit into. What a stupid idea—lottery tickets and gambling. Everyone who wins such jackpots blows the money nearly as quickly as they made it because the money is not representative of any productive measurement—just wishful sentiment of being able to sit on their ass and buy things without doing anything productive to earn those things. That is not the American dream. That type of behavior is just as stupid as the fast food worker hoping to make an average income by doing nothing more than showing up for an entry-level job.

I blame our education system for these radial and stupid ideas that young people have today. Now we have several generations of people who don’t understand basic economic theories and they actually believe they are entitled to something because their mothers gave birth to them. Teachers believe the community owes them something because they baby sit their children, and the students of those teachers believe that everybody owes them something just because they are human beings—and they are all dreadfully wrong. Dreadfully! $15 dollars an hour is a lot of money—it’s higher than the national average. Just giving that monetary value to people won’t increase the purchasing power of those people. It won’t end poverty. And it won’t make the world a better place. The only way to make the world better is to get up off your ass and work. Work hard—do so every day, and never stop working—and you might earn the right to make $15 an hour. Anything less than that will cause inflation—and that is not beneficial to anybody, anywhere.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

‘Batman Versus Superman: The Dawn of Justice’ from the lens of Ayn Rand

Essentially the argument in question revolving around the new Batman Versus Superman: The Dawn of Justice movie is a philosophic argument between Plato/Aristotle and Nietzsche/Ayn Rand. Batman represents the old human concept of law and order whereas Superman represents the overman.   It is a compelling argument and one that I didn’t entirely expect to be conveyed so openly in a comic book movie—but here it is.

Of course it should be expected where my sentiments fall. And I’m sure Ayn Rand would be aghast that I compared her to Frederick Nietzsche. She would break things down by stating that she is more like Aristotle whereas Nietzsche is aligned more properly with the sentimental mysticism of Plato—but for this line of thought I’m breaking down philosophic development into the boundaries of western civilization itself. The minds of man have brought us into the modern age on the philosophy established in Greece. Ayn Rand and the concept of the overman is the future—it is the graduation of mankind from the boundaries of intellectual confinement driven by thousands of years of madness.

I have stated my love for both film franchises, of course the Batman films of Christopher Nolan and the Man of Steel film by the same producer. Both Christopher Nolan renditions of the comic legends have heavy doses of Ayn Rand in them—collectivism versus the individual. Yet Hollywood is directly opposed to Ayn Rand currently favoring heavily the Kantian philosophy of collectivism, altruism, and human depravity. The director of the Man of Steel films and the upcoming Dawn of Justice is Zach Snyder who obviously like Christopher Nolan, prefers Ayn Rand and even though Hollywood may not like it—the hot handed director is at the helm and is poised to deliver a powerful money-making franchise to Warner Bros that will compete directly with the wonderful Marvel Avengers films from Disney.

I’m actually going deeper into this line of thought with my Cliffhanger project, but for the masses right now at the start of the 21st century this Batman versus Superman battle needs to happen, and the trailer captured the essence of it very well. All through human history mankind has fallen in love with power and it has corrupted their minds. An overman on the other hand has no such love for power, because they understand the nature of it. Power is not given to other people through democratic measures. Just because one person can command hundreds, perhaps thousands from the lofty perches of a social title of some kind—there is no real power there—just an acknowledgment of collective will. Real power comes from an individual and will remain no matter what circumstances emerge.

In many ways in a modern since the director Ridley Scott surprisingly grasped this concept in his 2000 release of Gladiator, which won best picture that year along with a best actor award for Russel Crowe. Scott isn’t typically an Ayn Rand fan, but he did grasp the power of the individual in that film where Maximus—the protagonist had been the favored general of Marcus Aurelius due to his skill on the battlefield, but once the Emperor died, his son Commodus, deeply jealous of Maximus sought to put the general to death and kill his family. Maximus escaped, but not in time to save his family. The great man lost everything and is captured and toured around as a gladiator—one step always from death. Yet Maximus is so skilled at fighting that he quickly rose back to the top and eventually challenged again the Emperor of Rome as a masterful tactician. It is clearly one of the best films of its kind and is oozing with Ayn Rand strength centering on the individual over the collective. There is a truth in that particular film that Ridley Scott unintentionally released. I have put that truth to test many times and have discovered that it’s immensely accurate. You can take a great man and cast him onto a remote island in the middle of nowhere and he or she—will succeed in spite of the collective efforts to hold them down. Great people are not driven by collective salvation or sacrifice—they are creators of their own fates and can make success out of any situation—because success is an act of creation—not something granted by luck or the “gods.” A great person will always rise back to the top by default and there is a science to it that is predictable.

Zach Snyder seems compelled by this same resiliency and all the characters in his films embody some aspect of this. So it’s no accident that Christopher Nolan put Snyder in charge of the Superman franchise. There really is no better director today who knows how to handle the Man of Steel mythology. Superman is a superior being from another planet who simply wanted to help mankind become greater. He has absolute power, and came from a planet that collapsed under that power—not by his hand, but those of his people. Superman’s job is to ensure that the same thing doesn’t happen to earth. Batman on the other hand is a broken man who lost his parents at a young age and has spent his life righting wrongs essentially out of a vigilante need to rectify justice. But that justice is very terrestrial as it has been formulated around human perception. Batman is a second generation man of wealth meaning he inherited much of what his father made for him, but he is competent enough to sustain that wealth and apply it to fighting crime. Batman is always one step away from falling off the cliff whereas there is never any real danger that Superman would or could fall. Because no matter what happens Superman will always rise back to the top just like Maximus did from the Gladiator. So Snyder in the second film of his Man of Steel series is pitting these two heroes of entirely different philosophies against each other which is essentially the debate of our day.

The essential suspicion is that no man can resist the temptation toward corruption if given the opportunity. So Superman is a threat to the world even though all his efforts have been in trying to save it. But Superman is not a man of this world; he is essentially an alien functioning from an inner self-assurance that is a graduation of mankind’s limits. Yes, he has absolute power, but he also is immune to the desire to abuse it for the sake of social adornment. An overman knows where their power comes from so the appeasement of the masses does nothing for them. The only measure they have is themselves for success. Whereas the traditional western perspective is that if the masses support the power and authority of an individual that power is thus provided to control those people. This ultimately leads to a collapse of the individual ego upon itself because power is not generated from within, but from without.

It was the Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who termed the name “overman” or otherwise “superman” in his 1902 play Man and the Superman which would later inspire the comic. In the play established in Act 1 is the concept that the more things a man is ashamed of, the more respectable he is. This of course leads to a disastrous life making men miserable for most of their existence. As Shaw states in his play, “A lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it: it would be hell on earth.” This is the world of Batman—he’s never really happy and feels he is a Dark Night that stands in the shade between right and wrong. However Shaw was a socialist who did not believe in the abilities of mankind to overcome such faults so he regulated his sentiments toward collectivism being lead by the elite in charge—which of course took Nietzsche’s work and perverted it into the Nazi regime. A couple of high school kids from Cleveland, Ohio inspired by many science fiction writers from the early 20s—inspired by Shaw’s play—invented the comic Superman to fight for the rights of left-leaning causes during the Red Decade coming out in 1933. The big difference between Nietzsche’s overman and Siegel and Shuster’s “superman” was that one transcended the limitations of society, religion, and conventional morality while still being fundamentally human. The other was alien and gifted with incredible powers choosing honorable human moral codes, holding himself to a higher standard of adherence to them, purposely. Over time Superman has evolved ending up in the middle of those two viewpoints under Zach Snyder’s care. And that is a good and healthy thing.

So Batman versus Superman is more than another popcorn movie about superheroes. It’s a philosophy for our age that needs articulation. A lot of history has passed since Shaw wrote his play but what has come out in the end is a fully fleshed out philosophy that works. That philosophy is what the theme of this upcoming movie is between two of the most well-known and loved superheroes of our modern mythology. Under Zach Snyder’s care I think he’s going to produce something revolutionary and I’m very excited about it. But in that battle I know already who will win. The overman always comes out on top—because it’s in their nature to always do so.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

The Difference Between Good Guys and Bad Guys: Previews for Star Wars ‘Battlefront’ and ‘Force Awakens’

I have been saying it for quiet a while, its coming—quick. Its more important than the 2016 presidential election, it has more emotional power than a whole childhood of public school. For many it’s more meaningful than the relationship they have with their parents and siblings. It has more sustenance than any goals obtained in a commitment to a career. For many—a lot more than it used to be—the next six years will be some of the best and most emotional years of their life, and the direction of human society will be decided not by the religions of the world, or the billions and billions of dollars of money spent on education. It will be defined and implemented by the new Star Wars movies that are coming out between 2015 and 2020. Star Wars is already one of the most important cultural phenomenons that exist to human beings. But what will occur over the next five years will shake the foundations of our society to their bare essence. This week during the 2015 Star Wars Celebration in Anaheim, California the preview to the second trailer for The Force Awakens played to the world, and many grown adults reacted in a similar way as seen in this clever Mathew McConaughey clip shown below.

So why all the excitement?

I was very close to taking my family on vacation to Anaheim this year to attend the Star Wars Celebration. The reason we didn’t go is because we are trying to stay a bit on the fence—we are all fairly invested in the Expanded Universe and want to make sure that the new films are not utterly screwed up continuity wise. If we had known that Jaina Solo would be in the new films, we likely would have dropped $20,000 for a no holds vacation to California. But right now we don’t know much about the future of characters we love as a family, and Disney really didn’t get a huge presence into their theme parks yet—which was the other qualifier. It’s only been three years, but I had hoped that Disney would have had more Star Wars specific attractions by now, especially since they put the Celebration event right next to Disneyland. But they didn’t so given the unknowns, we held onto our money for the time being. However, that didn’t mean we couldn’t see what was going on. The event was live streamed for the entire weekend, which my daughter and I watched religiously trying to see each and every interview shown. We were like many millions around the world scrapping up every bit of Star Wars news coming out of the convention—which from a mythology perspective was quite extraordinary.

The reason for all the fuss is that Star Wars is all about values and the world has in many cases been deliberately starved of them to fulfill various political agendas. Star Wars is really the first global influence which clearly attempts to define good and evil in a way that every culture from every segment of society can relate to. Religion used to be that vehicle, but it no longer works properly for most, and Star Wars is filling that void.

Another massive revelation which came out of the convention the day after the movie preview for The Force Awakens was shown was the new Battlefront video game which features Star Wars scenarios in some of the most intense battlefield action seen to date—themed to the original films. I am currently playing Star Wars: Commander on my iPhone 6 just to fill the time between game platforms. My wife and I just finished playing Star Wars: The Old Republic which we played every day for nearly two years and now we are waiting for Battlefront which can be seen in the following clip. This is a new reality that fans around the world can enjoy playing in real-time against real people at all hours of the day no matter where they reside. When Battlefront comes out, I may retire again and spend most of my days playing that game. Here’s why—I never get enough of this type of activity!

One aspect to Star Wars: Commander that continues to amaze me is how many people chose to play on the side of the Empire. In Star Wars the Empire represents the bad guys and I have been mystified as to why people would or could play the bad guys. There is a segment of the population, and I see this extensively in the table top games from Fantasy Flight, like X-Wing and now Armada that roughly half the human population identifies with the bad guys so much they prefer to use them as representatives to themselves while the other half chooses to play on the side of the good. According to many who prefer the bad guys, the Empire is poorly understood and is on the side of institutional justice. There is a power in the bad guys that is attractive to these people and ironically it does affect their morality in real life—it will affect their decisions at the voting booth in favor of marijuana legalization, immigration strategies and generally the size and scope of government. There is quite a science to the natural appeal of those who love bad guys over those who don’t. In Commander there is never a shortage of bad guys to play against in live combat. No matter what time of day or what part of the week there is an Imperial base to attack because that many people love the bad guys of Star Wars so much that they are willing to invest the massive amount of time it takes to build up to a level 8 base—which is what I have.

A common theme throughout the years 2000 through 2010 among from young men who knew me was that many liked the villains of Star Wars much more than the heroes. I was trying to mentor them, most came from homes where the fathers were terrible. They only identified with the bad guys, whereas young men who had strong fathers that they could look up to tended to agree with me, that the good guys were the ones to cheer for in Star Wars. I would get pretty animated at these young boys who loved Boba Fett and Darth Vader over characters like Han and Luke and tell them that there was harm in liking the bad guys, which I still believe probably more so today than I did even then. Yet I could not convince them otherwise because their foundation thoughts were set in stone from early in their youth. I suspect this is the case for many who love Star Wars from the point of view of the bad guys. Somewhere along the line a mentor of some kind let them down, leaving them to turn toward institutional consensus to behold their values.

Of those young people who argued with me in favor of the bad guys over the good every single one of them has had a rough life a decade later. Often drugs were part of their lives, but also they suffer from relationship issues and generally low self-esteem. I still feel if they had listened to me, they would have been greatly improved as human beings but their desire to identify with the bad guys in Star Wars indicates a much more systemic issue than anything that can be quickly cured with some motivational speaking.   If the wires are crossed during their infancy, there isn’t much anybody can do to fix them later unless they recognize the error of their identification.

As a kid, and still now, I could never play the bad guys—I never felt comfortable flying a TIE fighter against an X-Wing fighter in the video game series X-Wing. I could have never put on a Boba Fett costume—and certainly not a stormtrooper. When the game Force Unleashed came out I did not play it at first because you had to play as an agent of Darth Vader—which I couldn’t do. I literally could not physically show aggression toward what I considered to be the good guys in Star Wars. It actually makes me sick to do so—to play a bad guy. I’ve been like that my whole life—down to my earliest moments. In kids both male and female the love of good guys or bad guys seems to come down to the relationship they have with mentors in their lives. If they are short on proper mentors, they tend to love the Empire. If they have several positive mentors in their lives, they love the good guys. One of my nephews really became angry with me when he tried to justify Darth Maul as a cooler character than Obi-Wan Kenobi. He had a really manipulative father—so no matter how much I tried to inspire him to something better, he always snapped right back into loving Darth Maul over Obi-Wan. After several years of trying I stopped—understanding that the static patterns had already been established and it would take a major crisis in his life to shake him into wanting new heroic archetypes.

But what’s great about Star Wars, even those who love the bad guys, is that the stories from that franchise are about essential values and are some of the most powerful works of philosophy and religion currently being explored anywhere. Star Wars is shaping the tone and values of the 21st century and is defining the next thousand years of humanity. It is becoming our new Bible wither or not people like it or not. In a society that is lacking values—purposely implemented—Star Wars and a few other comic related franchises are all they have. In most cases, parents have failed them, schools have failed them, mentors have failed them, entertainment, religion, economics—etc, have all failed them so they turn to Star Wars for the values uttered in those stories. That is why all the emotion over a simple preview in anticipation for one of the most epic experiences most people will ever have even in relation to the life and death of loved ones—the opening of the next Star Wars movie. It’s much more than a film franchise designed to make money as a capitalist endeavor. It is that—but it’s much, much more. Star Wars is about values, and people weep over just hearing the music because it makes them emotional to have those empty voids filled within their minds where values should be—values that have in some cases deliberately been withdrawn as a means to control the population through political efforts. Star Wars is about recreating those values and the result of that endeavor usually puts people on one side or the other. But whichever side it is, they are at least better off than valueless slugs awaiting the commands of a political class that rules by the void of valueless utterances. Star Wars provides those values, and the world is far better off because of it.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Jurassic World: A new step in science and philosophy

I’m not kidding, I am ecstatic about the opening of the new Jurassic Park franchise film Jurassic World. I may actually be more excited than that—but needless to say, I can’t wait. I love those movies deeply because they embody questions very relevant to our times regarding philosophy, science, morality, and economy that are not explored more effectively than in any other venue. It was Jurassic Park that really introduced over twenty years ago the concept of DNA replication to bring to life extinct species. A lot of science has been unraveled since then really demanding this latest edition—where scientists needing a ratings boost in park attendance make a hybrid dinosaur that gets loose and destroys the fully realized Jurassic World—the dreamy creation of the former John Hammond whose dream of a fully realized dinosaur park is finally made into a reality.

I loved the Michael Crichton books when they first came out, Jurassic Park and then The Lost World. When the movie hit in 1993 I made a big deal about it and took my little girls at the time to see it on opening night. They still remember that movie as their first theater experience. For this last Christmas my youngest daughter gave me a Jurassic Park t-shirt as a present because it is something that is specifically our thing. To this day she loves biology, botany, and paleontology because of her childhood spawned from the first Jurassic Park movie. A few years later when The Lost World came out I drug my wife’s side of the family, something like 25 people who had been gathering at a lake house on Nolan Lake to Elizabethtown, Kentucky to see the opening night in the only theater within fifty miles of the remote residence. The family often gathered at that lake for Memorial Day. In that group of people are a lot of science lovers, particularly my father-in-law who held multiple degrees in geology and was a school teacher—so they all wanted to see it. We packed up in several cars and made a pilgrimage into town to watch The Lost World. My kids were older at the time and had an absolute blast with their cousins.   I don’t think they ever forgot the experience.

When Dr. Grant returned to Jurassic Park III my kids were in high school and I let them take a day off to go see the movie on opening day. Dr. Grant was always my favorite character so I was excited and my kids were excited because I was. It was a marvelous experience. The movies declined in quality a bit from the first one, especially as Steven Spielberg moved away from direct involvement with the franchise as the director, but they are still good regardless. Each movie is like the approach to a theme park at the beginning of the day when the sun is out, the air is cool, and eagerness fills the mind. There is nothing quite like the morning approach to a Orlando park whether it be Universal Studios, Disney, Sea World, a day at the local zoo, a thrill park, there is magic in the air that is unique to the human experience emerging from such a creation. Each Jurassic Park film embodies that same type of optimism where act one is filled with that type of energy. Act two in the movies becomes something of a Hitchcock type mystery where problems of clashing philosophies set up act three. In that third act all the optimism from act one gets tossed out the window and the films become a haunted house experience where a new thrill is around every turn that is wrapped up nicely at the end with heroics and fanfare. They are fun in the least, but at their best they ask deep questions very relevant to modern science—and they drive advancements in technology.

In my family we all loved playing Jurassic Park Builder on XBox and later on our cell phones. My kids play those types of simulators often and that love started with seeing the movies and dreaming of what it would really be like to see a fully realized Jurassic Park. So it will be wonderful to see what a Jurassic World will look like in the movie, where the whole island originally conceived in the very first film has finally been built into a fully functioning amusement park. I overlook the obvious attacks on capitalism which always spawn in the second act as a simple plot device to ask “what if.” If not for capitalism there wouldn’t be anything relevant about Jurassic Park so without it, there wouldn’t be any dinosaurs or topic to contemplate. Rather the theme of the movies is what happens when undisciplined use of capitalism leads people astray, which is what happens in Jurassic World.

As cool as all the dinosaurs are, the cost of running such a large theme park is excessive so they need increased attendance just to cover their costs. So they invent a new dinosaur which is wrong in so many different ways. But what is to stop human kind from doing such a thing. Very soon genetic research which was in its infancy in the first Jurassic Park movie, will allow people to alter themselves into whatever they want to be. All you have to do is manipulate your DNA code and we can all be taller, faster, and prettier—whatever we wish. The same topic of conversation is emerging in the discussions of giving birth once again to extinct species of animals. What is to stop zoos from making a wholly mammoth when they can change it into something that has never before existed. What are the limits in playing God?   Religions will say that nobody should play God, but science dictates that we should—so where is the happy medium? Those types of questions are what the Jurassic Park movies explore and leave movie goers talking about those very topics on the way home after the movie. That is why these movies are important, because they put hard science into the spotlight of what we should and should not do as a species with very advanced tools in our possession.

Needless to say, I am excited and will continue to be the closer the movie gets to a release date. There are a lot of great movies lined up for the summer, but none of them are as exciting to me as Jurassic World. Will it be as good as the first one? Probably not. Likely it will be somewhere between the second and third film—it probably won’t make as much money at the box office as Universal hopes it will, but it will still be enjoyable, and relevant. I hope it does well enough to justify another movie in the franchise, because I could watch them forever. It is always fun no matter how many times we go, to pull up to Disney World for a fresh adventure. There is always optimism in the morning before attending an amusement park. And those are the same type of emotions experienced before seeing a Jurassic Park movie. It is one of the few films of its kind that really captures that optimism fully. That is the reason I simply can’t wait for the movie to open. When it does, I will be one of the first in line!

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.